Page 25 | A 23 year old wants to be a stay at home wife?

Ludlow2 · 2023-05-16T06:08:45+00:00

Friend's son had a girlfriend and both are 23. She was keen to marry. Friend's son not so and his parents agreed. Told him sort your career out,save up, find somewhere you will live. He agreed. They split. Both his parents work. My friend, his mother has always worked full-time and has a side business too. She is a great role model an although she is the breadwinner the father also works considerably hard. Their children have and will benefit from this. They have also instilled good work ethic in their children too. The friend's son and his ex girlfriend remained friends. She is keen to be with again and said she is happy.to wait and will continue with her studies maybe get a masters etc. She has then said that after marriage she does not want to work. She thinks work is a want and not a need? Obviously son Friend's son has run for the hills. He did tell her it is impossible to survive on one income bla bla. But she just responded with we can move to a cheaper area and I'm not materlistic? Im.just surprised at this attitude. The girl's father left the family (Mother and siblings) whilst they were young. Mother found another partner who comes and goes. Maybe it this why she is craving to be looked after by a man. However, it sounds all so sad.

LoobyDop · 16/05/2023 16:38

Walkaround · 16/05/2023 16:13

Her desire is certainly not orthodox any more (and I wouldn’t want it in today’s world), but, tbh, she may be looking at the rising rates of anxiety and depression, particularly amongst women, and the growing proportion of children growing up below the poverty line regardless of their parents’ employment status, and have concluded that access to full time, paid work has not been the great liberation that was promised and that it may just be another stick to beat people with. It is certainly not the most efficient model to have men and women sharing all responsibilities equally (which is why employers have never liked it), and in a capitalist society where roles of equal importance are not valued as such, it was never going to work. We have created a society that increasingly denigrates the domestic sphere and caring responsibilities to the degree that some are even willing to claim that anyone not earning money outside the home is being “looked after” by others like a dependent child, as though it is money that does all the work, not people.

The fact is, telling people to set up their lives so that they don’t need to rely in any way on others, because others will probably let them down, is a deeply isolating, bleak message that has created a very self-centred and unhappy society. She may have the wrong answer to this problem by not wanting to do any paud work outside the home, but imvho, she is not wrong to question the validity of the status quo and to seek an alternative with someone she thinks might actually be more trustworthy than average.

There’s a lot of truth in that. There’s also the unfortunate fact that if you are a surrendered wife managing your husband’s domestic life so he can do his “big job”, you are helping to perpetuate the situation where the demands of work on your time and mental health are unacceptably high. Because if the high-flying men who don’t have to juggle any conflicting commitments can do it, and lots of other people are forced to step back because they have more than one priority in life, why would they change that? Why would they have any interest in changing the situation that works for them and weeds out the competition?

You can look at it that way, or you can look at the SAHW as a permanently disenfranchised, infantilised anachronism, or both. With one eye shut and a bit of squinting, you can see her as a fortunate object of envy who is living the carefree dream. What you can’t do, however hard you try and stretch definitions, is see her choosy choice as an act of independence and a positive for women’s rights.

InceyWinceySpidy · 16/05/2023 16:43

SouthLondonMum22 · 16/05/2023 14:47

I’d say the lottery is different because it could mean both people could potentially be in the position to quit their jobs if they wanted to.

It isn’t one who has the financial burden while the other one doesn’t work.

Show quote history

But that's only placing value on monetary work.

He wouldn't call his work a financial burden. I wouldn't call the value of the things I do for my household a burden.

Incidentally, I dated (years ago) a billionaire. And my lifestyle at that time truly wasn't that different. Just more expensive versions of what I do now. Sitting in a vast garden. As opposed to our normal sized one. Still did our own washing, cooking and all that humdrum jazz.

SouthLondonMum22 · 16/05/2023 16:45

Walkaround · 16/05/2023 16:13

Her desire is certainly not orthodox any more (and I wouldn’t want it in today’s world), but, tbh, she may be looking at the rising rates of anxiety and depression, particularly amongst women, and the growing proportion of children growing up below the poverty line regardless of their parents’ employment status, and have concluded that access to full time, paid work has not been the great liberation that was promised and that it may just be another stick to beat people with. It is certainly not the most efficient model to have men and women sharing all responsibilities equally (which is why employers have never liked it), and in a capitalist society where roles of equal importance are not valued as such, it was never going to work. We have created a society that increasingly denigrates the domestic sphere and caring responsibilities to the degree that some are even willing to claim that anyone not earning money outside the home is being “looked after” by others like a dependent child, as though it is money that does all the work, not people.

The fact is, telling people to set up their lives so that they don’t need to rely in any way on others, because others will probably let them down, is a deeply isolating, bleak message that has created a very self-centred and unhappy society. She may have the wrong answer to this problem by not wanting to do any paud work outside the home, but imvho, she is not wrong to question the validity of the status quo and to seek an alternative with someone she thinks might actually be more trustworthy than average.

Some employers don’t like it because 1. they are usually men and 2. they usually have SAHM’s at home themselves and believe it’s only the woman’s job to request flexible working or parental leave.

SouthLondonMum22 · 16/05/2023 16:51

InceyWinceySpidy · 16/05/2023 16:43

But that's only placing value on monetary work.

He wouldn't call his work a financial burden. I wouldn't call the value of the things I do for my household a burden.

Incidentally, I dated (years ago) a billionaire. And my lifestyle at that time truly wasn't that different. Just more expensive versions of what I do now. Sitting in a vast garden. As opposed to our normal sized one. Still did our own washing, cooking and all that humdrum jazz.

Show quote history

Not his work but being the only person financially contributing to the household.

A lottery win is different because one person wouldn’t be the one financially supporting the family and the person at home would have their own money.

PhyllisFogg · 16/05/2023 16:55

To clarify then - when you're a child, it is expected that a parent/relation/court-appointed guardian ad litem will take care of you. When you are an adult, you are expected to take care of yourself.

By 'take care' your presumably mean 'finance your living costs'?

As a BTW I have asked the OP how this woman's parent feels about her not working, but she hasn't replied.

Fiddlededeefiddlededoh · 16/05/2023 16:58

The fact is, telling people to set up their lives so that they don’t need to rely in any way on others, because others will probably let them down, is a deeply isolating, bleak message that has created a very self-centred and unhappy society. She may have the wrong answer to this problem by not wanting to do any paud work outside the home, but imvho, she is not wrong to question the validity of the status quo and to seek an alternative with someone she thinks might actually be more trustworthy than average.

I really don’t think the other extreme was any better as short lived and all was the time in history where a MC mother stayed at home tending to all of the family duties while her DH worked outside the home.

Personally I am all for a much more relaxed less work focussed, much less materialistic life where family particularly caring for young children and our vulnerable are highly valued and paid for as part of the social contract but I have seen far too many examples of abuse of power in unreliable men for women to completely dismiss that as a possible outcome in their life.

Men beat women within an inch of their lives, men rape women at an uncountable rate, men control women, men kill women, obviously not all men are like that thankfully I have not personally experienced that with a partner but a sibling was one of those men and enough men are seriously abusive that women have to be able to protect themselves and their children if that is the hand they unwittingly learn later in life that they are playing.

Even if it is as low at 5% of men who are doing those things, which couldn’t be the case with the instances of sexual abuse and rape and violence against women rates being so so high, then if you knew 50 women 2-3 of them are dealing with it have dealt with these kinds of issues and the situations they arise in are incredibly difficult to get yourself out of.

YoucancallmeKAREN · 16/05/2023 17:01

I am not shocked by the "work is a want not a need" attitude. I know a few 18-25 year olds with the same outlook.

AllegraWalterJones · 16/05/2023 17:06

Walkaround · 16/05/2023 16:13

Her desire is certainly not orthodox any more (and I wouldn’t want it in today’s world), but, tbh, she may be looking at the rising rates of anxiety and depression, particularly amongst women, and the growing proportion of children growing up below the poverty line regardless of their parents’ employment status, and have concluded that access to full time, paid work has not been the great liberation that was promised and that it may just be another stick to beat people with. It is certainly not the most efficient model to have men and women sharing all responsibilities equally (which is why employers have never liked it), and in a capitalist society where roles of equal importance are not valued as such, it was never going to work. We have created a society that increasingly denigrates the domestic sphere and caring responsibilities to the degree that some are even willing to claim that anyone not earning money outside the home is being “looked after” by others like a dependent child, as though it is money that does all the work, not people.

The fact is, telling people to set up their lives so that they don’t need to rely in any way on others, because others will probably let them down, is a deeply isolating, bleak message that has created a very self-centred and unhappy society. She may have the wrong answer to this problem by not wanting to do any paud work outside the home, but imvho, she is not wrong to question the validity of the status quo and to seek an alternative with someone she thinks might actually be more trustworthy than average.

There have been more women working throughout history, than opposite. The decades in which a postman was able to afford a family home with a SAHM and 4 kids was just that - a blip. Driven by a post-war economic boom and smaller population (so less competition for scarce resources).

Poor women have always worked, domestic servants etc all women. Taking in ironing, washing, sewing.

But the difference is in those days... equality was not something to aspire too. It was well expected that there would be an underclass to do all the shit work.

Also... I am sure that anxiety, depression etc was all a thing in those days too, just that nobody bothered to measure it! And even if they did - who cares? Just the worker bees who are destined to live short, precarious lives anyway.

Not saying that it's great these days but the emphasis should be on shifting the burden away from women. Better paid childcare, social acceptance for MEN to do their share. Which, despite what people say has also been done for years... working opposite shifts, for example.

Not just roll over and accept that one person has to be 'the domestic'. SEN or anything else caveated.

InceyWinceySpidy · 16/05/2023 17:32

SouthLondonMum22 · 16/05/2023 16:51

Not his work but being the only person financially contributing to the household.

A lottery win is different because one person wouldn’t be the one financially supporting the family and the person at home would have their own money.

Show quote history

There is the aspect that the money is earned independently. The non financial work I do, is independent. We just see it all as ours though.

It's not DH's money I spend. It's ours. It's not really important which one of us brought that to the table. It's not my house I run. It's ours. It's really not important that I'm the one doing things around the house.

We just see it all as a combined effort, that gets the end result we both like.

SouthLondonMum22 · 16/05/2023 17:45

InceyWinceySpidy · 16/05/2023 17:32

There is the aspect that the money is earned independently. The non financial work I do, is independent. We just see it all as ours though.

It's not DH's money I spend. It's ours. It's not really important which one of us brought that to the table. It's not my house I run. It's ours. It's really not important that I'm the one doing things around the house.

We just see it all as a combined effort, that gets the end result we both like.

Show quote history

I think that's where the main difference comes in. The money I earn is mine, in my account with only my name on it.

Of course I pay my share of the mortgage, nursery fees and other joint expenses but whatever left is mine to spend, my husband has no say unless it is something involving him.

It is also important to us that we both do things around the house because it isn't woman's work and we don't want our son growing up seeing only the man provide financially and the woman do things around the house.

GluedOnWobblyHead · 16/05/2023 17:47

Comedycook · 16/05/2023 16:20

When you are going to work at 7 am and working 12 or 13 hours days in a high-pressure environment, sometimes the home unit functions better when one partner is taking care of the home/life admin

Unless you live in a huge castle or have acres of land, a couple without children really don't have huge amounts of housework/life admin.

Exactly! That comment made me cringe, then laugh. How incapable are these adults?

Original poster

Ludlow2 · 16/05/2023 17:47

YoucancallmeKAREN · 16/05/2023 17:01

I am not shocked by the "work is a want not a need" attitude. I know a few 18-25 year olds with the same outlook.

When is footing the bill?

OP posts:

Original poster

Ludlow2 · 16/05/2023 17:47

*who

OP posts:

musixa · 16/05/2023 17:50

Being blunt and realistic, the success of this woman's goal depends on what she can put on the table to attract the type of man she wants:

Is she conventionally beautiful or at least very attractive?
Can she cook, clean and maintain a house to a high standard?
Is she personable - able to blend in with his world, get on with his friends and family?
Is she low maintenance, happy to give him space?
Is she prepared to commit to not 'letting herself go' in a physical sense?
Will she be happy to fall in with his wishes about whether they have children, when they have them etc. and his wishes about any other major decisions in their lives.

That's the sort of 'deal' the vast majority of men offering to keep someone purely as a wife will be looking for. Very different from an existing couple taking the decision that one should be a SAHP when children come along.

Walkaround · 16/05/2023 17:50

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe · 16/05/2023 16:35

I don't think that's what I said? Trustworthy people don't switch on and off like a tap and most people understand that parents are expected to be trustworthy. I even caveated it to one for pedantry.

To clarify then - when you're a child, it is expected that a parent/relation/court-appointed guardian ad litem will take care of you. When you are an adult, you are expected to take care of yourself.

Show quote history

Well, exactly - trustworthy people do not switch on and off.

Not earning money does not actually equate to a childlike inability to look after oneself, nor even an inability or failure to contribute to wider society. Only in a society governed solely by money does a person instantly lose all value if they give up paid work, despite not losing their faculties when doing so. A SAHP is making themselves vulnerable, but they are not actually behaving like a child that needs looking after. What you earn is not who you are and it is not the only thing you contribute to the wider world. And, let’s face it, you are not liberating yourself from abuses of power by relying on an employer.

ToK1 · 16/05/2023 17:53

How depressing some young women still see this as an ideal

5128gap · 16/05/2023 17:56

musixa · 16/05/2023 17:50

Being blunt and realistic, the success of this woman's goal depends on what she can put on the table to attract the type of man she wants:

Is she conventionally beautiful or at least very attractive?
Can she cook, clean and maintain a house to a high standard?
Is she personable - able to blend in with his world, get on with his friends and family?
Is she low maintenance, happy to give him space?
Is she prepared to commit to not 'letting herself go' in a physical sense?
Will she be happy to fall in with his wishes about whether they have children, when they have them etc. and his wishes about any other major decisions in their lives.

That's the sort of 'deal' the vast majority of men offering to keep someone purely as a wife will be looking for. Very different from an existing couple taking the decision that one should be a SAHP when children come along.

They're also likely to be two or more decades older than the young woman.

GluedOnWobblyHead · 16/05/2023 17:59

It's not DH's money I spend. It's ours. It's not really important which one of us brought that to the table. It's not my house I run. It's ours. It's really not important that I'm the one doing things around the house.

Until one day he gets bored of you, then it may very quickly become "his money".

Starhead69 · 16/05/2023 18:00

Well it wouldn’t be what I would want for my daughters.

ToK1 · 16/05/2023 18:01

It wouldn't be what I'd want for my sons either

Comedycook · 16/05/2023 18:01

musixa · 16/05/2023 17:50

Being blunt and realistic, the success of this woman's goal depends on what she can put on the table to attract the type of man she wants:

Is she conventionally beautiful or at least very attractive?
Can she cook, clean and maintain a house to a high standard?
Is she personable - able to blend in with his world, get on with his friends and family?
Is she low maintenance, happy to give him space?
Is she prepared to commit to not 'letting herself go' in a physical sense?
Will she be happy to fall in with his wishes about whether they have children, when they have them etc. and his wishes about any other major decisions in their lives.

That's the sort of 'deal' the vast majority of men offering to keep someone purely as a wife will be looking for. Very different from an existing couple taking the decision that one should be a SAHP when children come along.

Yes this is true. Like I said previously, there's no shortage of attractive, employed young women who want to meet a man. So if you wish to bag a rich man who is happy to indulge you, you need to bring more to the table than he could otherwise get.

Sadly women have been fed the lie throughout the ages that a rich, handsome prince will sweep them off their feet. They're few and far between

Tiddlypomtiddlypom · 16/05/2023 18:06

Incidentally, I dated (years ago) a billionaire

Were you working in a hardware store at the time? 😆

Spottymushroom · 16/05/2023 18:09

There is quite a movement at the moment for a ‘trad wife’. Is she religious?

There is also a trend on tik tok for stay at home wife/girlfriend. I’m not sure if it’s satire but they seem to be with millionaires and spend their days filling up their ice freezers!

Walkaround · 16/05/2023 18:51

AllegraWalterJones · 16/05/2023 17:06

There have been more women working throughout history, than opposite. The decades in which a postman was able to afford a family home with a SAHM and 4 kids was just that - a blip. Driven by a post-war economic boom and smaller population (so less competition for scarce resources).

Poor women have always worked, domestic servants etc all women. Taking in ironing, washing, sewing.

But the difference is in those days... equality was not something to aspire too. It was well expected that there would be an underclass to do all the shit work.

Also... I am sure that anxiety, depression etc was all a thing in those days too, just that nobody bothered to measure it! And even if they did - who cares? Just the worker bees who are destined to live short, precarious lives anyway.

Not saying that it's great these days but the emphasis should be on shifting the burden away from women. Better paid childcare, social acceptance for MEN to do their share. Which, despite what people say has also been done for years... working opposite shifts, for example.

Not just roll over and accept that one person has to be 'the domestic'. SEN or anything else caveated.

Show quote history

Depends what you view as “work,” and whether you are looking pre- or post- industrial revolution when it comes to the type of work and how far from the homestead it was carried out. It’s a modern phenomenon to think you are not working at all if you are not working for money, or not working outside the home.

Nily4567 · 16/05/2023 18:56

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.