• Norgur@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    65
    ·
    7 months ago

    So your old person trait is really that “wife stay at home with the kids” should be the norm?

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      7 months ago

      It should be an option.

      Dad works, and mum stays at home to focus on the home and kids. ✔️

      Mum works and dad stays at home to focus on the home and kids. ✔️

      Both work part time to both spend quality time with the kids. ✔️✔️✔️

      All should be completely viable for an average income couple.

      • stufkes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        This. As a working woman I can’t really upvote the “I wanna support wife and kids” stuff. Thanks, but I want to work.

        • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          7 months ago

          I understand it from the women’s point of view and I didn’t mean to be mysoganistic in any form, but it is in the DNA of men to want to be a good provider and I think, if you’re being honest, that many women look for that as an attractive trait in a male partner.

          • stufkes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I understand that you weren’t trying to be mysoginistic, but I am disagreeing with your premise that the provider role for men & women wanting it is some kind of natural state. These roles have been enforced, and can be unlearnt. It’s also not binary. It may well be that in a perfect world without any societal pressure, more men than women want to provide. But how many? Having a higher probability doesn’t imply that it’s deterministic for all people.

            The only biological aspect I agree with is that being pregnant changes women, because this is backed by studies.

            • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              I respect your opinion and thank you for tackling my point of view head on, rather than just picking the bones out of semantics the way that some others in this thread have.

      • Microw@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        I agree with you. But that’s not what OP wrote. Now, maybe he’s simply writing from his own perspective. But it does sound a bit weird imo.

    • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The fact that one working man could support his whole family just a few decades ago didn’t mean women shouldn’t, couldn’t or didn’t work, just that they didn’t have to.

      • stufkes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        Women worked fulltime, just unpaid. This is always forgotten. Household with multiple kids is not free time.

      • Norgur@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        So “women” didn’t have to work, but men had to, right? That’s the model you want back?

        You really haven’t noticed that you have this role model of the breadwinner as the man and the stay-at-home-mother deeply ingrained into your thinking, right?

        It’s in that response as well. That’s not an accusation, stuff like this is in everyone somewhere, it’s just good to challenge oneself on such matters.

        • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I’m not opposed to having a well-off working wife and being a stay at home dad, so all these accusations of mysogany when I’m just trying to talk about making work pay like it used to is rather tiresome.

          Yes, I wrote using a traditional family model as an example, sorry it triggered you so much.

    • daltotron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. I think having a stay at home parent is kind of yesteryear, and should probably be viewed as such for a multitude of reasons, but I think, full time salary and able to support what are basically three people’s needs + savings is not an unreasonable demand. The more this is commonplace, the more everyone can afford to support everyone else collectively, since only a quarter of the total population would really need to be working at any given time, and the rest could be paylessly employed to manage each other. Beyond just stay at home moms or dads, it could entail any number of people in any number of living situations, but the free time means that taking care of the elderly, disabled, children, or whatever else could just be split among the local social network, instead of just kinda being foisted onto underfunded social systems which should more realistically not be the first option.

      Probably this is the main driver of why the social fabric of america is coming undone, that I can think of, but it’s also not so easy to solve, because none of this is really something you can solve long-term in a capitalist economy, where there are always incentives to undercut your competition by underpaying your workers, or outsourcing. Or really in any system that prioritizes short term gains over long term ones.

    • ccunix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It should be an option for those outside the top 1%. Let’s be honest, plenty of jobs suck and a lot of people who look after a children professionally are not the brightest sparks in the fire (at least where I am). Why should someone be forced to do a crap job then give all that salary to someone less cultures than the to look after their kids. Why not just do it themselves?

      If one of you has a good, full-time job that should cover basic living expenses. It should also not be looked down. My wife is a stay at home mum, she is also a feminist and I certainly did not not force her to to work. The only thing we regret is the way people (especially other women but not only) look down on her.

    • urandom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m an equal opportunity house person. I wouldn’t mind staying home taking care of the kids while the wife worked, living in our owned home and having something extra at the end of the month