5 ms·

Those household structures aren'tpopular, they're just common when women have no other options. I have nothing against those structures, they work great for som

by nradov 6mo ago

Those household structures aren'tpopular, they're just common when women have no other options. I have nothing against those structures, they work great for some families. But the reality is that they often force the wife into becoming an unpaid caregiver for her in-laws (who constantly criticize how she runs the household).

purplerabbit 6mo ago
So confidently stated! My wife had ludicrous options and chose it — what draws you to this conclusion?
- illiac786 6mo ago
  Parent said often, not always. Counter examples is an anecdote. I would like to see good statistics on this. And your wife’s opinion on her choices.
  - xboxnolifes 6mo ago
    The counter example my be anecdotal, but the original claim is also baseless. It's not anecdote vs data, it's anecdote vs nothing.
    - illiac786 6mo ago
      Agreed, when I asked for statistics I was addressing the parent comment, that might have been unclear.
  - purplerabbit 6mo ago
    I'd love to see statistics as well. My wife self-reports as very happy and talks a lot about how proud she is of the decision. I'll acknowledge that we are privileged in terms of support -- 3 relative families within 30 minutes and most people in a 100 meter radius attend the same church. Even in our setup, however, we really wish we could swing a multi-generational setup and have grandparents around all the time. Maybe the Amish are on to something!
mitthrowaway2 6mo ago
I don't really understand this mindset that being at home and raising your kids is only something you do when forced to. For my family, if we had more options -- ie, more money -- then both of us would be stay-at-home parents. It's much more of a joy than going to work.
- lotsofpulp 6mo ago
  Your comment presupposes something different that nradov’s comment. The aforementioned “trad households” do not have a financially independent wife, which is what nradov is referring to when they write > force the wife into becoming an unpaid caregiver for her in-laws Typically, the in laws or the husband would control the assets, and hence be able to exert more influence. > For my family, if we had more options -- ie, more money -- then both of us would be stay-at-home parents. In the absence of a trust fund, most women (and men) will choose to be able to fend for themselves.
  - ndriscoll 6mo ago
    Your comment's framing makes no sense to me. My wife pushed for me to go into engineering instead of academia so she could stay home and we could be comfortable. We're married. We have kids. The entire point is we're not independent. That's what married literally means. Unioned. Joined. There is no her and me. There is us. Why would you need or even want to be independent? Why would you plan to form a family while keeping your options open/having one foot out the door?
    - amanaplanacanal 6mo ago
      Plenty of women (and men) end up in relationships they hate, and if they have no independence they are pretty much fucked. They have no way to escape. Women having options makes a huge difference. What you are describing is pretty much ideal for a lot of people, but it's not what everybody gets.
      - ndriscoll 6mo ago
Ancapistani 6mo ago
It's 2026. Barring severe manipulation/abuse, why would you choose to get married and have children if you're a woman who doesn't want to raise them?
- illiac786 6mo ago
  Severely missing the point here. It’s about being criticised and not recognised while doing so. It’s about lack of choice – and no, when you’re 25, you don’t know what this does to you over time. And when you finally do, it’s too late, you’re not going to run away with your kids and no job.
  - Ancapistani 6mo ago
    My comment was a response to its parent, beginning: > Those household structures aren't popular, they're just common when women have no other options. I agree with what yours, and point out that it applies equally to men. I was 25 when we decided to have our first child and while I would make the same decision knowing what I know now, I didn't have anything near an accurate idea of what the impact would be on my life as a whole. Basically, I wasn't taking exception to the idea of an irrevocable decision made with incomplete context; I was taking exception to the idea that it's somehow unique to women - because it's not.
    - illiac786 6mo ago
      Ok, sorry, I missed that. I would add though that while making bad choices is not unique to women, when it comes to mariage, lots of society used to make it so much easier on men. Men could/can escape home in work, hobbies, etc with much less judgement than women. It’s gotten better in some parts of the world, definitely not all, and last years the trend is rather backward I feel.
walletdrainer 6mo ago
Completely absurd, most good looking, well-educated Eastern European women with a plenty of options would disagree with you. Your comment seems to imply that they’re stupid.
- cindyllm 6mo ago
  [dead]
something765478 6mo ago
Women are just as responsible for enforcing traditions as men are. You could just as easily argue that men are the ones with less choice; after all, it is much more socially acceptable for a woman to work than for a man to be a stay at home dad.
- mothballed 6mo ago
  It's also false that a stay at home has essentially resigned themselves to ruin in the event of divorce/disagreement. Someone who has been a stay at home long enough to be unemployable, in the vast majority of states, will be rewarded with alimony and if applicable child support to the point they will easily be taking about 50% of the spouse's salary for long enough to retrain. Of course the spouse has the risk the other ex-spouse will sabotage themselves and end their incomes to avoid paying the order, at which point they may be thrown into prison if they are found. But are they worse off than the employee who can be fired at a moment's notice and go broke by a boss who isn't sabotaging himself at all and bound by no such judicial order? Maybe so, but it's not by some gigantic long shot.

by nradov 6mo ago

purplerabbit 6mo ago

So confidently stated! My wife had ludicrous options and chose it — what draws you to this conclusion?

illiac786 6mo ago
Parent said often, not always. Counter examples is an anecdote. I would like to see good statistics on this. And your wife’s opinion on her choices.
- xboxnolifes 6mo ago
  The counter example my be anecdotal, but the original claim is also baseless. It's not anecdote vs data, it's anecdote vs nothing.
  - illiac786 6mo ago
    Agreed, when I asked for statistics I was addressing the parent comment, that might have been unclear.
- purplerabbit 6mo ago
  I'd love to see statistics as well. My wife self-reports as very happy and talks a lot about how proud she is of the decision. I'll acknowledge that we are privileged in terms of support -- 3 relative families within 30 minutes and most people in a 100 meter radius attend the same church. Even in our setup, however, we really wish we could swing a multi-generational setup and have grandparents around all the time. Maybe the Amish are on to something!

mitthrowaway2 6mo ago

I don't really understand this mindset that being at home and raising your kids is only something you do when forced to. For my family, if we had more options -- ie, more money -- then both of us would be stay-at-home parents. It's much more of a joy than going to work.

lotsofpulp 6mo ago
Your comment presupposes something different that nradov’s comment. The aforementioned “trad households” do not have a financially independent wife, which is what nradov is referring to when they write > force the wife into becoming an unpaid caregiver for her in-laws Typically, the in laws or the husband would control the assets, and hence be able to exert more influence. > For my family, if we had more options -- ie, more money -- then both of us would be stay-at-home parents. In the absence of a trust fund, most women (and men) will choose to be able to fend for themselves.
- ndriscoll 6mo ago
  Your comment's framing makes no sense to me. My wife pushed for me to go into engineering instead of academia so she could stay home and we could be comfortable. We're married. We have kids. The entire point is we're not independent. That's what married literally means. Unioned. Joined. There is no her and me. There is us. Why would you need or even want to be independent? Why would you plan to form a family while keeping your options open/having one foot out the door?
  - amanaplanacanal 6mo ago
    Plenty of women (and men) end up in relationships they hate, and if they have no independence they are pretty much fucked. They have no way to escape. Women having options makes a huge difference. What you are describing is pretty much ideal for a lot of people, but it's not what everybody gets.
    - ndriscoll 6mo ago

Ancapistani 6mo ago

It's 2026. Barring severe manipulation/abuse, why would you choose to get married and have children if you're a woman who doesn't want to raise them?

illiac786 6mo ago
Severely missing the point here. It’s about being criticised and not recognised while doing so. It’s about lack of choice – and no, when you’re 25, you don’t know what this does to you over time. And when you finally do, it’s too late, you’re not going to run away with your kids and no job.
- Ancapistani 6mo ago
  My comment was a response to its parent, beginning: > Those household structures aren't popular, they're just common when women have no other options. I agree with what yours, and point out that it applies equally to men. I was 25 when we decided to have our first child and while I would make the same decision knowing what I know now, I didn't have anything near an accurate idea of what the impact would be on my life as a whole. Basically, I wasn't taking exception to the idea of an irrevocable decision made with incomplete context; I was taking exception to the idea that it's somehow unique to women - because it's not.
  - illiac786 6mo ago
    Ok, sorry, I missed that. I would add though that while making bad choices is not unique to women, when it comes to mariage, lots of society used to make it so much easier on men. Men could/can escape home in work, hobbies, etc with much less judgement than women. It’s gotten better in some parts of the world, definitely not all, and last years the trend is rather backward I feel.

walletdrainer 6mo ago

Completely absurd, most good looking, well-educated Eastern European women with a plenty of options would disagree with you. Your comment seems to imply that they’re stupid.

cindyllm 6mo ago
[dead]

something765478 6mo ago

Women are just as responsible for enforcing traditions as men are. You could just as easily argue that men are the ones with less choice; after all, it is much more socially acceptable for a woman to work than for a man to be a stay at home dad.

mothballed 6mo ago
It's also false that a stay at home has essentially resigned themselves to ruin in the event of divorce/disagreement. Someone who has been a stay at home long enough to be unemployable, in the vast majority of states, will be rewarded with alimony and if applicable child support to the point they will easily be taking about 50% of the spouse's salary for long enough to retrain. Of course the spouse has the risk the other ex-spouse will sabotage themselves and end their incomes to avoid paying the order, at which point they may be thrown into prison if they are found. But are they worse off than the employee who can be fired at a moment's notice and go broke by a boss who isn't sabotaging himself at all and bound by no such judicial order? Maybe so, but it's not by some gigantic long shot.