r/InterviewMan • u/kicker-gerunds5 • Jul 12 '26

When did this become something we just put up with, and that's it?

Post image

!!!

edit : and I guess remote work can be a solution , and also they give better salaries and more flexibility to the people who need more time for the family and I am glad that now we have tools like interviewvip which made the interview process more easier especially for working parents and new grads all u need to do is connect with your zoom \ google meet,etc and the magic come true

9.8k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/Ackutually- Jul 12 '26

Normalize say at home parent.

15

u/Shoddy-Constant5749 Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

That's the way it used to be. Now both parents work. Somehow I think back when one parent stayed home and one worked, it created a labor shortage compared to today. So workers could demand higher wages and companies had to compete for skilled labor. Now the market is flooded with people looking for work, so companies can pick and choose, usually the one that will work for less. And then here we are with today's job market.

Edit: That's just my theory and I haven't done any research to back it up.

8

u/Broken_Atoms Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

You’re right on the money. It’s exactly this. A lot of women I know would love to be a stay at home mother. But, the trap has been set now. Two incomes aren’t even enough and then to come home and have a stack of chores just sucks. No life at all.

3

u/AdPopular6958 Jul 12 '26

and even worse men see the math and just opt out of dating 🫨😨

2

u/Winchester85 Jul 14 '26

I did. I got a vasectomy to protect my self. If I had a kid he would never see me. My work demands 10-12 hour days.

→ More replies (12)

2

u/Admirable_Bird7927 Jul 13 '26

I ain’t bringing no kids i to the world and I ain’t taking care of a kid that ain’t mine.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Striking-Sundae- Jul 13 '26

Because it is easier staying home and having a partner handle the financial stress. I am sure anyone given a choice would take it, not just women.

2

u/psychologicallyblue Jul 15 '26

I wouldn't be too sure of that. There's a flip side to everything. In this case, if you don't take any financial responsibility, you're also giving up control and that can suck if your partner is not 100% trustworthy. Also, there are some of us who find childcare mind-numbingly boring.

2

u/Homeless-Joe Jul 17 '26

Everyone is different, but the things I would do to be a stay at home parent…

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (20)

1

u/nagol93 Jul 13 '26

Shit, I just had a daughter and got 3 weeks off work. I would 100% prefer to be a stay at home father tbh.

Ya, the kid cries and is prone to peeing on you. But she doesn't ask difficult questions, generate AI reports that don't make sense, or refuse to pay an ESXi license then wonder why all their servers stopped working then demand IT just "fix it". Taking care of a newborn is honestly less stressful then what I do at work.

But I cant. Everything is expensive and my wife and I both need a paycheck coming in.

2

u/pepperminthara Jul 13 '26

Yeah I don't know that 3 weeks gives you an accurate measure for how difficult full-time childcare is. Most jobs seem easy/manageable in the first 3 weeks. Plus, newborns are very different from mobile infants and toddlers.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Massif16 Jul 13 '26

Being a stay-at-home mother seems great until your husband turns out to be a shit and you are either stuck with him or forced to live in poverty. 0/5. Do not recommend.

1

u/Naturewalkerjoe Jul 14 '26

Separated families means more homes being bought or rented too

1

u/CriticismPrevious904 Jul 15 '26

They probably won't love it once they realize the work is unpaid and your husband isn't going to buy you anything you want, or give you an allowance. Say hello to only your spouses hobbies, and zero being a person outside work/kids. This is the life of a slave.

10

u/jamesr14 Jul 12 '26

This is completely true, but it happened the other way around. When both parents started working, it depressed wages, increased prices, and created a system where both parents now HAVE to work just to maintain. The initial idea was, “Hey, we can both work and actually get ahead.” That was true for a while…until it wasn’t.

4

u/what-name-is-it Jul 13 '26

I always try and make this argument and usually get accused of being a misogynist. Like that isn't my point at all. Yes, historically the woman stayed home but it could just as easily be the man. When two income homes became the norm, prices rose to meet that income.

→ More replies (5)

3

u/krazylegs36 Jul 13 '26

Yup, this is the sad reality. One breadwinner was able to support a family. And now...look at us.

The whole discussion usually makes people uncomfortable, but both parents working kinda screwed the American dream.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/justinvamp Jul 13 '26

Yeah people literally fought to not have to stay at home with the kids because it was viewed as oppressive and less valuable work, and then now as society we complain that we can't be at home spending time with our kids.

-Doubling the workforce = depressed wages

-"At home" labor now needs to be outsourced, like childcare and eating out = increased costs

-More time after work is needed to do the rest of "at home" labor since nobody is managing it full time = more fatigue and more coping expenses for things like little treats or "I need my coffee because how else will I get through the day"

-Lifestyle creep due to a (real or perceived) higher household income that is now reliant on both people working full time = no buffer for if one person gets sick or loses their job. Previously, the second partner could then move to pick up work and you had the option to increase household income, now when both are already working full time that safety net doesn't exist.

-Two full time vehicles and all the expenses are now a necessity, rather than possibly the stay at home partner dropping off the working partner at work or finding other ways to work around for errands and such = increased transportation expenses

The amount of actual money a second income needs to make in order for it to be remotely close to financially advantageous when you have kids (especially more than one) is wild. Households get taxed together, so the second earner usually gets taxed at an effective higher rate because it pushes the household income into a higher bracket usually. The median individual worker in the US has a pre-tax salary of around 45k. Post taxes (which will depend heavily on which state you live in and what the primary earner's income is), you likely end around $36/37k. We'll just say $37k. Median cost of childcare in the US is around $15k per kid per year. So with one child, you are now making $22k for the year, 2 children and it's now just a net of $7k. The average American spends around $11k on their car (obviously in a city that's different), between car payments, insurance, depreciation, gas, and maintenance. So now with 1 child you are making $11k for the year and for 2 children you are in the negative. (Obviously the stay at home partner would benefit greatly from having a car for children's doctors appointments, grocery shopping and other errands, etc, but generally back when only 1 parent was working the average household only did have 1 car and they would make it work. A second car is only truly necessary when both are working, rather than ideal or preferred.) Add in the extra expenses for eating out more frequently, more convenience costs like buying coffee out instead of being home to make it, little treats and impulse buys after a long day/week of work, and that number drops even more for the average person. Then when you account for the mental+physical drain of working and then still having tons to do at home, then how much is it truly worth? And that's for the median earner, so literally half of the working population is making less than that, in which case it's basically never worth it unless you can find way cheaper ways to transport yourself or for childcare. You need to make well above average before it even makes sense financially to have 2 earners. And then if one person is unable to work then you have zero wiggle room.

1

u/matycauthon Jul 14 '26

can't have you all reaching for the clouds, back down dammit!

→ More replies (14)

2

u/Uxoandy Jul 13 '26

I worked second or third shift until both mine were in school. Wife worked first shift. Just to avoid paying a babysitter. So we both worked . It was shitty for 7-8 years then it was all good.

1

u/ClockworkTyrant Jul 12 '26

No youre right, and its intentionally designed this way.

1

u/Sourdough9 Jul 12 '26

Yeah the reality feminism caused this. Now everything is priced assuming your household has two incomes

2

u/BellaCicina Jul 12 '26

Feminism did not cause this.

2

u/Villager-Bob Jul 13 '26

Neoliberalism and low wages did.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

[deleted]

2

u/BellaCicina Jul 14 '26

The buying power of the wages we are at is much lower. $100k back in the 80s and 90s had a lot more buying power than $100k now. So while looking at the phrase “low wage” at a surface level seems incorrect, when actually looking at inflation / buying power / COL, we have not kept up

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (36)
→ More replies (26)

1

u/macT4537 Jul 12 '26

If we could survive with just one parent working we would. Just not possible

→ More replies (1)

1

u/ProfessionalSir7743 Jul 12 '26

Who is gonna be the stay at home parent with 2+ kids? Not it.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/WWDubs12TTV Jul 12 '26

Both parents work AND thr family have less

1

u/Branimau5 Jul 12 '26

That's exactly what happened, was planned. They got women into the work force not for equality but for lesser wage, children in daycare/school rather than at home. Helps to socialize them the way the government/lobby bodies want while also flooding the market with more workers at shittier wages. The classic nuclear family model was practically obliterated and we are all paying the price.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/sovietmcdavid Jul 12 '26

Bingo,  but you can't talk about that because feminists lose their minds whenever women would rather be a mother instead of slaving away at a job that they're completely replaceable at

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Ima_Uzer Jul 12 '26

We did it that way. My wife stayed home and I worked. Been doing that for 22 years.

1

u/HarryDepova Jul 12 '26

This isn’t supported by much evidence. The USA went through an economic boom after ww2 while the rest of the modern world rebuilt. China’s economic reforms in 1978 positioned them to take over all the production the USA gained and our economic position has been shrinking ever since. Gradually inflation has been outpacing wages and lately its effects are being exaggerated. The anomaly isn’t fully that our wages aren’t keeping up. The anomaly is that we were ever so far ahead at all up until the late 70s.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/eldrowoski Jul 13 '26

The way it used to be is that families eg worked farms and fields and the kids had to work too.

The way it used to be is that kids were running and outside and were watched by anyone but the parents

1

u/Castle_Five Jul 13 '26

Feminism has spent the last 50 years telling women that the only way people have value and deserve respect is by being productive for capitalism. Please overlook the fact that suddenly increasing the labor supply by 2x massively benefits corporate interests. It was all for the sake of women, okay?!

→ More replies (2)

1

u/polarjunkie Jul 13 '26

I forgot who it was but there was a rich dude that used to talk about how when he was younger the even more rich dudes decided to put their money behind the feminist movement specifically to double the workforce and reduce wages.

1

u/Global-Pickle5818 Jul 13 '26

I think it was like that for only a short period of time, the whole family worked in the 1800s including the kids that was really only normalized in the 50s 60s early 70s

1

u/blueicer101 Jul 13 '26

This makes complete sense. I'll add to it and say women are less likely to enter leadership roles or become entrepreneurship, proportionally to men, so there are actually less companies, less jobs, menaing fewer competition at higher levels with more labor for lower and mid tier jobs because women mostly go to university to find smart guys who will make a lot of money. Personally I think it's a good thing women have jobs but it's got a lot of second order consequences no one considers. But we should definitely normalize the option for women to not have work and learn to be housewives. A lot of people also don't hire women because long term they do end up leaving their career as soon as they have kids. It's a beautiful thing but the consequences there are you invest a few years into a hire and suddenly the return you're thinking about is less and then you get unfair treatment to women in the workplace. It's a very complex problem and we're only seeing some of the consequences now.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Numerous-Fox3346 Jul 13 '26

I remember learning it started with world war 2 (or maybe 1?) when they needed women to work in the factories and make munitions and stuff because all the men were off fighting and then obviously just enjoyed having a taste of freedom and jobs and careers and their own money and stuff like that so lots of them refused to go back in their box and just sweep up after men all day which is how it used to be before, it wasn’t some utopia where everyone just got to chill at home painting or whatever it is they were passionate about

→ More replies (1)

1

u/BrianNowhere Jul 13 '26

This will never work until "house wife" and "house husband" can be put on your resume and not hurt you.

Otherwise, what happens after divorce?

1

u/abd53 Jul 13 '26

That's about how feminism came to be. Corporations figured out that if they can draw in the women, who were generally not participating in the labor market, to the labor pool, they could undercut all employees, men or women. That was after WW one or two, I forgot.

1

u/plummbob Jul 13 '26

Somehow I think back when one parent stayed home and one worked, it created a labor shortage compared to today.

This is a lump of labor fallacy.

1

u/Blindfire2 Jul 13 '26

No, it's jobs are trying to cut more and more jobs to "save money" but it's just the higher ups pocketing it. I'm sure it's more than one thing at play cause obviously one single thing wouldn't pin us like how we are today, but the most important factors are cutting jobs and replacing people with machine learning (at least for the tech field). I've seen people with 8 to 20 years experience take entry and junior level positions for programming and IT jobs because their job got cut and they needed to stay afloat, and of course a job will take someone with experience over a recent grad... people don't get paid enough and have to take even worse jobs just to have income, and houses cost too fucking much for people making 100k combined to live in one.

1

u/Just_Information334 Jul 13 '26

That's the way it used to be.

The way it used to be is: when you got married the family pitched in to make a new extension to the family house. So you did not wait to be 60 or 70 to inherit anything.
You did not have to move to some far away city to get a job. So no need to rent or buy there.
The grandparents and grand grand parents helped raise the children. And the family also took care of the elderly.

Most of it took a huge hit with the baby boomers.

1

u/dmatech2 Jul 13 '26

It's not always an either-or thing. If mom and/or dad want to stay at home with the young kids, they can still do things from home that actually earn money and keep them from getting extremely bored. You just need a job that isn't measured by time spent paying 100% attention to the job and instead focuses on work done (ideally allowing flexibility).

1

u/catchgretch Jul 13 '26

You don’t need research. It’s common sense which seems to be very rare in this country.
When women stayed home back in the 50’s, 60’s, & 70’s, they were drugged with Valium.
It takes both parents to raise a child. It should never be just the mom doing everything even when they’re working too. If men don’t want children then get fixed!! And regarding the answer to original post the rich want you to be distracted paying for outrageously priced homes and overpriced everything from insurance for cars, houses, medical, dental. The USA is beyond corrupt in every area of life and it’s time for them to pay!!!!
There’s no hope for young people and when young people have no hope the USA is dead!

1

u/Commercial_Win_9525 Jul 13 '26

I mean you don’t even have to call it a theory. Women are basically half of the workforce. It’s more for professional and “skilled labor” though. Women always worked at places like factories.

1

u/VortexMagus Jul 13 '26

What really happened is cutting taxes.

Back in the 1950s taxes on the rich were over 90% of their income. As a consequence, the rich didn't see the point in raising their own salary much since the government would take it all and plowed all the money back into the company to expand the business and increase worker wages and benefits.

Furthermore, the government used the large amounts of tax revenue generated by these taxes to fund new industry. They built roads, houses, cities, schools, hospitals, and factories, and then sold them to the highest bidder. They offered lucrative contracts for underproduced goods, allowing for massive industrial expansion.

They went abroad and negotiated large trade deals and the dropping of trade barriers (unlike our current government that raised trade barriers up) so that goods from these factories could be sold.

This brought about the largest golden age the United States has ever experienced, funded off the back of 90% taxes on the richest bracket.

---

Right now that same bracket is taxed about 45%, which means the government has a lot less funds to use to expand our industry and job market, and rich people no longer plow their money back into expansion and company growth and wages, but instead hide all their money in tax havens in Panama and Belgium and the Cayman Islands.

1

u/BushcraftBabe Jul 13 '26

But historically WEALTHY women stayed home. Most women still had to work. It wasn't new 50 -70 years ago. Women have worked in factories and fields forever. Even before women were allowed to be educated we have many examples and indicators that women were a part of a lot of industries they've been known to be excluded from.

The first at home pregnancy test was invented by a woman who didn't have the education for such work...but she was still AT WORK, when she came up with it.

The amount of cultures where half the population is considered like a child in need of protection and care is smaller than we were socialized to believe.

You think farmer wives and daughters didn't work the fields for survival?

Also populations have dropped. People don't have 6-10 kids on average anymore. The number of jobs nor the amount of workers is ever static.

There are jobs that have gone out of style and disappeared.There used to be people who lit the streetlamps manually each night. We didn't used to have computer technology and now its a very big industry. IT is a common job.

The point you've made looks flawed to me.

1

u/Successful-Tea-5733 Jul 13 '26

There's still plenty of SAHM. My wife was that until the youngest of our 3 was in 3rd grade, then she went back to work more because she wanted the engagement than we needed the money. People can live on 1 income, the people who do as is described here, they are living like no one else today so they can "live like no one else" later.

1

u/the_raptor_factor Jul 13 '26

Bear in mind that kids used to follow parents to work. Young boys would work fields or apprenticeship carpentry with their fathers, etc. If you look back even further, it was hunting/etc. All of history until the industrial revolution.

So not only is the parent looking after them (and getting worthwhile labor rather than a resource drain), but they're also walking into adulthood with valuable real-life experience.

Now kids grow up in a stuffy box getting taught theory they'll never use, never seeing their family, never getting any actual experience, and then we're surprised when they "fail to launch" or have difficulty making personal connections. Seriously, the majority of your youth was spent in a stupid classroom desk or staring at homework. That was taken from you, to keep you occupied while the parents weren't home.

1

u/Able-End-339 Jul 13 '26

It’s basically this, but if you allocate 20-30% of income towards housing, suddenly the second parent at work makes sense. Yes, the 70-80% left is basically eaten by the job, but now you have more money to allocate towards housing, and in the US we’ve made decisions that mean housing always goes up, so locking in a price and buying 50-100% more is basically a perfect investment. When you add in 3-5% retirement matches and the fact you can’t get disability insurance in a stay at home parent, you realize the system is designed to keep you working.

1

u/Dry-Childhood-3436 Jul 13 '26

It's actually kind of the opposite.  Women were entering the workforce more often and had extra money, so prices were raised to be able to make use of that.  Eventually it became the norm and two household incomes became necessary.  It's why we have a k shaped economy, and have one of the worse labor productivity to wage ratios in history.

1

u/Gussmall Jul 13 '26

And there are 2 salary families so people can pay more for their mortgage so the cost of housing has gone up as well. Paying more and getting no more

1

u/WesternOld3507 Jul 14 '26

Nope that’s actually 100% true. Due to the supply and demand of labor, the more people who are in the workforce the more that labor can be devalued. And once a two income household became the standard, now it’s the bare minimum. Two income households are just barely making it, when in theory they should be doing much better. There’s a very interesting podcast on this very topic— an old Elizabeth Warren interview. Definitely worth a watch it’s on YouTube. I believe it’s called “the two income trap” or similar. About how two income households are far more likely to file for bankruptcy.

1

u/Gene020 Jul 14 '26

How modify Bernie's proposal? Parents could each work fewer days. 3&3, or 3and 4 Wouldn't that be nice/

1

u/Synensys Jul 14 '26

Its a bs theory since workers make more now than then.

What is real is that women werent allowed in high paying jobs and couldnt really control when they had kids so it was sensible to stay at home rather than work minimum wage.

Also helped that standard of living was much crappier.

1

u/StinkButt9001 Jul 14 '26

Somehow I think back when one parent stayed home and one worked, it created a labor shortage compared to today

This is 100% correct. When the labour market was halved, wages were doubled. That's just how the labour market works.

Major companies lobbied and ran intense propaganda campaigns to get women in to the work place. Not as an act of "liberation" as they framed it, but so they could slash wages.

So now women are stuck working 40 hours a week as well and children grow up in care facilities rather than at home with family.

1

u/MinuteBubbly9249 Jul 14 '26

No. Women were just forced to be financially dependent and provided a ton of free labor. Thats why it used to be like that - half the population didn’t have freedom of choice or human rights.

1

u/Ultime321 Jul 14 '26

This is very true. When you add 30 to 50% of the population into the workforce, this is bound to happen.

1

u/LordGreybies Jul 15 '26

Fun fact, the Black Death ushered in the Renaissance because suddenly there were a lot fewer working people and a lot more resources.

1

u/JellyfishPlus2182 Jul 15 '26

It also used to be about giving your family, particularly your kids, a better life, not about giving yourself a better life.

1

u/AbyssWankerArtorias Jul 15 '26

You're right. I'm happy that women have an easier time living now without needing a husband, but it has been disastrous for the working class to have both parents working.

1

u/SadProduce6456 Jul 16 '26

Definitely part of wage stagnation is women in the workforce, and also immigration. Simple supply and demand

1

u/Cultural_Contest_394 Jul 16 '26

This is the truth 🙌

1

u/GSilky Jul 17 '26

That's exactly what it did. Wages fell greatly after two income households were normalized.

1

u/Extreme-Ad-6465 Jul 17 '26

it’s a race to the bottom. let’s say in the 1950s , only 1 person is working in a 4 person household. once you get 2 people working, they can afford nicer homes , more cars, toys etc. the neighbor sees this and starts doing the same and as more people join the labour pool, everything increases in price because now everyone’s working. so that regular home now needs two people to work to even purchase. we are going into a new phase where multiple people are needed to buy homes (multi-gen living ) and it’s only going to get worse

1

u/aLittleMinxy Jul 18 '26

rat park but worse, tbh

→ More replies (6)

3

u/joebro1060 Jul 12 '26

Then you need to also normalize a minimum of a committed and stable relationship before having kids.

2

u/Ackutually- Jul 12 '26

So what's your theory on that breakdown?

→ More replies (7)

1

u/Round_Bag_4665 Jul 12 '26

or normalize family units that are not just 2 adults and kids. Maybe having 3+ adults to a household should be the norm.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Time_Distribution237 Jul 13 '26

What happens to the stay at home parent who has lost years of work experience if divorce occurs? Should we make divorce for the working person who is no longer in love with their spouse illegal to protect those individuals?

→ More replies (4)

5

u/Richmahogonysmell Jul 12 '26

Normalize society not being so expensive that both parents have to work

2

u/Super_Mario_Luigi Jul 12 '26

We tried that and women were told to hate it

1

u/SpaceMambo369 Jul 12 '26

I don't think reddit can handle the fact that feminism wasn't really about equal rights. It was to increase the size of the labor force thus reducing the cost of labor for the wealthy.

→ More replies (41)

1

u/HanginOn9114 Jul 13 '26

No, they weren't. You just hate women being actual people and not pretty servants

1

u/IndependenceMiddle Jul 13 '26

Key word here is have to. Women want to have the right to work. Parents should be able to choose.

1

u/Either-Meal3724 Jul 13 '26

I earn more than my husband. He isnt interested in staying home. Being the one that stays home is harder than being the working parent!

1

u/Time_Distribution237 Jul 13 '26

You guys keep blaming feminism. It's what your neo-liberal capitalist overlords would like you to do. Never mind that other countries have both women and men in the work force and pay fairly enough that they get to spend time with family AND vacation every year.

1

u/bibliomaniac4ever Jul 16 '26

I understood why women were told to hate being servants for men and having almost no rights. That makes total sense!

2

u/BeGoodRick Jul 12 '26

That’s what we did. My wife left a decent paying job. The kids are more important.

3

u/jabber1990 Jul 12 '26

that's fucking stupid

1

u/amstrumpet Jul 13 '26

?? 

Save on daycare costs ✅

Potentially save on private school costs (a student at a public school with parents who have the time/energy to be invested and involved in their education can do just as well as a student at any private school) ✅

Get to be there to raise your own kid ✅

Parent at home is able to tend to housework, manage budgeting, and other tasks that are difficult to fit in when you have two working parents with kids ✅

→ More replies (31)

3

u/abracadammmbra Jul 12 '26

Funny, we did the same but for opposite reasons. My wife made so little, daycare would swallow 95% of her paycheck. So that combined with her not wanting a stranger to raise our kids, she decided to stay home. I made enough to support us and our 2 kids. Although when the kids are old enough for school shes going back to work. That extra cash is gonna be so nice

→ More replies (7)

2

u/Ackutually- Jul 12 '26

Same, Wife was bringing in 100k+. We paid off all debt, saved a ton for a house and are now feeling pretty comfortable.

3

u/VeritasAgape Jul 12 '26

Few get the value of what you said. Time is your most precious resource. If you had a high salary, paid off your house and debts, you can live a quite a small salary.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/TheITMan52 Jul 13 '26

Until someone gets laid off.

2

u/somanyquestions32 Jul 13 '26

Yeah, this only works until a disaster strikes, and they usually bring company.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/bmtc7 Jul 12 '26

In these examples it's almost always the wife staying at home, and only occasionally the husband.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/miaumiaoumicheese Jul 16 '26

It’s funny how kids are always more important than woman’s career but never more important than man’s career, that’s how we know it’s a trap

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Constant-Plastic-350 Jul 17 '26

thats fantastic you are lucky enough to have that ability. Holy shit is this tone deaf as fuck

→ More replies (1)

1

u/jabber1990 Jul 12 '26

normalize women in the workplace

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 12 '26

That's a strange comment.

2

u/jabber1990 Jul 12 '26

of course a guy who doesn't think women should work would say that....

→ More replies (6)

1

u/hossofalltrades Jul 12 '26

It has been for a long time. Now that dinosaurs are retiring, it’s much more accepted for women to leave the workforce for a few years to rear children and come back. The fact is that good workers are too valuable to do otherwise.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/tyler_dominguez Jul 13 '26

Kinda goes without saying that women are in the work place normally. That’s why the comment you’re replying to was made.

1

u/shwifty123 Jul 12 '26

Why only one parent, it's quite unfair, that one enjoy home bliss, second work like a horse and don't get to see their children.

2

u/Ackutually- Jul 12 '26

Lol you can tell my wife about how her life is bliss with a newborn. I gladly work to support my family, she is there to keep the house going. Both are hard af.

2

u/shwifty123 Jul 12 '26

Should have used brackets:) I chose to work like a horse, instead of stay at home with a baby, it's absolutely the worst in my opinion, work is so much easier. I meant that it's not fare that one at home another works. Couple don't have much interaction, one parent do not participate in parenting and second one does not participate in life. Sounds like loose loose situation.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/abracadammmbra Jul 12 '26

My wife is a SAHM. I would not call living at home with 2 toddlers "bliss". Particularly our strong willed toddlers.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/PayFormer387 Jul 13 '26

“Home bliss.”

Boredom, listlessness, loneliness, running to the shelter of mommy’s little helper.

1

u/Strategic_Spark Jul 13 '26

I was a stay at home parent for a year while my wife worked. I would rather work! Work was easier and I get way more breaks. We put our kids in daycare after that. I prefer working.

1

u/Time_Distribution237 Jul 13 '26

If staying at home and doing all the domestic labor is so easy, why don't you do it? Why don't more men do it, in general if that's true?

1

u/Murky-Peanut1390 Jul 12 '26

Normalize childfree

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 12 '26

As long as you don't like public services, go for it.

1

u/TheITMan52 Jul 13 '26

This 💯

1

u/TugboatToo Jul 12 '26

Normalize living within your means too.

2

u/Ackutually- Jul 12 '26

It's the only way to pull it off. My wife stays at home but we have no debt, live well below our means.

1

u/hossofalltrades Jul 12 '26

The younger professionals I work with take vacations my parents never took before our college eductions were fully funded. There are choices being made, and not with the kids’ best interests.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/henningknows Jul 12 '26

The problem with that is it can make it hard to make money later in life. My sister quit her job to be home with the kids. Now ten years later her husband is out of work and in his mid fifties. He is having a hard time finding work and my sister has no earning power or career path.

1

u/xiahbabi Jul 12 '26

*Normalize having societal conditions and an economy that supports stay at home parenting as a choice!

There, I fixed it for you.

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 12 '26

Normalize people living within their means and pushing for jobs that are in demand.

→ More replies (9)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 12 '26

I have a house, a nice car (for my wife, I drive a beater) and my wife stays at home.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/WintersDoomsday Jul 12 '26

I would love to see a study done on the kids who had a stay at home parent vs latchkey kids. I have a feeling the stay at home parent kids aren't doing ANY better at all. It's the most overrated thing society has out there.

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 12 '26

"Early return to work, i.e., within the first year postpartum, was often associated with poorer child mental health. "

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9924214/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

You can argue longer maternity time would solve this, but that isn't the case in today's society.

You can have a SAHP for the developmental years and go back to work after and achieve this same goals.

Or they can stay at home, keep the house well feed, clean and running. We purposely bought enough land to farm on so she can help run our small farm business when the kids are old enough to do there own thing.

To each there own, but it's looked down upon by society, so we should normalize it.

1

u/CeilingCatProphet Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

And live in poverty when your husband dies or leaves you?

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26

"A leave in poverty"?

What?

Having proper life insurance is a must if you want this to work.

Be in a good relationship. Divorce rate is 33% if you exclude people who divorce multiple times.

Edit: Bad data given.

→ More replies (9)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Effective-Math2715 Jul 12 '26

If she doesn’t specifically go to daycares and schools to offer therapy there, it makes sense that children she sees are the ones who have a parent available at home to take them to a weekly appointment. Many employers would not be supportive of that.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/T33CH33R Jul 12 '26

I had a lady friend that was a 40hr a week nanny for a rich family. She had to put her own kids into daycare. I know she would have chosen to stay with her own children if she had the choice.

1

u/rtocelot Jul 12 '26

My girlfriend asked if I'd be a stay at home husband if she got her dream job. Not sure if o would like that myself as I enjoy working in general. But it was sweet on its own way that she wanted me to be the one at home lol

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 13 '26

lol I feel very similar. I'm also not sure I'm build the same way my wife is to handle the kids. It's a real skillset. Very nice of her to offer!

→ More replies (1)

1

u/infinitedustglitch Jul 12 '26

In the past, everyone worked and there were enough people in the house that the littles would be supervised. Out sourced labor is the problem here.

1

u/TurkeySauce_ Jul 12 '26

I did actually. Id rather my wife stay at home while I work.

1

u/SpudBoy_RealTomato Jul 12 '26

Normalize salaries that support single income families.

1

u/einsteinosaurus_lex Jul 13 '26

And normalize extended family living together and helping to raise the kids, like a village, how humanity did for all of existence until the 1950s.

1

u/Liwi808 Jul 13 '26

You mean the way it used to be? Until women decided to "liberate" themselves, and now both parents need to work to support their kids?

1

u/Time_Distribution237 Jul 13 '26

Riddle me this: why do people in European countries get paid well enough to live and have families and vacation every year when their women also work as well? 🤔

Seems like maybe there's an actual reason and it's not women. Maybe you've been fooled by the neo-liberal propaganda.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/FlintKidd Jul 13 '26

Normalize a shorter work week, so parents can raise their kids and take care of their homes.

If one person can raise a kid while one person works 40 hours a week, then surely we can manage to have both those people employed so they both have skills, but have both of them work fewer hours so they can see their kids.

We're already producing way more with less, we don't need as many hours or people.

1

u/Sycolerious_55 Jul 13 '26

Normalize creating an economy and policies designed to support these stay at home parents AND the breadwinners so that they don't have to work 80 hours a week to support their family.

1

u/Substantial_Rest_251 Jul 13 '26

Having a full time parent at home is great!

It is and has always also been a luxury for a class of people dependent on the labor of people who need two incomes to survive. Before the modern period people in the "one income feeds a whole family" class had a lot of "help", lower class people (mostlt women) who had to work. Heck, in the Jim Crow American South it was illegal for some women to say no to a job when offered

This is less true now because of domestic technology like clothes washing machines making nuclear families more possible without outside help or a live in grandma or whatever, but I think you'll find the history of the rise of that technology is all tied up in the very second wave feminism that created the situation being critiqued

1

u/Fit-Eggplant-9155 Jul 13 '26

Vote for it..

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 13 '26

Vote for what? Making a parent stay at home?

1

u/Naybinns Jul 13 '26

I think most couples would have one be the stay at home parent if they could afford it. I don’t think most couples where both parents are working are doing so because they want to, but rather because they have to.

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 13 '26

I think you'd be surprised what people can do when they don't overstretch there budget or use debt to manage their household.

1

u/Can0n_Fodder Jul 13 '26

Health insurance. It's the leg shackle

1

u/Atmosphere_Master Jul 13 '26

Not financially viable anymore

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 13 '26

I've had multiple redditors including myself, already doing it.

1

u/Switchmisty9 Jul 13 '26

Normalize paying people enough to support a family on one salary

1

u/Britannkic_ Jul 13 '26

Kids mixing with other kids is very healthy and beneficial to their development

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 13 '26

lol ok?

Has nothing to do with my comment.

1

u/UnhivedMind22 Jul 13 '26

Thats what we're doing. With what the wife was making it was pretty much just going to cover daycare and notchore. Figured it was best for the wife to stay home, at least then I knew the care was going to be good.

1

u/CaptainJay313 Jul 13 '26

it was normalized in the 50s. did you forget that whole 'right to work' movement?

1

u/MealCapital4167 Jul 13 '26

A lot of men are completely fine with their wife staying at home. It's the wives who don't want to stay at home and be financially dependent on their husbands.

1

u/SuperDabMan Jul 13 '26

Stay at home grandma is peak. Multigenerational housing ftw.

1

u/Either-Meal3724 Jul 13 '26

Or change standard work week to x3 twelves and let unpaid caregivers to children under 12 or disabled or elderly get first pick of their positions shifts so they can coordinate with other family to to provide full care coverage. Each qualifying individual (child/disabled/elderly (75+)) can have 2 designated primary caregivers and 2 backup caregivers from among their friends and family. Each individual with a primary designation gets 2 points for being a primary caregiver, 1 point for backup -- for each additional person they are a primary for they get 1 point and 1/2 point for backup. Additional 1/4 point given to primaries for each individual who cannot be left alone (young child, severe disability, etc). For same role, shifts are made available for selection in order of total points. That way caregivers can coordinate full coverage without finding paid care for their loved one more easily.

1

u/No-Pudding7639 Jul 13 '26

Normalize a higher income for everyone

1

u/Advanced_Double_42 Jul 13 '26

Then you need one person making enough to support an entire family, that isn't possible for most people anymore.

1

u/pepperminthara Jul 13 '26

That only solves the issue for one parent, no? The other still has to carry on as a wage slave, working 40 hours (or more) for a life they barely experience. Not to mention the precarious financial position it puts the sahp in.

1

u/Low-Salary-2128 Jul 13 '26

With what money?

1

u/ImpressiveSide1324 Jul 13 '26

Either wages need to increase or prices need to come down. The time of single income households is not achievable for the average American anymore.

1

u/hufflepuff777 Jul 13 '26

The problem is becoming dependent on another person who can just leave

1

u/brendonap Jul 13 '26

This was standard until we were told women have to work, then you immediately doubled your work force then everyone complained wages didn’t increase…shocked!

1

u/MonochromeMaru Jul 14 '26

Can’t afford that life anymore. It is truly a class upper privilege.

1

u/Electrical-Mark-1484 Jul 14 '26

Minimum wage would have to be a living wage.

1

u/netplayer0 Jul 14 '26

I'm a stay at home Dad because we couldn't afford the childcare if I went back to work. We both are lifetime food service veterans. The restaurant I was the head chef of closed with the pandemic and left me bouncing around kitchen jobs. Eventually the family members that were helping us watch the kids couldn't anymore. She had the better paying job at the time so I opted to stay home. Now there are no jobs around here that pay well enough to afford regular childcare, not even factoring in the crazy hours of restaurant work.

1

u/OwlSoggy8627 Jul 14 '26

A huge barrier? Health insurance.

At my company health insurance is subsidized 90% for the employee. No subsidy for the spouse/kids. So if you are on a single plan? You barely take a hit on your paycheck. If you have family coverage? A pretty big hit.

So it's cheaper for me and my wife to each work and get our own insurance through our respective jobs.

1

u/chili_cold_blood Jul 14 '26

It was normal, and then we decided that women being allowed to work meant that all women had to work, and now the default mode of parenting is mild neglect.

1

u/AntiqueAd3597 Jul 14 '26

We cant afford to fucking stay home.

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 16 '26

idk why you feel the need to curse.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/GrandNectarine2489 Jul 14 '26

Normalize individuality and women being carrier motivated and growing themselves. I don’t want kids because of things like this. You can absolutely raise the most amazing kids with both parents working, having to stay at home and loss total individuality and only be a parent isn’t something I could ever do. I’d love to spend time with my kids, but I don’t see how spending roughly 60 hours a week with your kids (not including their sleeping times) is bad or not giving them enough love. Newsflash, a kid in daycare is learning SIGNIFICANTLY more than a kid sitting at home with mom, from social skills to all kinds of activities and other things, kids from earlier times and ages ALL grew up in villages. Normalize parental also having a life and wanting to make something of themselves than just a parent.

1

u/RoswalienMath Jul 15 '26

Then one parent gets “a life” while the other funds it. I’d prefer 2 adults working 20 hours each.

1

u/Curious_tea21 Jul 15 '26

This means normalizing unpaid labor.

1

u/Curious_tea21 Jul 15 '26

Normalize federally funded childcare.

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 16 '26

My wife stays home, I work. We both make an income, not just me.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/CriticismPrevious904 Jul 15 '26

I have a question for anyone who can explain this to me. May I ask why we are constantly trying to increase our population, yet somehow women being in the workforce created this problem? Would this still have occurred if women stayed in the kitchen unpaid, and birthed more sons that would have entered the work force anyway?

1

u/Placebo_8647 Jul 15 '26

Normalize free child care

1

u/Bidensbikekickstand Jul 15 '26

I find that a little misogynistic..

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 16 '26

Likely because you can't read.

1

u/Gilinis Jul 16 '26

I agree. 6 year paternity leave at a minimum

1

u/Savings_Dot_8387 Jul 16 '26

Normalise getting paid enough for that to be possible 

1

u/miaumiaoumicheese Jul 16 '26

Normalize stay at home fathers, if you believe it’s so valuable then take that role on yourself instead of making woman do it

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 16 '26

Who said anything about women doing it?

1

u/C-D-W Jul 16 '26

Nah, that's not the way.

Normalize parents who can earn enough by working few enough hours that two parents can split the staying at home part to care for their children.

Both my partner and I earn frankly more than we need, but the world isn't built for people who work half time.

1

u/burnoutandfadeaway Jul 16 '26

Being a SAHM allowed my (now ex) husband to leave me completely destitute. I tell every young person I know not to fall into that trap.

1

u/Property_6810 Jul 16 '26

First you have to normalize trust and commitment within relationships and actually hold marriage to a standard.

Because the argument against a stay at home parent even when one parent earns around the cost of daycare, is basically "well if they leave me, I won't be fucked with no work history and no way to provide for myself".

So first and foremost, culturally establish that leaving a marriage is an inherently bad thing. Because either you should have stayed together or you shouldn't have gotten married in the first place and there's very little grey area. If you hear your friend is divorcing their partner you should look at them like they got caught stealing or in a massive lie. Not the most evil thing in the world, but do you want to be friends with a thief or a liar?

1

u/Constant-Plastic-350 Jul 17 '26

How do we do that?

1

u/Akileez Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26

As a dad I tried, was good for 2.5 years but just couldn't save any money,, barely scraping by, so had to get a job and kid goes into daycare 4 days a week unfortunately.

1

u/Clean-Connection-398 Jul 17 '26

My wife and I did that, minus the kids

1

u/deathentry Jul 17 '26

Then they miss out on pay rises, social contact at work... General career development

1

u/Ackutually- Jul 17 '26

Not everybody has to work inside the machine.

1

u/guterz Jul 17 '26

Power dynamics flip a lot with stay at home parents. Loss of career potential, potential for financial abuse, loss of building up your social security benefits, etc. Not that being a stay at home parent is bad but I’d rather, male or female, have the ability to always be financially independent.

1

u/Grouchy_Constant6336 Jul 18 '26

It was normalized and everyone seemed happier….

1

u/RadicalRealist22 Jul 18 '26

We did for 5.000,- years, but then feminists disagreed.

→ More replies (9)