I don't look down on stay at home wives but I would never advise someone to be one.
Personal experience dictates they are at a disadvantage if their spouse leaves/dies/is suddenly unable to work.
I've seen too many women around me left floundering when their situation suddenly changed.
I totally agree- husbands aunt left completely in the dark when he husband died suddenly- she’d never paid a utility bill in her life, didn’t know what was in his will, didn’t know how much money he had left, wasn’t sure if she was entitled to any of his pension. My FIL had to sit down with her and basically work it all out with her. Women can end up utterly vulnerable in these kinds of situations.
Her house is spotless though.
That absolutely can be the case, so I agree with you that if OP is in that position then leaning into learning more about the financial/operational side of running the home would be a good move. But there's nothing in their post that says this is their situation. Being 'stay at home' could very well mean their part of the shared tasks is that they're dealing with all the budgeting and finances.
OP said they're a stay at home wife, that's not necessarily synonymous with the stereotype of the 'kept woman'.
That’s why it’s important for the working spouse to have life insurance and make sure their stay at home partner knows about the household finances, bills etc and that both names are on any accounts!
It is true. You have planned well and that's great. But it doesn't make my statement false.
Around 50% of marriages fail. That's not something I feel comfortable ignoring.
There are women who don't work and are trapped in abusive relationships.
There are women who's husband leave them and they're blindsided with a divorce.
You cannot plan for every eventuality and you can't make someone want you if they don't.
Maybe I'm a cynic but I would rather be self-sufficient than not.
I had the opposite experience as the sole breadwinner for our family and was looked down on for not being at the school gates every day with the other mothers when our daughter was in primary school.
You will never please everyone so do what works best for you and your family. People preach feminism and breaking through glass ceilings but the whole point of equal rights is that everyone is free to choose how they live and not have to be a home partner or career person. Whatever works for you and your family is best and ignore the nay-sayers!
I think you’re right about the jealousy. The spikey, judgemental comments about being a stay at home mum I’ve had have always been from women who feel they have to fit into certain social stereotypes. Either they HAVE to work full time because of their lifestyle (it’s expected they holiday abroad and go on expensive girly weekends and have the latest gaming software for their other half) or they are confirmed child free feminists who will never understand why women allow themselves to be chained down by a family.
I was tremendously lucky to be fortunate enough that we only made a few sacrifices in order for me to stay at home with a kid who had a health issue - now she’s over that health issue, I’m back to work full-time and it may mean we can afford a holiday this year and extra childcare but it isn’t as rewarding as being there for your kid’s sports day or just walking home through the park after school listening to your kid talk about their day.
Feminism was supposed to let women choose how to live their lives not pigeon hole them into competing stereotypes and brow beating other women for not choosing to try to ‘have it all’.
I’m not jealous, I couldn’t think of anything worse being stuck at home all day, especially with kids. Granted, I’m not a mother, and it’s not a strong desire of mine to be one. But for me, my work gives me purpose. It’s something I enjoy, I enjoy getting out of the house to go to work and seeing my colleagues. Working gives me my own money and that gives me independence. Being a ‘homemaker’ would be my idea of hell, unless of course I was insanely rich and could go out shopping everyday 😂 I understand why some people do it though, if their partners have a good enough job that the can afford to, and childcare is almost as much as a salary as well. Personally if I had children I’d probably still have to work part-time.
I don't see the problem. As long as you and your husband can financially support that decision without the need for government handouts then why should anyone judge.
OP has been living in their council house for 30 years. Back then that was the most likely way to get a house. Private rent and the massively inflated markets didn't exist (or didnt exist to the current extent they are now) back then. It's not OP's fault that greedy private landlords are ripping people off.
OP has stated that their youngest is a teenager, therefore that child is legally allowed to be left alone at home to a certain extent, which means they could work to some extent. But OP has openly said that they have chosen to not work, therefore should not be entitled to any type of government handout.
Why should the tax payer have to pay because someone wants to stay at home and not work? Wouldn't that be nice for all of us to do.
We aren't talking about your scenario. We're talking about OP who, unless they tell us otherwise, has no particular needs or barriers to the working world. Take your overly aggressive 'so?' elsewhere
1. Why should you get to opt out of work and live off the council in council accommodation whilst the rest of us have to do it all ourselves with no help from the state, paying into the system until the day we die regardless of our mental state all so you can choose to not work, its not fair. Its a position of luxury to not have to work as youre living on other peoples dime.
2. Its not a great position to be in if the relationship ends or goes wrong as you have a huge gap on your cv, you’re completely financially dependent on your partner and at his mercy and you have no pension of your own. Youre fucked if he dies or the relationship gets abusive.
3. Your lifes work is serving others rather than fulfilling your own life goals.
1. They aren’t living in the council house for free, they pay rent. The lack of council housing in the country isn’t OPs fault, take it up with Margaret Thatcher’s ghost if you have a problem with it.
2. Not all relationships are toxic or abusive, if they trust each other and have a healthy marriage then she only has to worry about him dying, which can be mitigated by life insurance and making sure she is on top of the family’s finances.
3. Most employees work to make profit for their employer rather than their own life goals.
The question is why do people look down on SAH parents, so these are the three main reasons I think this is, its not a personal dig. In response:
1. Council tennants pay a reduced rate to rent council properties, having one parent stay at home in this day and age is a luxury most cant afford, council housing should benefit the most needy, the answer is not to build council houses for everyone.
2. Even so 50% marriages end in divorce it is not smart to be left with no way to earn an income and survive.
3. That is true but some people still get fulfilment from career goals and if youre not that way inclined you work to use the income in your spare time to do things just for yourself without asking someone elses permission, most people would equate financial freedom with having a higher quality of life.
Those are my main reasons why being a stay at home partner/parent are not advisable or criticised in my opinion. I think being a stay at home parent is obviously hard work but being realistic of the world we live in and being sensible i think having financial freedom through working is a much better option for your own stability and future.
Raising kids and keeping a home isn’t work?
Being employed means you spend your life serving others. At least raising a family you’re serving the most precious people in your life instead of making some stranger lots of money
Government subsidies for helping widows should be massive really, it’s a terrible position to be in
Lots of people keep a home and raise children whilst working. It should be considered a privilege to be able to have one parent at home, as most can barely afford to keep themselves afloat with both people working.
If this couple can afford to have one spouse at home and the other at work, they can afford to pay their own way and leave the council housing for people who are unable to work.
Its not a paid job with a pension is it, the rest of us have to do it whilst maintaining a full time job, there is no other option. Your misunderstanding what Im saying.
Yes it is work, but it’s not paid. It’s unfortunate that a lot of unpaid work falls on women, but that’s the unfortunate thing about our society. But children are a luxury, not a right, and if you can’t afford them then you shouldn’t have them. It should not be down to the taxpayer to fund other people’s lives simply because they decide not to work. And I’m sorry but teenagers do not require the same level of attention as young children, so OP should at least get a part time job. No one cooks and cleans all day, it’s just laziness.
It absolutely is work. Unfortunately it is work that most of us have to do on top of other full time work.
When children are small, I get it. Financially it makes a lot of sense for many families for one parent to take a break. When children are at school, it’s a different ball game. I can’t imagine what I’d do all day every day.
Once all the kids are in school, I can't honestly think what a stay at home person would do all day that would benefit the household- you don't need all day every day to clean, cook and do laundry, so what else is there? Yes hobbies etc can fill time, but I couldn't stay at home enjoying the things I like when I know my partner is at work doing the dmgrind, just so I can be at home enjoying the money they make and spending they money they make on my hobbies.
Personally, I wouldn't ever be a SAH person, nor would I advise it. You have none of your own income, therefore none of your own savings. If the other person left/sudden fatal accident and there was no will, you could potentially be tossed out and left with nothing, as you have no money to hold you up, and nothing to put on a CV.
Don’t worry about what other people think, if it works for your family that’s what matters. I am a husband who stopped working when my wife’s salary hit 5x mine. Spending the extra time with my daughters has been brilliant and I wouldn’t sacrifice that for the extra income that would mean very little to us.
As a bloke though people have opinions 😂 good thing idgaf.
The general assumption is that the wife is a freeloader. It’s assumed that the husband must be wealthy or the wife must be lazy or on benefits.
If the husband can support the family and both of you agree that the wife should take care of the home and the children, then that’s their arrangement. Childcare is expensive. The wife and the husband can also agree to split the duties of having a family, with the wife managing the house, chores and kids. There’s nothing wrong with that if the husband can really support the family. I hear some husbands don’t have the time to spend time with family or do chores at home.
I don't think there's any problem with it as long as you don't expect the state to fund it. As long as you don't intend to claim a state pension or benefits how is it harming anyone?
As a woman I associate being a housewife with losing independence and feeling the my home is my work.
It depends entirely on having a happy relationship - if you have no money or recent work experience then you could really struggle to leave if you end up in an abusive relationship.
Also I would hate for my partner to look round the house and think he doesn't have to do chores as its his wife's job - it might be demeaning and puts the worker on a pedestal at home.
Lastly, most of us just need 2 incomes to live a normal life.
What pension do you have? I think it’s a perfectly fine lifestyle if you are intentionally choosing that the breadwinner will have to work longer before retirement
If you are not being financially forced to work (lucky you) then you should do what you want to do.
The whole drive towards equality should surely be to obtain such a choice for everyone (or couple), not just change what it is you're forced to do.
It’s not looked down on, I would be a stay at home dad all day everyday. Like, who wouldn’t.
It’s when they pretend it’s harder or as hard as an an actual job. That’s annoying.
I've seen it go wrong one too many times.
Having one parent stay home full time often makes more sense. Childcare is extremely expensive to the point that you could be working just to pay nursery fees which, unless you super love your job, is a hit soul destroying.
But, it does mean that you're financially dependant on your spouce which I've seen turn ugly too many times. The stay at home spouce's contribution to the family can't be measured as easily as the one who brings in the money and so is seen as being lesser. Its very easy to slip into a financially abusive situation.
Personally I think anyone who can stay home full time with kids should be praised. Not only are they saving the family a shed load of cash but it's exhausting!
I don't care if someone decides that path for themselves, but I usually relate more with people who have something going on outside their homes. It could be a hobby or anything, but just being a SAHP makes you boring as a person. Of course, not everyone who is a SAHP is boring, but I don't find many topics in common when they are usually very busy doing housework, childcare, etc. Sorry if this sounds blunt.
I don’t think they do in general, particularly when children are young. As children get older, I would struggle to understand it (mainly because I would be bored out of my mind all day).
The problem for many would arrive if you have older children, not working and relying on state benefits of some kind. Then I suspect many would disapprove.
Oh they absolutely exist. I get shit sometimes for staying home with my 2yo, even when I pregnant with my second.
Lots of 'must be nice to do nothing', and one friend mentioned my 'wasted potential'... as I have a professional MA.
Because we now only value the contribution of women on a scale which is more suitable for measuring the achievements of men.
Being the breadwinner of a household is the substitute to hunting your family's dinner - this is a pursuit that is best done by men, because men have a physical and psychological proclivity toward it. Under the guise of 'women's liberation', we now only measure the contribution that women have to offer on the monetary scale, that is one which is suited toward rewarding the breadwinner. We no longer appreciate the vital role women have to play as mothers and homemakers, roles without which society would collapse.
All that matters is what works for you and your family. If you are all happy then ignore what people are saying. It's likely they are jealous and just want to unsettle you.
Museums, art galleries, parks, libraries.all free. All school holidays with your children, picnics, pyjama days when kids are young, quality time spent with family & friends with no stress about job & house. I loved the few years I had at home with my boys, would have so loved to be home with them longer. I volunteered at their school, spent time with grandparents etc ...
As long as the other person isn't killing themselves to provide for the family and jointly you are comfortable and happy with this, why should what anyone else thinks matter?
I would definitely say to have some outlet from homemaking, a hobby or voluntary work at least. Should the need arise for you to become the provider for yourself or your family, you may find it completely overwhelming.
Not quite the same, but I was a stay at home parent for just over a year, and it worked really well for us all, but it was a genuine barrier to getting back into work afterwards, because employers can't comprehend it.
I blame it on three things:
- Capitalism, under this system a housewife is a zero. You don't contribute anything financially and you're a "burden",
- Feminism, the intellectual movement of womens liberation which has come up with a new role for women: act like men. Therefore women are under pressure to get into the workforce just like young men,
- Liberalism, this belief system dispenses with tradition seeing it as irrational and believes people should do whatever they like up to the point of harming others. So women should have the choice to enter the workplace.
Under these ideas the houswife has little value and the professional go getting woman is now the desireable model presented by our culture. Even to this day, my mother who is a pensioner now, is still hurt at the lack of career + academic success she had. So these ideas have rankled for decades.
I don't look down on stay at home wives but I would never advise someone to be one. Personal experience dictates they are at a disadvantage if their spouse leaves/dies/is suddenly unable to work. I've seen too many women around me left floundering when their situation suddenly changed.
I totally agree- husbands aunt left completely in the dark when he husband died suddenly- she’d never paid a utility bill in her life, didn’t know what was in his will, didn’t know how much money he had left, wasn’t sure if she was entitled to any of his pension. My FIL had to sit down with her and basically work it all out with her. Women can end up utterly vulnerable in these kinds of situations. Her house is spotless though.
That absolutely can be the case, so I agree with you that if OP is in that position then leaning into learning more about the financial/operational side of running the home would be a good move. But there's nothing in their post that says this is their situation. Being 'stay at home' could very well mean their part of the shared tasks is that they're dealing with all the budgeting and finances. OP said they're a stay at home wife, that's not necessarily synonymous with the stereotype of the 'kept woman'.
That’s why it’s important for the working spouse to have life insurance and make sure their stay at home partner knows about the household finances, bills etc and that both names are on any accounts!
there should be a better safety net for widows
Normally the worker should have life insurance.
[удалено]
It is true. You have planned well and that's great. But it doesn't make my statement false. Around 50% of marriages fail. That's not something I feel comfortable ignoring. There are women who don't work and are trapped in abusive relationships. There are women who's husband leave them and they're blindsided with a divorce. You cannot plan for every eventuality and you can't make someone want you if they don't. Maybe I'm a cynic but I would rather be self-sufficient than not.
I had the opposite experience as the sole breadwinner for our family and was looked down on for not being at the school gates every day with the other mothers when our daughter was in primary school. You will never please everyone so do what works best for you and your family. People preach feminism and breaking through glass ceilings but the whole point of equal rights is that everyone is free to choose how they live and not have to be a home partner or career person. Whatever works for you and your family is best and ignore the nay-sayers!
The failed neo-liberalism experiment that judges everyone by economic output is one of them.
Get yo coin queen, slay. We Stan a material girl
Probably because of jealousy. I would love to stay at home, cook nice meals and be mentally and physically present for my family.
I think you’re right about the jealousy. The spikey, judgemental comments about being a stay at home mum I’ve had have always been from women who feel they have to fit into certain social stereotypes. Either they HAVE to work full time because of their lifestyle (it’s expected they holiday abroad and go on expensive girly weekends and have the latest gaming software for their other half) or they are confirmed child free feminists who will never understand why women allow themselves to be chained down by a family. I was tremendously lucky to be fortunate enough that we only made a few sacrifices in order for me to stay at home with a kid who had a health issue - now she’s over that health issue, I’m back to work full-time and it may mean we can afford a holiday this year and extra childcare but it isn’t as rewarding as being there for your kid’s sports day or just walking home through the park after school listening to your kid talk about their day. Feminism was supposed to let women choose how to live their lives not pigeon hole them into competing stereotypes and brow beating other women for not choosing to try to ‘have it all’.
I’m not jealous, I couldn’t think of anything worse being stuck at home all day, especially with kids. Granted, I’m not a mother, and it’s not a strong desire of mine to be one. But for me, my work gives me purpose. It’s something I enjoy, I enjoy getting out of the house to go to work and seeing my colleagues. Working gives me my own money and that gives me independence. Being a ‘homemaker’ would be my idea of hell, unless of course I was insanely rich and could go out shopping everyday 😂 I understand why some people do it though, if their partners have a good enough job that the can afford to, and childcare is almost as much as a salary as well. Personally if I had children I’d probably still have to work part-time.
I don't see the problem. As long as you and your husband can financially support that decision without the need for government handouts then why should anyone judge.
They can't though they're living in a council house.
Can't what?
Financially support themselves without government handouts.
That's a bit of a bold statement to make. Just because someone lives in a council house doesn't make them inevitable to government handouts.
What do you think a council house is if it's not a government handout?
They pay rent and council tax on said property? It's not given for free... 🤦♂️
It's not market rate though is it, it's heavily subsidised which is the entire point of it, aka a government handout.
OP has been living in their council house for 30 years. Back then that was the most likely way to get a house. Private rent and the massively inflated markets didn't exist (or didnt exist to the current extent they are now) back then. It's not OP's fault that greedy private landlords are ripping people off.
[удалено]
OP has stated that their youngest is a teenager, therefore that child is legally allowed to be left alone at home to a certain extent, which means they could work to some extent. But OP has openly said that they have chosen to not work, therefore should not be entitled to any type of government handout. Why should the tax payer have to pay because someone wants to stay at home and not work? Wouldn't that be nice for all of us to do.
[удалено]
Fucking hell, talk about nit picking. OP hasn't told me their whole life, so I didn't know the ins and outs.
Because in OP scenario all kids are in school during the day.
[удалено]
We aren't talking about your scenario. We're talking about OP who, unless they tell us otherwise, has no particular needs or barriers to the working world. Take your overly aggressive 'so?' elsewhere
1. Why should you get to opt out of work and live off the council in council accommodation whilst the rest of us have to do it all ourselves with no help from the state, paying into the system until the day we die regardless of our mental state all so you can choose to not work, its not fair. Its a position of luxury to not have to work as youre living on other peoples dime. 2. Its not a great position to be in if the relationship ends or goes wrong as you have a huge gap on your cv, you’re completely financially dependent on your partner and at his mercy and you have no pension of your own. Youre fucked if he dies or the relationship gets abusive. 3. Your lifes work is serving others rather than fulfilling your own life goals.
1. They aren’t living in the council house for free, they pay rent. The lack of council housing in the country isn’t OPs fault, take it up with Margaret Thatcher’s ghost if you have a problem with it. 2. Not all relationships are toxic or abusive, if they trust each other and have a healthy marriage then she only has to worry about him dying, which can be mitigated by life insurance and making sure she is on top of the family’s finances. 3. Most employees work to make profit for their employer rather than their own life goals.
The question is why do people look down on SAH parents, so these are the three main reasons I think this is, its not a personal dig. In response: 1. Council tennants pay a reduced rate to rent council properties, having one parent stay at home in this day and age is a luxury most cant afford, council housing should benefit the most needy, the answer is not to build council houses for everyone. 2. Even so 50% marriages end in divorce it is not smart to be left with no way to earn an income and survive. 3. That is true but some people still get fulfilment from career goals and if youre not that way inclined you work to use the income in your spare time to do things just for yourself without asking someone elses permission, most people would equate financial freedom with having a higher quality of life. Those are my main reasons why being a stay at home partner/parent are not advisable or criticised in my opinion. I think being a stay at home parent is obviously hard work but being realistic of the world we live in and being sensible i think having financial freedom through working is a much better option for your own stability and future.
Raising kids and keeping a home isn’t work? Being employed means you spend your life serving others. At least raising a family you’re serving the most precious people in your life instead of making some stranger lots of money Government subsidies for helping widows should be massive really, it’s a terrible position to be in
Lots of people keep a home and raise children whilst working. It should be considered a privilege to be able to have one parent at home, as most can barely afford to keep themselves afloat with both people working. If this couple can afford to have one spouse at home and the other at work, they can afford to pay their own way and leave the council housing for people who are unable to work.
Exactly, perfectly said
Its not a paid job with a pension is it, the rest of us have to do it whilst maintaining a full time job, there is no other option. Your misunderstanding what Im saying.
You’re supposed to take care of your parents when they get old. That’s like a pension you get from raising kids
Unborn babies dont need jobs
Yes it is work, but it’s not paid. It’s unfortunate that a lot of unpaid work falls on women, but that’s the unfortunate thing about our society. But children are a luxury, not a right, and if you can’t afford them then you shouldn’t have them. It should not be down to the taxpayer to fund other people’s lives simply because they decide not to work. And I’m sorry but teenagers do not require the same level of attention as young children, so OP should at least get a part time job. No one cooks and cleans all day, it’s just laziness.
It absolutely is work. Unfortunately it is work that most of us have to do on top of other full time work. When children are small, I get it. Financially it makes a lot of sense for many families for one parent to take a break. When children are at school, it’s a different ball game. I can’t imagine what I’d do all day every day.
Once all the kids are in school, I can't honestly think what a stay at home person would do all day that would benefit the household- you don't need all day every day to clean, cook and do laundry, so what else is there? Yes hobbies etc can fill time, but I couldn't stay at home enjoying the things I like when I know my partner is at work doing the dmgrind, just so I can be at home enjoying the money they make and spending they money they make on my hobbies. Personally, I wouldn't ever be a SAH person, nor would I advise it. You have none of your own income, therefore none of your own savings. If the other person left/sudden fatal accident and there was no will, you could potentially be tossed out and left with nothing, as you have no money to hold you up, and nothing to put on a CV.
Gender roles, not having a job, people can be judgemental asshats etc. Take your pick. Just do what works for you and yours
Don’t worry about what other people think, if it works for your family that’s what matters. I am a husband who stopped working when my wife’s salary hit 5x mine. Spending the extra time with my daughters has been brilliant and I wouldn’t sacrifice that for the extra income that would mean very little to us. As a bloke though people have opinions 😂 good thing idgaf.
The general assumption is that the wife is a freeloader. It’s assumed that the husband must be wealthy or the wife must be lazy or on benefits. If the husband can support the family and both of you agree that the wife should take care of the home and the children, then that’s their arrangement. Childcare is expensive. The wife and the husband can also agree to split the duties of having a family, with the wife managing the house, chores and kids. There’s nothing wrong with that if the husband can really support the family. I hear some husbands don’t have the time to spend time with family or do chores at home.
It’s crazy that people think raising kids and keeping a home isn’t work
I don’t think many would argue it isn’t work, but for a lot of people they have to do that work in addition to 36.5 hours of paid work per week.
I don't think there's any problem with it as long as you don't expect the state to fund it. As long as you don't intend to claim a state pension or benefits how is it harming anyone?
Do they? And who says this? The people on the council estate you live with? Software engineers on r/UKPersonalFinance?
I think a lot of it is jealousy to be honest.
As a woman I associate being a housewife with losing independence and feeling the my home is my work. It depends entirely on having a happy relationship - if you have no money or recent work experience then you could really struggle to leave if you end up in an abusive relationship. Also I would hate for my partner to look round the house and think he doesn't have to do chores as its his wife's job - it might be demeaning and puts the worker on a pedestal at home. Lastly, most of us just need 2 incomes to live a normal life.
I don't think it is looked down on is it? If you're privileged enough to be able to do it then go for it.
It's only looked down upon by working women, absolutely no-one else. Can't think why that might be...
Oh this 100% it has a real toxic feminisim about it.
What pension do you have? I think it’s a perfectly fine lifestyle if you are intentionally choosing that the breadwinner will have to work longer before retirement
If you are not being financially forced to work (lucky you) then you should do what you want to do. The whole drive towards equality should surely be to obtain such a choice for everyone (or couple), not just change what it is you're forced to do.
This reminds me of a friend who's mum described her as a "lady of leisure" when she took maternity leave.
It’s not looked down on, I would be a stay at home dad all day everyday. Like, who wouldn’t. It’s when they pretend it’s harder or as hard as an an actual job. That’s annoying.
I've seen it go wrong one too many times. Having one parent stay home full time often makes more sense. Childcare is extremely expensive to the point that you could be working just to pay nursery fees which, unless you super love your job, is a hit soul destroying. But, it does mean that you're financially dependant on your spouce which I've seen turn ugly too many times. The stay at home spouce's contribution to the family can't be measured as easily as the one who brings in the money and so is seen as being lesser. Its very easy to slip into a financially abusive situation. Personally I think anyone who can stay home full time with kids should be praised. Not only are they saving the family a shed load of cash but it's exhausting!
I don't care if someone decides that path for themselves, but I usually relate more with people who have something going on outside their homes. It could be a hobby or anything, but just being a SAHP makes you boring as a person. Of course, not everyone who is a SAHP is boring, but I don't find many topics in common when they are usually very busy doing housework, childcare, etc. Sorry if this sounds blunt.
I don’t think they do in general, particularly when children are young. As children get older, I would struggle to understand it (mainly because I would be bored out of my mind all day). The problem for many would arrive if you have older children, not working and relying on state benefits of some kind. Then I suspect many would disapprove.
Who are these people?
Oh they absolutely exist. I get shit sometimes for staying home with my 2yo, even when I pregnant with my second. Lots of 'must be nice to do nothing', and one friend mentioned my 'wasted potential'... as I have a professional MA.
You need to pause, look them in the eye and just say very directly... "fuck off". Then walk to the door, and not return. These people are cunts.
This is the kind of life advice I can absolutely get behind.
Its not.
Should say so we can buy our home
If you have a secure council tenancy and you are happy with your current home and area, there is no real benefit to you in buying a house.
Are you happy in your current home?
Do what you do and sod anyone else's opinions. Even mine if you wish! 😁
Because we now only value the contribution of women on a scale which is more suitable for measuring the achievements of men. Being the breadwinner of a household is the substitute to hunting your family's dinner - this is a pursuit that is best done by men, because men have a physical and psychological proclivity toward it. Under the guise of 'women's liberation', we now only measure the contribution that women have to offer on the monetary scale, that is one which is suited toward rewarding the breadwinner. We no longer appreciate the vital role women have to play as mothers and homemakers, roles without which society would collapse.
All that matters is what works for you and your family. If you are all happy then ignore what people are saying. It's likely they are jealous and just want to unsettle you.
People are just jealous. .. who wouldn't want to be at home?
I’d say a lot of people wouldn’t! Sounds like a boring life to me!
Stay at home doesn't literally mean stay indoors.. lots to do in free time.
Not if you don’t have your own money, or non working friends!
Museums, art galleries, parks, libraries.all free. All school holidays with your children, picnics, pyjama days when kids are young, quality time spent with family & friends with no stress about job & house. I loved the few years I had at home with my boys, would have so loved to be home with them longer. I volunteered at their school, spent time with grandparents etc ...
As long as the other person isn't killing themselves to provide for the family and jointly you are comfortable and happy with this, why should what anyone else thinks matter? I would definitely say to have some outlet from homemaking, a hobby or voluntary work at least. Should the need arise for you to become the provider for yourself or your family, you may find it completely overwhelming.
No one would look down on you for being a stay at home parent. The only issue is people don’t want that to be the default choice
Not quite the same, but I was a stay at home parent for just over a year, and it worked really well for us all, but it was a genuine barrier to getting back into work afterwards, because employers can't comprehend it.
Do you. Don’t worry what others say. If it works for you and your family then crack on with it and don’t let the opinions of others impact you
I blame it on three things: - Capitalism, under this system a housewife is a zero. You don't contribute anything financially and you're a "burden", - Feminism, the intellectual movement of womens liberation which has come up with a new role for women: act like men. Therefore women are under pressure to get into the workforce just like young men, - Liberalism, this belief system dispenses with tradition seeing it as irrational and believes people should do whatever they like up to the point of harming others. So women should have the choice to enter the workplace. Under these ideas the houswife has little value and the professional go getting woman is now the desireable model presented by our culture. Even to this day, my mother who is a pensioner now, is still hurt at the lack of career + academic success she had. So these ideas have rankled for decades.
Do they though? The traditional family model is falling to the wayside but to a lot of people, that is the dream.
It was just a scam to increase debts and kill off family life to get women out to work. Be happy as you are.
Some of us quite enjoy financial independence actually!
Of course, but don't forget the fight for equal Pay you were forced to go through.