I would say that I lean Trad lite, and I love it. Baking bread and canning over making some corporation more money? Sleeping in with my baby over waking up at 7 am to beat rush hour traffic? Absolutely. As someone who never saw kids in her future (but also was never particularly ambitious on the career front), it SHOCKS me that this slower, more intentional life suits me as well as it does. Granted, that may be because I'm 30. 20 year old me would've likely hated it.
Re: feelin Intellectually stifled - I don't feel this was in the slightest. I have the ability to listen to SO many more podcasts/read so many more books than when I was working. Usually, I was so mentally drained after work that all I wanted to do was drink wine and binge Schitt's Creek. I never would've voluntarily read the Elon biography as I'm doing now. I've even started a book club, because I can read while my kid sleeps. That was absolutely not the case when I was working.
Re: loneliness- I think you can be lonely if you never venture out and expect community to show up. But as I said, I started a book club (for moms as well as non-moms), am taking a Korean cooking class, and have started playing volleyball. I truly believe it's about your level of commitment to building the life you want. Yes, it's easier to have community that you just land in (eg a job), but you don't really get to pick your coworkers, so that may be an ease vs quality situation.
All in all, I love SAHM life. I love that my husband makes enough that this can be a reality. I love that my kid gets the attention she needs that she just wouldn't get at daycare.
Also, letsbehonest: it's in my nature to be contrarian. I love the pearl clutching that angry feminists do when I say that I'm happily a SAHM. Gotta fight that indoctrination. 😈
Another factor is that you need a partner who will support you staying home, and will continue to view you as an equal.
My dad always believed that being the provider meant he was in charge of the household and entitled to make the decisions. My mom was spending “his” money, and it put her in a subordinate role.
Growing up, I never wanted to be in a situation where I could be viewed that way. I never considered staying home even though my son is better than any job.
There is a balance to be had for sure. But the man should get some preference no? If everything is "equal" how many women would accept the reverse: her working and him being a SAHD? The stats show that's a recipe for divorce.
I know of opposite subordination where people will talk about how great it was to grow up in a SAH environment and how the mom did everything and the dad did "nothing"....uhhh, how about supporting the whole foundation of that great childhood you had!
Ideally, they should be equal partners with equal say. But I think it’s very easy for resentment to develop on both sides, especially because it’s rare for it to work out so that both roles are equally demanding at the same time. If the husband works long hours, and is miserable, and the wife has an easy day with the kids in school, he might get resentful. But it’s the same in reverse if parenting is hard.
Sure, but this is where early on selection plays a role. If I'm dating a strong career ambitious women type, I wouldn't even bring up the SAHM option. She'd probably be miserable. Lets just 50/50 all the bills and household care and everything...maybe get a babysitter (or not even bring up having kids at all - most guys are quite flexible on this, the baby fever is more of a women thing).
The SAHM option is a luxury, and it should be luxury that both sexes want. She would likely be the strong maternal type that genuinely wants kids and to be the focus of their lives. In this context, she is living her dream job, and its the man that is doing the "grunt" work. Given this scenario, he probably should get a slightly larger role in the direction of the ship...maintaining equal respect and discussion sure, but still the final say. Comparative advantage and all of that.
Honestly, this attitude is exactly the problem—the idea that the man is sacrificing for the wife’s dream, and therefore he is owed deference. There are plenty of situations where staying home is incredibly hard (multiple young kids) while the husband sips coffee in peace at his email job. Staying home is rewarding and benefits the kids, but that doesn’t mean it’s not real work.
(Whether the husband or wife has it easier depends on the number and age of kids, and the husband’s job, so it’s impossible to generalize.)
If I stayed home, I would want my spouse to view my contribution as equal in value, because I would be raising *our* children in addition to taking care of the shared household. It’s work that benefits both partners.
I have a young baby and I also have an email job. The days when I can focus purely on the email job — bc my mom is watching the baby — are WAAAAAAAAAAAAY easier than the weekends when I am with the baby for the whole day, and he’s a very lovable and “easy” baby.
But it’s interesting that even in this community where most people are pro-SAHM and sing the little song about it being “the most important job” you still clearly don’t believe that it IS that. You clearly still sorta consider the SAHM a freeloader who should be deferential to her money-making husband, who is doing the harder and more important job even if it’s just zoom calls and emails all day long. Uh huh… noted.
Sure, but I know many SAHMs who find it "easier" than even a husband job where he "sips coffee in peace at his email job". Like I said, it depends on the person. Which is why this should be discussed at the beginning.
I am curious though, what other divisions of labor do you find equal? A hypothetical: Lets say the couple divides everything by 2...child labor, house chores, etc....the wife WFH on Mondays and Wednesdays, the husband on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Friday - Sunday they get a babysitter and go out together(Because we BOTH need time away from the kids). Does this pass the equality test? I know many women who would much rather have the SAHM scenario above than this one.
Or allow me to push the limit even further. Lets say the husband made 150k/yr and the wife made 50k/yr, and the house cleaning services (because remember, were equal) cost $300/month. How should that be divided? I would argue, based on the blank slate no biological differences feminism, that it should be exactly divided by two. She pays $150/m and he pays $150/m, regardless of their income differences. Then I can do with the rest of my money what I want, outside of my family responsibilities of course.
When I have this discussion on dates, most women would prefer the SAHM option to these. But these are actually more "equal' - in the sense of actually valuing the mans outsized income contribution to the family.
I just don’t look at it like this at all. I believe marriage should be a true partnership, not a situation where you’re keeping score and always worrying about who contributes the most. In a functional marriage, decisions should be made jointly, regardless of who earns what.
You seem to be starting from the position that the partner who earns more money contributes more—but giving birth, raising children, and maintaining a household isn’t nothing!
Both roles benefit the family unit, and ideally both partners should be thankful and supportive of each other. That’s what I mean by equality, that both partners have an equal say in family decisions. Not that work should be exactly equal.
I’m not sure how you can even measure money vs. (for example) giving birth to a baby. Do your scenarios factor in that the burden of pregnancy falls completely on the woman? If I’m giving birth to someone’s children, I would find it very annoying to be told my value to our family = my salary.
Ideally both partners should work equally hard, or almost equally. And have near equal free time. Neither partner should be sitting around while the other slaves away. If the SAHM is a full time mother to young kids (not in school) so she has to “work” from dawn till dusk with no break, then after her husband gets home, he should be all hands on deck and tackling everything with his wife until everything is done and all the kids are in bed. If the kids are in school 8 hours a day and the SAHM finishes everything in 4 hours and then watches TV rest of the day, then by all means, sure, he should take the evening off while she finishes things up. And if they both work, whoever has shorter hours or easier job should take on proportionately more load at home. But it should never be, the working parent gets to clock out and relax, and the SAHP is never “off”.
Sure. I have no problem with deferring to the better qualified person. I defer to my husband on a lot of big decisions because he’s simply better at it than I am, such as which car is safer. But with respect, ability to make money and ability to manage money are two different skills. I actually I call the big financial shots because I am better at managing money. Even though he earns all the money, that doesn’t mean he is good at managing and honestly, he prefers not to deal with it. I am the one who knows our financial big picture. If he wants to buy a new gadget, I am the one who knows whether the household can afford it.
Also, I’m pretty good at money making myself. We are in the same field and have similar qualifications. We decided I should stay home because young children do best with their mothers, and for better or worse, I am THAT. and I am irreplaceable in that regard. And not because I’m a particularly maternal or sentimental person who gushes at babies, keeping a spotless house, or making gourmet meals. I’m kind of bad at some of those things. Certainly not because it makes any financial sense. With our double SWE income, we could outsource childcare, housework and even cooking, and still have lots leftover. I loved my job and was good at it. I miss it a lot. we gave up a lot in terms of lifestyle (no more hipster organic meal subscriptions and taking business class for fun. We actually have to cook, budget, and take economy class) and my own career satisfaction to stay home. And it’s not because I’m shit at making money.
and conversely, he’s the breadwinner not because he’s worse than me at childcare. He’s excellent and I defer to him often. Even though I’m the primary caregiver, I run all major parenting decisions by him. He’s just not the MOTHER and nature decided that, so he works while I mother.
Sure...perfectly compatible with what I wrote above. The comparative advantage here is almost symmetrical, thus near equal say, where each partner takes each others opinion into account and does slightly defer to the other in places where there is (even slight) comparative advantage. All good.
My point is when this is not the case. When there are clear asymmetries in comparative advantage. Say I am the primary bread winner. I have the education and experience to work as a professional (engineer, doctor, lawyer etc) and make a lot of money. I know much more about investment options than she does. She is an education major, or humanities major at best, or even non-college educated. She dreams of being a SAHM and frankly doesn't have the drive to finish school or work full time. She really wants to be not just a SAHM but even a SAHW too (id say >50% of women have this impulse). Telling a man that in this situation he has to give her 50% control of his money making decisions is a very hard pill to swallow. In this situation, where the comparative advantage is huge, that the decision making should also be asymmetrical - more his than hers, in my example above.
Or, say she knows how to cook really really good and I don't, so she does most of the cooking. In that situation she should have a slightly greater say in what we have for dinner. Again, the same principle. The driving variable here is not equality per se, but comparative advantage. Its for the good of the family unit as a whole.
Sure, yes. But there is a reason nature doesn't make many two headed animals...in the end there has to be a tie breaker sometimes. My point above was that it should be based on comparative advantage. The sex that cooks more should have slightly more say in what the family eats for dinner, for example. The same with the income.
Right or wrong, it is often the case that the one earning the money will feel naturally entitled to be the one in charge and will think of the money as “his” money. And I’m sorry but tons of self-described “trads” pretty openly feel this way. They might talk a good game about it being “our” money and that they and the wife have equal but different spheres and the importance of motherhood and all that, but the moment the SAHM steps out of line, she is a gold digging lazy do-nothing sponging off of his hard work.
I’m a SAHM and you’re so right. I see a lot of financial abuse in SAHP communities. One of my mom friends was a retirement home worker before she had kids. She makes a pittance compared to her actuary husband so she had to stay home. And he only gives her money for groceries and baby items. If she wants new clothes, she has to live off savings.
And he makes her do EVERYTHING. Doesn’t help at all. He also has all kinds of ideas about how to parent, which makes things difficult for her (his daughter is not allowed to eat restaurant food because “it’s too salty”. She’s not allowed to have sugar either. My friend has to pack a home cooked lunch if they go out). Once, she took her daughter to see grandparents in the country side, and he was working from home. She had to prepare his whole day’s meal before she could leave. A grown man can’t handle himself for a day. I truly despise this guy, and some days it seems like she does too.
I’m in a rarefied situation where I basically fear nothing, financially, even if my husband were to leave me high and dry (and he wouldn’t. He’s the best husband a SAHM can hope for). But I’m in a VERY unusual situation. If I had an inkling it was going to turn into a situation where I have to beg for allowance from my husband like I’m a 16 year old again and work like a slave, I would never have done it. I’ll keep my six figure earning potential, thank you very much. Hell, I might even not have kids.
SAHM of 3 and reformed liberal 3rd wave feminist. My first year (started with my 2nd child) of stay at home life was brutal. I was still heavily in the girl boss mindset and could find no examples of women like myself who were wanting to stay home. I remember looking for articles, books, anything to validate my decision. I read Being There by Erica Komisar and it helped me refocus my attention on what I was trying to prioritize in the first place : my children.
All my friends thought I was crazy and the “I could never do it” comments were plentiful. I asked my then-therapist if it could ever be a noble pursuit to stay home and she emphatically told me no.
I was so confused and constantly tortured over my desire to stay home. It took years of literal deprogramming to get to the point where I am now. I LOVE being at home with my babies, derive pleasure from it & take pride in the hard work of it. I live in a very liberal city and know almost no SAHMs but I’ve found my footing and I don’t ever want to go back to work outside the home.
My husband and I have very traditional roles and I take care of most of the child and home related responsibilities. We live on one income and we’ve had to get creative to do so (we live above our landlord in a 800 sq ft house, don’t vacation or drive new cars, etc.). In my option, you want it, I think most can make it happen - though you might take a hit to your pride (hard fit for anyone who has something to prove) and your lifestyle.
I so agree with this excellent discussion, Louise! I don’t really like the term “trad,” which I still don’t fully understand….and have never heard used outside of online forums. I personally prefer “homemaker,” since it implies a creative endeavor, in that one is making a home. But either way, I think that it can be very meaningful, rewarding work - although of course it’s also quite demanding. When kids are little, it’s very physically demanding, and then as they get older it gets intellectually demanding, as you try to meet their rapidly changing needs. Thank you for sharing this wonderful answer!
I find the issue of loneliness such an interesting one looking back as a 65 year old mother and the grandmother of two grandchildren.The ability to make friends during the “mother years” was the very easiest of my life.Being a mother made one have commonality with most of the worlds women.You could have liberal and conservative women breaking bread over child rearing and find a sympathetic ear of someone who went before you.Your child brought people to your door in the friends they played with and the parents of them.Traveling internationally with children made easy introductions in other countries because you weren’t only seen as “an American” but as a mother,your children played with their children without even having to speak the same language as children do.There has never been a greater mind expanding experience then joining the sisterhood of mothers and I am thankful for being able to devote myself to it.I pray we make it easier for all women to have that choice and freedom to spend time with their children especially while they are young.
if modernity is so good at delivering happiness why is the suicide rate higher than in traditional societies? It's hard to see that modern society is particularly good at delivering happiness when so many people are isolated and depressed.
Purely as a thought experiment, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the question of whether a man can have life satisfaction pursuing a maximally reproductive strategy. Because there is a very strange inversion of the story when we consider the biological urges of the male versus the female in the species.
As a traditional-leaning husband and father, it has been my challenge to try to tell young men that they can never be happy doing the thing that at the age of 16 or 17 your body tells you you should want to do the entire rest of your life. Namely, pursue easy mating opportunities at every chance. It is a very hard sell to a young man, without the undergirding reinforcement of a religious culture that holds out the promise of a loving intimate relationship and also shames men into either complying or, for the most predatory among us, pretending to comply. Gratefully, I grew up with and continue to share that religious perspective which has put me in a position to have the kind of life satisfaction in my mid-50s that men without good wives and positive relationships with their children do not have. This feels inverse to the discussion of traditional homemaking. Where, for some strange reason, we have decided to stop encouraging women to follow their biological urges which are protective of their happiness in the inverse way that men's biological urges are deleterious to their ultimate happiness. I know this is a contentious point for some, but to me this suggests one of the many ways that religion has embodied wisdom of centuries, in teaching us all that female biological urges are pretty good for the maintenance of individual women and society as a whole, where male biological urges need to be constrained and directed for the happiness of the men and the women and obviously the children. If you take actual God out of religion, but are willing to see this as embedded wisdom, you come to the conclusion that something powerful was going on all along
I find it intellectually stifling but also deeply meaningful and not optional. Motherhood is full of complexities like that. @Britwhit says it true, you have to let go of your pride. People so look down on me now, especially people with pretensions to intellectualism. I struggled and continue to struggle with this identity crisis, almost 3 years on. I’m a Things (as opposed to People) person. There is a whole dimension and part of my brain that never gets expressed in the SAHM life.
I won’t launch into a long essay about why I won’t send them to daycare, but suffice to say, since we can afford for me to stay home and cannot afford a highly qualified nanny (and that, we still consider a second best option vs me staying home), there is no choice to be made here.
And also, my intellectual work will wait for me. But my children are only young once. So as much as I find it intellectual stifling to do endless rounds of laundry, sweeping, mopping, cooking, clearing up, diapers, feeding, and even playing on the floor (sometimes. I do admit I don’t find it fun every single time), I think it would feel like cutting off a piece of my soul to hand them off to strangers to care for.
I’ve been worrying less about the downfall of society. We are smart enough as a species to respond to the pressures of the environment. If we are changing our minds about the wisdom of the sexual revolution, others are too.
I don’t think play acting any role, even the trad wife role, is an authentic or ultimately healthy thing and this rising generation loves to put on a costume and act a part, which I think is unnecessary.
I recently listened to a podcast about the detranser to trad wife trend. It’s still people copying rol models from social media. Obviously the trad wife role isn’t as dangerous, but im not convinced that just following a better social media trend to create an identity is the answer.
I agree. So much of this is an aesthetic and playacting. A look is a look. A role is a role. The 50s aesthetic is pretty cute, don’t let it define you. You are who you are. Don’t have to be in a box to be good and valid.
I would say that I lean Trad lite, and I love it. Baking bread and canning over making some corporation more money? Sleeping in with my baby over waking up at 7 am to beat rush hour traffic? Absolutely. As someone who never saw kids in her future (but also was never particularly ambitious on the career front), it SHOCKS me that this slower, more intentional life suits me as well as it does. Granted, that may be because I'm 30. 20 year old me would've likely hated it.
Re: feelin Intellectually stifled - I don't feel this was in the slightest. I have the ability to listen to SO many more podcasts/read so many more books than when I was working. Usually, I was so mentally drained after work that all I wanted to do was drink wine and binge Schitt's Creek. I never would've voluntarily read the Elon biography as I'm doing now. I've even started a book club, because I can read while my kid sleeps. That was absolutely not the case when I was working.
Re: loneliness- I think you can be lonely if you never venture out and expect community to show up. But as I said, I started a book club (for moms as well as non-moms), am taking a Korean cooking class, and have started playing volleyball. I truly believe it's about your level of commitment to building the life you want. Yes, it's easier to have community that you just land in (eg a job), but you don't really get to pick your coworkers, so that may be an ease vs quality situation.
All in all, I love SAHM life. I love that my husband makes enough that this can be a reality. I love that my kid gets the attention she needs that she just wouldn't get at daycare.
Also, letsbehonest: it's in my nature to be contrarian. I love the pearl clutching that angry feminists do when I say that I'm happily a SAHM. Gotta fight that indoctrination. 😈
Another factor is that you need a partner who will support you staying home, and will continue to view you as an equal.
My dad always believed that being the provider meant he was in charge of the household and entitled to make the decisions. My mom was spending “his” money, and it put her in a subordinate role.
Growing up, I never wanted to be in a situation where I could be viewed that way. I never considered staying home even though my son is better than any job.
There is a balance to be had for sure. But the man should get some preference no? If everything is "equal" how many women would accept the reverse: her working and him being a SAHD? The stats show that's a recipe for divorce.
I know of opposite subordination where people will talk about how great it was to grow up in a SAH environment and how the mom did everything and the dad did "nothing"....uhhh, how about supporting the whole foundation of that great childhood you had!
Ideally, they should be equal partners with equal say. But I think it’s very easy for resentment to develop on both sides, especially because it’s rare for it to work out so that both roles are equally demanding at the same time. If the husband works long hours, and is miserable, and the wife has an easy day with the kids in school, he might get resentful. But it’s the same in reverse if parenting is hard.
Sure, but this is where early on selection plays a role. If I'm dating a strong career ambitious women type, I wouldn't even bring up the SAHM option. She'd probably be miserable. Lets just 50/50 all the bills and household care and everything...maybe get a babysitter (or not even bring up having kids at all - most guys are quite flexible on this, the baby fever is more of a women thing).
The SAHM option is a luxury, and it should be luxury that both sexes want. She would likely be the strong maternal type that genuinely wants kids and to be the focus of their lives. In this context, she is living her dream job, and its the man that is doing the "grunt" work. Given this scenario, he probably should get a slightly larger role in the direction of the ship...maintaining equal respect and discussion sure, but still the final say. Comparative advantage and all of that.
Honestly, this attitude is exactly the problem—the idea that the man is sacrificing for the wife’s dream, and therefore he is owed deference. There are plenty of situations where staying home is incredibly hard (multiple young kids) while the husband sips coffee in peace at his email job. Staying home is rewarding and benefits the kids, but that doesn’t mean it’s not real work.
(Whether the husband or wife has it easier depends on the number and age of kids, and the husband’s job, so it’s impossible to generalize.)
If I stayed home, I would want my spouse to view my contribution as equal in value, because I would be raising *our* children in addition to taking care of the shared household. It’s work that benefits both partners.
I have a young baby and I also have an email job. The days when I can focus purely on the email job — bc my mom is watching the baby — are WAAAAAAAAAAAAY easier than the weekends when I am with the baby for the whole day, and he’s a very lovable and “easy” baby.
But it’s interesting that even in this community where most people are pro-SAHM and sing the little song about it being “the most important job” you still clearly don’t believe that it IS that. You clearly still sorta consider the SAHM a freeloader who should be deferential to her money-making husband, who is doing the harder and more important job even if it’s just zoom calls and emails all day long. Uh huh… noted.
Sure, but I know many SAHMs who find it "easier" than even a husband job where he "sips coffee in peace at his email job". Like I said, it depends on the person. Which is why this should be discussed at the beginning.
I am curious though, what other divisions of labor do you find equal? A hypothetical: Lets say the couple divides everything by 2...child labor, house chores, etc....the wife WFH on Mondays and Wednesdays, the husband on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Friday - Sunday they get a babysitter and go out together(Because we BOTH need time away from the kids). Does this pass the equality test? I know many women who would much rather have the SAHM scenario above than this one.
Or allow me to push the limit even further. Lets say the husband made 150k/yr and the wife made 50k/yr, and the house cleaning services (because remember, were equal) cost $300/month. How should that be divided? I would argue, based on the blank slate no biological differences feminism, that it should be exactly divided by two. She pays $150/m and he pays $150/m, regardless of their income differences. Then I can do with the rest of my money what I want, outside of my family responsibilities of course.
When I have this discussion on dates, most women would prefer the SAHM option to these. But these are actually more "equal' - in the sense of actually valuing the mans outsized income contribution to the family.
I just don’t look at it like this at all. I believe marriage should be a true partnership, not a situation where you’re keeping score and always worrying about who contributes the most. In a functional marriage, decisions should be made jointly, regardless of who earns what.
You seem to be starting from the position that the partner who earns more money contributes more—but giving birth, raising children, and maintaining a household isn’t nothing!
Both roles benefit the family unit, and ideally both partners should be thankful and supportive of each other. That’s what I mean by equality, that both partners have an equal say in family decisions. Not that work should be exactly equal.
I’m not sure how you can even measure money vs. (for example) giving birth to a baby. Do your scenarios factor in that the burden of pregnancy falls completely on the woman? If I’m giving birth to someone’s children, I would find it very annoying to be told my value to our family = my salary.
Ideally both partners should work equally hard, or almost equally. And have near equal free time. Neither partner should be sitting around while the other slaves away. If the SAHM is a full time mother to young kids (not in school) so she has to “work” from dawn till dusk with no break, then after her husband gets home, he should be all hands on deck and tackling everything with his wife until everything is done and all the kids are in bed. If the kids are in school 8 hours a day and the SAHM finishes everything in 4 hours and then watches TV rest of the day, then by all means, sure, he should take the evening off while she finishes things up. And if they both work, whoever has shorter hours or easier job should take on proportionately more load at home. But it should never be, the working parent gets to clock out and relax, and the SAHP is never “off”.
Sure. I have no problem with deferring to the better qualified person. I defer to my husband on a lot of big decisions because he’s simply better at it than I am, such as which car is safer. But with respect, ability to make money and ability to manage money are two different skills. I actually I call the big financial shots because I am better at managing money. Even though he earns all the money, that doesn’t mean he is good at managing and honestly, he prefers not to deal with it. I am the one who knows our financial big picture. If he wants to buy a new gadget, I am the one who knows whether the household can afford it.
Also, I’m pretty good at money making myself. We are in the same field and have similar qualifications. We decided I should stay home because young children do best with their mothers, and for better or worse, I am THAT. and I am irreplaceable in that regard. And not because I’m a particularly maternal or sentimental person who gushes at babies, keeping a spotless house, or making gourmet meals. I’m kind of bad at some of those things. Certainly not because it makes any financial sense. With our double SWE income, we could outsource childcare, housework and even cooking, and still have lots leftover. I loved my job and was good at it. I miss it a lot. we gave up a lot in terms of lifestyle (no more hipster organic meal subscriptions and taking business class for fun. We actually have to cook, budget, and take economy class) and my own career satisfaction to stay home. And it’s not because I’m shit at making money.
and conversely, he’s the breadwinner not because he’s worse than me at childcare. He’s excellent and I defer to him often. Even though I’m the primary caregiver, I run all major parenting decisions by him. He’s just not the MOTHER and nature decided that, so he works while I mother.
Sure...perfectly compatible with what I wrote above. The comparative advantage here is almost symmetrical, thus near equal say, where each partner takes each others opinion into account and does slightly defer to the other in places where there is (even slight) comparative advantage. All good.
My point is when this is not the case. When there are clear asymmetries in comparative advantage. Say I am the primary bread winner. I have the education and experience to work as a professional (engineer, doctor, lawyer etc) and make a lot of money. I know much more about investment options than she does. She is an education major, or humanities major at best, or even non-college educated. She dreams of being a SAHM and frankly doesn't have the drive to finish school or work full time. She really wants to be not just a SAHM but even a SAHW too (id say >50% of women have this impulse). Telling a man that in this situation he has to give her 50% control of his money making decisions is a very hard pill to swallow. In this situation, where the comparative advantage is huge, that the decision making should also be asymmetrical - more his than hers, in my example above.
Or, say she knows how to cook really really good and I don't, so she does most of the cooking. In that situation she should have a slightly greater say in what we have for dinner. Again, the same principle. The driving variable here is not equality per se, but comparative advantage. Its for the good of the family unit as a whole.
Sure, yes. But there is a reason nature doesn't make many two headed animals...in the end there has to be a tie breaker sometimes. My point above was that it should be based on comparative advantage. The sex that cooks more should have slightly more say in what the family eats for dinner, for example. The same with the income.
Right or wrong, it is often the case that the one earning the money will feel naturally entitled to be the one in charge and will think of the money as “his” money. And I’m sorry but tons of self-described “trads” pretty openly feel this way. They might talk a good game about it being “our” money and that they and the wife have equal but different spheres and the importance of motherhood and all that, but the moment the SAHM steps out of line, she is a gold digging lazy do-nothing sponging off of his hard work.
I’m a SAHM and you’re so right. I see a lot of financial abuse in SAHP communities. One of my mom friends was a retirement home worker before she had kids. She makes a pittance compared to her actuary husband so she had to stay home. And he only gives her money for groceries and baby items. If she wants new clothes, she has to live off savings.
And he makes her do EVERYTHING. Doesn’t help at all. He also has all kinds of ideas about how to parent, which makes things difficult for her (his daughter is not allowed to eat restaurant food because “it’s too salty”. She’s not allowed to have sugar either. My friend has to pack a home cooked lunch if they go out). Once, she took her daughter to see grandparents in the country side, and he was working from home. She had to prepare his whole day’s meal before she could leave. A grown man can’t handle himself for a day. I truly despise this guy, and some days it seems like she does too.
I’m in a rarefied situation where I basically fear nothing, financially, even if my husband were to leave me high and dry (and he wouldn’t. He’s the best husband a SAHM can hope for). But I’m in a VERY unusual situation. If I had an inkling it was going to turn into a situation where I have to beg for allowance from my husband like I’m a 16 year old again and work like a slave, I would never have done it. I’ll keep my six figure earning potential, thank you very much. Hell, I might even not have kids.
SAHM of 3 and reformed liberal 3rd wave feminist. My first year (started with my 2nd child) of stay at home life was brutal. I was still heavily in the girl boss mindset and could find no examples of women like myself who were wanting to stay home. I remember looking for articles, books, anything to validate my decision. I read Being There by Erica Komisar and it helped me refocus my attention on what I was trying to prioritize in the first place : my children.
All my friends thought I was crazy and the “I could never do it” comments were plentiful. I asked my then-therapist if it could ever be a noble pursuit to stay home and she emphatically told me no.
I was so confused and constantly tortured over my desire to stay home. It took years of literal deprogramming to get to the point where I am now. I LOVE being at home with my babies, derive pleasure from it & take pride in the hard work of it. I live in a very liberal city and know almost no SAHMs but I’ve found my footing and I don’t ever want to go back to work outside the home.
My husband and I have very traditional roles and I take care of most of the child and home related responsibilities. We live on one income and we’ve had to get creative to do so (we live above our landlord in a 800 sq ft house, don’t vacation or drive new cars, etc.). In my option, you want it, I think most can make it happen - though you might take a hit to your pride (hard fit for anyone who has something to prove) and your lifestyle.
I so agree with this excellent discussion, Louise! I don’t really like the term “trad,” which I still don’t fully understand….and have never heard used outside of online forums. I personally prefer “homemaker,” since it implies a creative endeavor, in that one is making a home. But either way, I think that it can be very meaningful, rewarding work - although of course it’s also quite demanding. When kids are little, it’s very physically demanding, and then as they get older it gets intellectually demanding, as you try to meet their rapidly changing needs. Thank you for sharing this wonderful answer!
I highly recommend my friend Nadya William’s article on the importance of cultivating the life of the mind, even (or particularly?) for mothers at home. It was written for Christian mothers, but I think the many of the arguments have broad application to all women: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/november-web-only/pink-scandal-of-evangelical-mind-women-intellectual-life.html?share=djq8rrCYFjmusaY5yLy5Q55mSzxrwkkA
I find the issue of loneliness such an interesting one looking back as a 65 year old mother and the grandmother of two grandchildren.The ability to make friends during the “mother years” was the very easiest of my life.Being a mother made one have commonality with most of the worlds women.You could have liberal and conservative women breaking bread over child rearing and find a sympathetic ear of someone who went before you.Your child brought people to your door in the friends they played with and the parents of them.Traveling internationally with children made easy introductions in other countries because you weren’t only seen as “an American” but as a mother,your children played with their children without even having to speak the same language as children do.There has never been a greater mind expanding experience then joining the sisterhood of mothers and I am thankful for being able to devote myself to it.I pray we make it easier for all women to have that choice and freedom to spend time with their children especially while they are young.
Powerful perspective from a matriarch. Thank you
if modernity is so good at delivering happiness why is the suicide rate higher than in traditional societies? It's hard to see that modern society is particularly good at delivering happiness when so many people are isolated and depressed.
Purely as a thought experiment, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the question of whether a man can have life satisfaction pursuing a maximally reproductive strategy. Because there is a very strange inversion of the story when we consider the biological urges of the male versus the female in the species.
As a traditional-leaning husband and father, it has been my challenge to try to tell young men that they can never be happy doing the thing that at the age of 16 or 17 your body tells you you should want to do the entire rest of your life. Namely, pursue easy mating opportunities at every chance. It is a very hard sell to a young man, without the undergirding reinforcement of a religious culture that holds out the promise of a loving intimate relationship and also shames men into either complying or, for the most predatory among us, pretending to comply. Gratefully, I grew up with and continue to share that religious perspective which has put me in a position to have the kind of life satisfaction in my mid-50s that men without good wives and positive relationships with their children do not have. This feels inverse to the discussion of traditional homemaking. Where, for some strange reason, we have decided to stop encouraging women to follow their biological urges which are protective of their happiness in the inverse way that men's biological urges are deleterious to their ultimate happiness. I know this is a contentious point for some, but to me this suggests one of the many ways that religion has embodied wisdom of centuries, in teaching us all that female biological urges are pretty good for the maintenance of individual women and society as a whole, where male biological urges need to be constrained and directed for the happiness of the men and the women and obviously the children. If you take actual God out of religion, but are willing to see this as embedded wisdom, you come to the conclusion that something powerful was going on all along
Very interesting points. Thank you!
I’ve loved reading these comments and have saved this to listen to later tonight❤️
I find it intellectually stifling but also deeply meaningful and not optional. Motherhood is full of complexities like that. @Britwhit says it true, you have to let go of your pride. People so look down on me now, especially people with pretensions to intellectualism. I struggled and continue to struggle with this identity crisis, almost 3 years on. I’m a Things (as opposed to People) person. There is a whole dimension and part of my brain that never gets expressed in the SAHM life.
I won’t launch into a long essay about why I won’t send them to daycare, but suffice to say, since we can afford for me to stay home and cannot afford a highly qualified nanny (and that, we still consider a second best option vs me staying home), there is no choice to be made here.
And also, my intellectual work will wait for me. But my children are only young once. So as much as I find it intellectual stifling to do endless rounds of laundry, sweeping, mopping, cooking, clearing up, diapers, feeding, and even playing on the floor (sometimes. I do admit I don’t find it fun every single time), I think it would feel like cutting off a piece of my soul to hand them off to strangers to care for.
Depends on how attractive their husband is, how much money they have, and how much of a support network they have.
I’ve been worrying less about the downfall of society. We are smart enough as a species to respond to the pressures of the environment. If we are changing our minds about the wisdom of the sexual revolution, others are too.
I don’t think play acting any role, even the trad wife role, is an authentic or ultimately healthy thing and this rising generation loves to put on a costume and act a part, which I think is unnecessary.
I recently listened to a podcast about the detranser to trad wife trend. It’s still people copying rol models from social media. Obviously the trad wife role isn’t as dangerous, but im not convinced that just following a better social media trend to create an identity is the answer.
I agree. So much of this is an aesthetic and playacting. A look is a look. A role is a role. The 50s aesthetic is pretty cute, don’t let it define you. You are who you are. Don’t have to be in a box to be good and valid.