Assuming homie is the breadwinner. Else do the opposite and be one of the few dads that see more of the kids than mom

I hate one size fits all life recommendations. What works for some doesn’t necessarily work for all.

For real. Also, this is morality advise disguised as financial advise

I didn't mean it as the strictest one-size-fits-all solution. We all have to eat, so we have to do what we have to do to survive. But (here's my morality advice) it should be the norm for a mother not to routinely leave her children for others to look after.

Homey needs to man up and work.

If homie is a server and lady is manager at a retailer with health insurance, homie needs to dad up

Why hold a mother entirely responsible for a child’s care? What about the father? What about having large community support when raising a child?

It's best for lady to mom up and homey to dad up, even if their economic standard of living is lessened (as long as they have food and shelter). Money is not more important than family life. But a good, stable family life statistically results in better finances generationally. I'm not judging. I know it's hard. Just saying.

Would @Lyn Alden family be better off with her as home maker and her husband a car salesman?

I don't know her, but I've known car salesmen who make a respectable living. It's true that two wage earners make more money combined. But a solid family is more important than wealth. In many cases (not all), a family can save money by Mom momming her kids, acting as the heart of the home, while Dad works as the breadwinner, dadding and husbanding when he comes home. If he makes 60k a year and she makes 600k, they won't have to give up eating if she quits and raises the kids and keeps the home. They just might have to give up expensive vacations and some extra cars and boats. Depends on what a person's priority is in this short life. I don't think worshiping the dollar is a good investment.

I didn’t make this about money, this was in response to your initial post re “crippling finances” A 60k income for a family is the poverty line. 600k is financial freedom and debt free living. Seeing some of your other posts it seems like that’s important to you. Hell the whole family could take off of work for a decade after three prime earning years. Most financial hardships are caused by revenue problems not expense problems It’s not giving up a vacation or fancy cars here and there it is much much more than that, least of which is worshiping the dollar. It’s qualifying for a mortgage in a neighborhood to send the kids to a reasonable public school. I’m also not saying the inverse (woman work dad home). It’s case by case. Your initial post created an image of a woman that has a shopping problem. It placed the blame of financial hardship on her unwillingness to be a homemaker Lynn is an accomplished engineer and now Macro analyst. I used her as an example of someone who in almost all cases would be the breadwinner.

Ok, let’s talk should. It should be the norm for both parents to devote significant time and energy to caring for their children, but also for childcare to not be their entire life. It should be the norm that families who in good faith seek to be involved are not shamed for seeking childcare help from others, especially extended family members and friends, but even well-vetted paid help when necessary. If you’re going to advocate wholesale cultural change, maybe don’t force fit mothers back into boxes they’ve long made clearly known are too small for them, or expect them to carry the extremely difficult task of parenthood literally alone. Instead, maybe spread the following ideas: Fathers are just as responsible for child rearing as mothers are and it’s good for career culture to recognize this. Modern culture for some reason has grown very divorced from valuing the extended family, a source of childcare support since prehistory. Extended family support can help create healthier, more stable families and children who benefit from the wisdom of their parents’ elders. Many modern workplaces currently make it unnecessarily difficult / impossible to have children around. Workplaces have long been (and can be again) great places for supervised children to learn decent behavior and useful career skills. I’d say it’s better they hang out with mom or dad at work than sending them to government school for sure.

Don't have to worry about that. Humans as we've learned the past decade or so, are so self-absorbed they'll unwittingly choose flight. The path of convenience and least resistance - no matter the cost. They won't even know what they don't know. I'm sure a major selling point of 15 minute cities is quite manipulatively going to be a dystopian selling point of not having to go to work - so day care costs are gone. You'll be at home ALL the time working. "Imagine!". Vehicle costs gone. And with that, although they are crooks, mechanics. It's just another skilled trade abolished through the natural process of de-evolution. Meanwhile, these unqualified parents quickly find out they hate being a parent. And aren't really raising their child, they are just around to watch and see if they injure themselves so they can react. I could go on. But GN Nostr The selfish, narrow minded and seemingly eternally mentally compromised among us (of which there are too many) has taken the toll on me for the day. I need a good sleep.

I agree with all of this. Except, and I know this will probably be an unpopular opinion on Nostr, I think public schools can be great. The concept of public education is amazing to me.

The idea of government school just hits different for anarchists 😂 and for people who had as awful a gov school experience as I did (or far worse), especially if they then experienced how much better homeschooling was.

Mom and Dad are both responsible, but we need not expect them to share the same roles in parenting. Men and women are different; moms and dads are different. Women are even blessed to have a reflection of their nurturing gifts built into their bodies. They grow their children inside their bodies, and feed them with their bodies, giving of themselves. It's a beautiful thing. Men are typically stronger and more aggressive, less "nurturing" but more protective and geared toward leadership. Women don't like wimps or sissies, and men don't like barking, independent broads. There is a complementarity between the sexes and between mothers and fathers. We don't have to pretend we're equal. We're different, and that's okay. We can be different but equal in worth and dignity. Though I have to say women are pretty special. Y'all are awesome.

I liked school. I personally much preferred a Montessori school I attended and a small private school. I did attend public school as well. It was hit or miss. I can think of many issues with public education but I like the concept of public education.

I think you have too narrow a viewpoint. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase it takes a village to raise a child. I’m glad I had a village. I am privileged to be a member in other kiddo’s villages. I’m glad the women in my life are supported in participating in society beyond motherhood. Their gifts are immeasurable.

Men and women may TEND to be different, but individuals are ALWAYS different. It’s unreasonable to shackle an individual to a role based on a generalization. You’re painting men in your image when you say you don’t like independent women. Plenty of men actually do. And almost no women enjoy being barked at, either. I see in your profile that you’re Christian. When you call God Father, do you not believe He is nurturing and self-giving? Communion is also being fed by His body, is it not? I’m Christian, too, and I don’t believe that God has gifted skill and intelligence to women just for them to be hidden away any more than I believe God has withheld any part of His nurturing heart from men.

Beautifully said @𝔼𝕣𝕪𝕟 𝔹𝕣𝕒𝕔𝕔𝕠

Thank you!

Our first solution should not be to tell women to get back in the kitchen, but to offer help to the parents we're friends with. Help them tidy up the house, cook dinners for them, watch the kids while their mother works a shift. That's real and attainable cultural change.

I think people forget the roots of this phrase. It’s the natural order of things, and our modern day attempts at parenting in isolated bubbles are actually proving to be highly ineffective. I’m lucky enough to live in close proximity to a few of my family members, we helped my sister raise her kids and now they help me raise mine on a day to day basis, when you see it in action you can understand why and how it works. I’m happy to hear you had this experience too and also pay it forward. I think most people just can’t fathom the situation because they’re cut off from having the option

Why does Mother have to work a shift?

and how about stop divorcing your husbands over "feelings"?! 🙈🤡😂

A lot could be said here, but as one who loves and respects women, I would not say they are "hidden away" when they stay at home to care for the family. I'm not buying our society's lie that a woman reaches her full potential only when she finds employment away from the home. Her role as mother and homemaker is an awesome responsibility to be honored, not belittled. Ask any honest, non-simping man if he would not love to have a wife who cares for their children at home during the day, who makes their house a home, who acts like a wife instead of a husband. His answer will be YES. Even HECK YES. And ask yourself: Would you really respect a husband who chooses to stay at home instead of going to work; who expects you to go out and make money; who focuses on looking after the children, bottle-feeding them, and putting them down for nappy time; who do some sewing or decorating or reading; who ask what you'd like to eat after a hard day at the office? Deep down, I think you would say NO. Even HECK NO. I don't think your marriage or romance life would thrive in that situation.

Every dollar spent because mom's out working is an extra dollar thirty she and dad has to earn. Or, the other way around, every dollar you save by working in the home is a dollar thirty you don't have to earn. Dual income is a scam, because Uncle Sam gets to tax mom for the work she does outside the home. He's incentivized to make her want to work outside the home.

If one doesn't actually mean it when she said "til death do we part," did she actually get married? The vow's legitimacy is essential to the marriage's validity.

I hate the common tendency to reject a good rule because some exceptions can be found.

That's right. It's not legit to see marriage as a romantic contract agreement with exception clauses. Deep down, that's not what men and women really want.

It does fit all.

Some of the most misogynistic BS I've seen on here. Congrats.

I honor women; I don't hate them. I'm just no fan of feminism, unless we redefine it as compatible with masculinism.

The extreme shallowness of your “love and respect” for women has been apparent from the very first post, from your constant condescending language about them to your disdain for the roles you would consign them to. Yes, I would have the utmost respect for a husband who cares for the children, sews, decorates, etc. because I see value in all of that. You seem to just see virtue signaling that you can have at your disposal there instead. Gross. You are the one belittling the homemaker role when you use patronizing language about it and belittle men for filling it. If it’s so awesome (and it is), celebrate all who take it on. As far as your other points go: if a woman has the desire and ability to succeed in a career, but doesn’t because of the belief that she shouldn’t have one, yes, I call that part of her hidden away. I don’t think that anyone’s highest potential, man or woman, is fulfilled only in having a career. Our highest potential is reached when we are the people God created us to be in full. Like me, you clearly believe in men having a full life involving family, career, faith, and probably hobbies as well. I’m just saying women are no different.

I don't belittle homemaking, but I do belittle the idea of men choosing to be homemakers while their wives go out into the workforce (working for and with other men). It's the reversal of roles I take issue with, not the roles themselves. I believe we should all have a full life, but that involves committing to fulfilling our state in life the best we can -- not just doing anything we feel like. Children deserve to be raised by their parents, no matter how "shackled" the parents may feel by that at any given moment. When husband and wife don't fulfill their roles, chaos and contention are ready to pounce. Spouses' equally important roles may have some overlap, but they are not interchangeable. Children need dads who are dads and moms who are moms, according to God's design.

I think you need to reread the Bible a bit more carefully if you truly believe that what you’ve been saying about gender roles is God’s design. Your argumentation is sloppy and you keep strawmanning me. For just one example, I never suggested anyone just “do anything they feel like.” And you did in fact belittle homemaking if it was a man doing it — not simply the man doing it. Do better

No, it really isn't. Wanting commitment means it also being required, which can hardly be done if the state will issue a clean slate and half your income if she crys in court, and not even convincingly. Someone should author a prenuptial agreement template that binds the two to the old, permanent version of marriage and prevents no-fault from even being an option.