To wish woman didn’t have to work

[Blueberryancakes]

I think I was born in the wrong decade.

Somedays/Most days I wish I lived in the days when once a woman got married she would give up work. Stay at home have children, cook and clean.

I know it’s such an anti feminist opinion but I guess that’s how I feel.

I enjoy cooking and cleaning. I hate going to work. I wish we lived in a time when 1 wage would pay the bills.

Anyone else think like me?
I know woman now have so many career options nowadays but house wife seems to be a very privileged one.

How does that conflict with anything toomanytonotice said?

That’s not a full state pension is it? Which was my point.

also it says married women are entitled to 60% of their husbands pension.

if they are divorced they are no longer married so presumably could not be entitled to a husbands pension, seeing as they don’t have one.

even if they are, £600 a month is not a life of luxury, is it?

so no, it didn’t help.

I’m in a hugely fortunate position that if I didn’t choose to work, I wouldn’t have to. I’ve just had baby no4 so currently on maternity leave but I’ll be returning to work next year. I absolutely love spending time with my children but I also love financial independence.
I'm a massive feminist, I know women who are also feminists and they choose to not go out to work. The point is they get to make that choice, that’s what feminism is about.

Be careful about the context in which you read these claims - this information relates to the old state pension (in particular, an issue around married women’s contributions, which were phased out in April 1977) and won’t apply if you were born after 6th April 1953.

Indeed, which is why I have worded my previous comments in the way I have. Lets be clear though, the lifestyle you have just described is not exclusive to SAHM, many couples live this way despite both working!

NO, that is how I talk about MY husband working, he is not all men.....

And

NO again, that is how I talked about ME working, I am not all women....

I think you're trying to find outrage in nothing.

Unfortunately yes but I was speaking about the people who would have a better lifestyle if both parents work yet due to one staying at home they struggle with basics

That would be their decision, but I don't know of any couples who struggle to buy basics because one is actively choosing not to work. I can't see how that would work out for anyone.

Generally, when one person becomes a SAHP it is because the other person can afford to accommodate this, so whilst they may go without luxuries, such as sacrificing that holiday abroad, they certainly aren't going without basics. Some people value more time with their children over materialism. I can't say that I have ever known small children to care about having things over having lots of time with their mummy or daddy, of course that changes with teens.

I think I’ve concluded that this person is a teenage boy who is never going to be as successful as his mum, who doesn’t have time to make him sandwiches.

Some people value more time with their children over materialism.

The problem is that it's only women who you think are materialist for working when they have kids; you keep letting this slip although you deny it. Your husband is just fabulous for working so hard. And please understand that nobody likes to be lectured about materialism by a £200k household...

Oh well it wouldn't have worked for me. I was a single parent so if I hadn't worked I'd have been on benefits,

And well my 1 year old mightve been OK with me scrimping and staying at home I'm not sure my 14 and 11 year old would've felt the same with o money for anything

Yes but that is an entirely different situation.

The problem is that it's only women who you think are materialist for working when they have kids; you keep letting this slip although you deny it.

Where have I let this slip. What the Hell are you talking about?

I haven't lectured anyone, merely pointed out that going without luxuries is preferable to many people if it means they can spend more time with their children. My household income is irrelevant to any of the points I have made.

You sound bitter.

Why is it different? I could've chosen not to work

Some people value more time with their children over materialism.

But not your husband - he could work less and still support the household.

A PP quoted the huge difference in how you described yourself and your husband, and now you're talking about materialism over childcare in a way that couldn't possibly apply to your husband because of how you describe his role. It's all been quoted for you; simply pretending nobody has substantiated it doesn't change the fact that they have. And yes, talking about childcare vs materialism absolutely is lecturing and there's no way you aren't capable of understanding that.

You sound bitter.

And you sound naive, defensive and far, far too angry for someone supposedly living this charmed life. 35 pages in and that's all you've got?

My husband chooses his hours and the teenagers are at school. Which part of that did you miss?

Because there is a difference between choosing not to work if you have a willing partner who is able to support this vs choosing not to work so tax payers can fund you. This thread is about housewives after all.

So is your position that no person with children should work unless they can only work while the children are at school? And anyone working more than that is valuing materialism over their children. This is going to require a huge reform in benefits or a lot of starving children.

So only for the privileged then? So my kids theoretically didn't deserve a mum with them ( as well as 2 of them having a dad that wasnt around). Whereas the kids from a nice middle class family with their detached house did?

Of course there is a huge difference between how I have described my attitude to work vs how I have described my DHs attitude to work because oddly enough we have very different attitudes to work. How we operate as individuals and as a couple has nothing to do with how others operate and zero to do with sexism.

talking about childcare vs materialism absolutely is lecturing and there's no way you aren't capable of understanding that.

It would appear that you don't understand the meaning of the word lecturing. An open discussion about how different couples have different dynamics and make different choices to suit their preferences is by no means telling others how to live. Please explain how you have jumped to the assumption that I am incapable of understanding? Because I'm now rich, I couldn't possibly have an opinion on the matter? I grew up on a council estate, I most likely know poverty to a greater extent than you.

I am far from naïve, far from angry and don't quite see the relevance of the number of pages in considering I have only just commented today.....

Good old bit of projection there.

Why you attempting to draw me into arguing against your incorrect interpretations of my comments is anyone's guess.

My position is clear. Some people prefer to go without luxuries if it means they can spend more time with their children, some people do not. Quite simple.

Not at all. We all have our own paths and it has nothing to do with whether kids deserve a SAHP, nobody deserves anything, especially not the right to sit at home at the expense of other working parents who don't know you from Adam. Most households require two incomes so class has got nothing to do with the price of fish.

Your position is easy to take when your household income is 200k.

one income of 30k is not just “going without luxuries to spend more time with the children”, it’s struggling to afford a new boiler and the interest rates going up. It’s also pressure as if that income goes for whatever reason there’s no cushion to live off while things are sorted.

when you say “some people”, you mean women? Because how does it work if both parents want to spend more time with their children?

Please explain how you have jumped to the assumption that I am incapable of understanding?

Because you have, several times now, demanded that people explain what you said that belied your prejudice, when they already had. Also because you are incapable of conceptualising legitimate criticism of things you have said as anything other than people being "bitter"... possibly the laziest response possible. And showing even less understanding when you don't know anything about the person other than that they spotted something problematic in what you said.

You are very complimentary of your husband's role in earning and while it might not be your preference, you don't seem to struggle to understand why he likes it; you can grasp that he's money driven and enjoys the bargaining etc. You describe it quite well, with absolutely no criticism. The conversation shifts to working mothers and suddenly you're speaking condescendingly about materialism and people valuing it over their children...but this is in direct opposition to how you view your husband. How you described him.

And irrelevant anecdotes about council houses and riches aside, it does not take a genius to see why someone on 200k isn't best placed to talk about materialism; anyone on that salary is definitely money driven, as you say your husband is.

But I think you understand everything. It's just easier to go "ur bitter!" than think about it. What next? "Your mum"?