what advice are you looking for exactly?

Because a lot of stay at home wifes are garbage, in that they stay at home all day, barely take care of the household, and are honestly glorified neets.

That's not to say you can't be a quality housewife that stays productive, but its kind of hard to take seriously unless you guys already have some young children. Then once they get older into their teens you start slipping back into glorified neet territory.

If you're willing to go the extra mile, hey more power to you. A lot of them if not most don't however.

>>17046570
I'd like advice on how to avoid being a lazy airheaded housewife.

>>17046571
I've never seen it that way, but it makes absolute sense. Glorified neets...
Ofc, i would still work until there are kids! And i think i would take it up again when they are older again. Good thing about my job is that there is a whole lot of part time working and it doesn't matter too much if you have a few years away from it.

What would that "extra mile" consist of for you?

For me it would include stuff like actually doing activities with the kids, making sure that the house is spotless, that errands are run and bills are paid, that there's good food on the table every day, that i use the time i have to look after myself and not, yknow "get fat and ugly". Basically, i'd do everything i can so my husband would be able to focus on his work/career and be able to come home to a beautiful home, filled with happy kids, yummy food and a lovely wife. If the kids get older and i find that i can't use all my time in an usefull and productive way i'd take up work again or do some volunteering for a good cause.

>>17046601
>What would that "extra mile" consist of for you?
Let's say you have a couple of toddlers, and you're running every which way to take care of them. Being a stay at home wife is perfectly acceptable to me in that situation. But once they start getting older especially in their teens, there is going to be a lot of spare time. In which case I would push for my wife to pick up a part time job or find some other way to stay productive rather than drinking wine at noon with other bored housewives.

I mean the thing is, a lot of that stuff you listed should be expected regardless-even as a bachelor, I should stay in shape, keep my home clean, and be able to cook a decent meal. As long as you don't just laze around all day, I have no real particular issue with a woman who chooses that lifestyle ultimately.

>>17046555
I wish I could have a stay at home wife. I got money and a good career, and wish I had a domestic partner. Forget what other people think, you're a rare gem.

>>17046606
Sure, those things shoukd be no-brainers, but despite that, a lot of people don't do it. But doing all that whilst taking care of a baby, toddlers or little kids kind of is an extra mile for me. I have worked a few years with that age group and it is pretty intense.

I know a lot if stay at home moms. And usually, one aspect is not on par. For example: the house is spotless, the kids are balanced, the finances are in check, they look stunning, but the relationship is a wreck. Or they are fat and ugly. Or they got everything but live in a messy-like-state.
Why do so many fail and how do i avoid that?

>>17046609
I'm really blessed to have found a bf who also values traditional gender roles and makes enough money to actually pull this off. What would you want from a girl to be happy with her being home all day? If i do this, i want to threat it like a career/job. I don't half assed. I need to know what the expectations are so i can live up to them.

because the roasties that hit the wall regret their decisions but they won't accept that so they have to make sure everyone makes the same shitty decisions even if you chose to be a housewife and wasn't forced to it

>>17046555
Im currently looking for a girl like you to marry. I'm not sexist but I really just believe having a good mother that can dedicate their time to staying at home with her children is the best way to bring them up. As a father I would get involved too of course but I feel like having that motherly love is more important than anything.

Everyone I tell this to thinks I'm a sexist asshole but I want what's best for my future kids. I'd rather one of us be away at work for most of the day rather than both of us.

Hell, I wouldn't even mind being a stay at home dad, but the way things are going in society, that's just not common.

Dont listen to anyone anon. Youre perfect.

>>17046630
I think being able to cook is incredibly sexy. Having home cooked meals is also great for saving money. Aside from that there is driving the kids around and shopping for household things/running errands while the husband is out at work.

Personally though I'd hope my wife would have a hobby that she's passionate about and could develop in her off time. Stuff like managing the finances or helping kids with their homework would be joint duty.

>>17046601
>For me it would include stuff like actually doing activities with the kids, making sure that the house is spotless, that errands are run and bills are paid, that there's good food on the table every day, that i use the time i have to look after myself and not, yknow "get fat and ugly". Basically, i'd do everything i can so my husband would be able to focus on his work/career and be able to come home to a beautiful home, filled with happy kids, yummy food and a lovely wife. If the kids get older and i find that i can't use all my time in an usefull and productive way i'd take up work again or do some volunteering for a good cause.


Marry me.

>>17046653
Well, i worked in daycare and now i work in a school. And you can tell which kids come from stable homes with loving stay at home moms. That's one of the reasons i want to do that. I can see that it IS beneficial to the kids. If done right... It's not just quality over quantity. It's quality AND quantity that is crucial in those first years.
And that point alone makes me think it is more than worth it and not sexist at all.

>>17046668
What if those hobbies are tied to the whole saty at home mom thing? I recently realized that most of my hobbies are pointing into that direction. Cooking, crafting, sewing, stuff like that. Sure, i also got other hobbies. Playing piano and exercising for example. But i also spend a lot of my free time reading up about stuff that is related to my work but also to beinf a mom. Like reading up on infant development and such. I think all those aspecta would get "sucked up" into being a mom. So i probably would need to find some new interests to balance it out.
Why would doing homework be a shared duty? Finances i get. But i would probably do all the paperwork and just get my husbands approval on the budget.

>>17046699
>Why would doing homework be a shared duty?
Because I'm terrible at sports. Just a personal preference.

>>17046555

I wish more women would have your ideal.

Women should be happy to be stay at home wives, while getting respect as a partner from their husbands.

Other women get can just go f themselves if they don't like that personal choice you make.

>>17046734
Oh, so you feel like that would be your "spending time with the kids"? Kids are terrible at sports too when small. You can keep up with them for a looooong time till they "outrun" you. And i would say there are a lot of more fu activities to do some kids-dad bonding after work. Building stuff for example. Or going somewhere. Yknow, making a bonfire in the woods.

>>17046740
Do you think it is mostly other girls that look down on housewifes? What about all the guys thinking they are lowlifes?

>>17046760
>Do you think it is mostly other girls that look down on housewifes? What about all the guys thinking they are lowlifes?

Most men either don't care, think it's fine, or think it's great. Most other women (who work) despise a stay at homer as lazy or somehow not feminist enough. It's women who don't like stay at homers.

They are just stupid.

because unless your husband literally never interacts with your kids or does any work whatsoever around the house, it really is the easiest job in the world, and it's really not meant to last forever unless you plan on popping out babies indefinitely on a regular basis, once your kid is 4 or 5 you really have no reason to get back into your career.

>For me it would include stuff like actually doing activities with the kids, making sure that the house is spotless, that errands are run and bills are paid, that there's good food on the table every day
see the thing is unless your husband is a total louse, he's going to be helping you do all of those things anyways. we don't have a kid yet but when i come home i help clean and do laundry, i fix what needs to be fixed, i go where we need to get going, and i do almost all the bills, since they're my bills, not hers, and i like it that way. i have a feeling most husbands feel the same way. only thing i usually dont get involved in is cooking, but i wish i could.

there's nothing wrong with being a good stay at home mom, but the reason get shitty about it is because yea, its the path of least resistance unless the husband does NOTHING.

>>17046830
i get that. but what if i rather spend that time in the evening with other stuff then claning, doing laundry and running errands? i mean, instead of doing chores you could use that time to spend some time with the family, have friends over, bring the kids to bed with no hurry, then just relax together, watch a movie or have sex? there's more enjoable stuff a guy can do with his family after work than keep up with the household... i mean, that doesn't mean that he could help cooking a fancy dinner on weekend if that's what he loves to do. or that he can't help the wife if she NEEDS help, for example if the laundry is still in the dryer when he come home cause she has two sick kids at home, vomiting and shitting left and right. but on a smooth day, i'd say there shouldn't be any chores left undone in the evening. there will always be exceptinos. and it is nice if the husband chimes in at occasions like that. but it should then be a nice gesture and not a recuirement. everybody does their part. one goes out and tries to do a good job to bring home some money, the other one tries to put that money to good use to create a cozy home and life for the WHOLE family. i just realized that i have this mental image about a stay at home mom: the husband goes out every day to "fight his battles" and she in turn makes the home a shelter he can come home to and recharge for the next day. might be silly but i like it

>>17046555
>Why is this so looked down on?
Since ancient times, societies have paid lip service to the idea that traditional feminine gender roles ought to be respected. But also since ancient times, ot has rarely if ever been more than lip servoce. The first wave of feminism sought, in part, to change this: although they fought to lessen the rigidity of societal gender roles, they also preached respect for the traditionally feminine.

The second wave took a very different approach: they not only bought into societal disrespect for the traditionally-feminine roles, seeing them as inherently "lesser", they took that disrespect to even more virulent levels than most ancient societies did. They claimed that these roles were outright unnecessary: mere tools of oppression used by the patriarchy to keep women down. This turned out to be easier for most societies to swallow, because it was more similar to their existing beliefs, but it outright gutted the few professions that had traditionally been open to women: teaching, nursing, and, of course, childcare, along others. The role of housewife took a similar hit. Any woman wanting to do these things was constantly questioned or even mocked for "not wanting more", as you yourself have no doubt experienced.

Does this mean that the tradeoffs feminism has brought to modern society were not worthwhile? I don't think so; on balance, I think they've been worth it. But I do think it's important to acknowledge that tradeoffs were made: a possibility that a lot of second-wavers are loath to entertain.

>>17047163
>acknowledge that tradeoffs were made: a possibility that a lot of second-wavers are loath to entertain
so, can i safely dismiss the loathing of traditional gender roles as narrow-minded second-wavers ideology?

>>17046555

As a guy, in this day and age, I'd be worried about being used simply as a provider.
Not loved, not wanted, simply used because I have money.

Take into account that given you wouldn't be working, it would be harder for you to get a job if things went tit's up, I'd have to pay you more alimony and child support (for kids I might not even really get to be a father to) than I would if I were to marry a working mother.

Then there are issues with affordability. One income will have to provide for an eniter family, a mortgage, bills etc. That's gonna be expensive. What happens if I lose that job, we'd also need to save so much that we really couldn't afford any luxuries. We'd never really get to enjoy any of our money.
Another issue is, again, if things go tit's up and we end up like 50% of marriages and get divorced - I'd likely be ending up paying extortionate amounts of alimony and child support, on top of paying a mortgage on a house that you'll most likely get to keep... I'd literally become unable to provide for myself after that. Situations like these often lead men to jail because they end up having to choose to pay all of these, or buying some food or getting a shelter over their heads.

So why do I look down on it?
Because it's not likely to be feasable, and these days, it puts a great deal of risk on men.

Now I know everyone is looking at the bright-side, a sweet loving woman who'll cook and clean. But 50% of marriages end in divorce and 100% of married men thought that wouldn't happen to them. So fuck the rose tinted glasses.

There's nothing stopping you from suddenly one day turning, claiming "all men are pigs" and letting the magazines get into your head. Particularly if you get bored at home all day and actually start paying attention to the misandric media.

One moment you're the sweetest girl in the world, and the next you're striving for empowerment through divorce.
Divorce is a $50billion industry, they have way to make you want it.

>>17047287
>Not loved, not wanted, simply used because I have money

i see. i mean, the risk is there. but is there a scenario that would not make you doubt her intentions?

>it would be harder for you to get a job if things went tit's up
it's true, my career would be on hold. but that doesn't mean i can't get into it again. especially in my field, moms get cut a lot of slack when starting to work again. that's actually a reason i choosed this career too...

> I'd have to pay you more alimony and child support (for kids I might not even really get to be a father to) than I would if I were to marry a working mother.

that's also true. but only in case of divorce. and there's always the option to get tested if the kids really are yours.

>issues with affordability
you can't live in a villa with a big car and go on fancy vacations every year on a single income, yes. but it IS doable. maybe you'll have to cut back a bit on luxuries, but it would only be for a comparably short amount of time. let's say, till the kids are around 5-7 and she can go back to work again. so, 5 years of not going on FANCY vacations( there are cheap options too...)? i think that would be worth the benefits.

>What happens if I lose that job
then you will have to find a solution. this is an emergency situation. she will have to do HER part too to get over this. if she can get a job, she will have to take it. but that won't be a problem cause you can then look after the kids, and so on. that's where creativity is asked for.

>if things go tit's up and we end up like 50% of marriages and get divorced
firstly, being a stay at home mom doesn't AUTOMATICALLY imply that you need to get married. and secondly, this is in your hands too. if you get marreid for the right reasons and to the right person, with the ability to have a mature and healthy realtionship, chances are BIG that you are going to en up inside the whopping 50% that STAYS married.

cont.

First thing, so caring what other people think.

Find a guy who's values align with yours, get married, have as many kids as you both want, raise them with the values associated with Western Civilization, die happily surrounded by them and your grandchildren, and you will have done more good with your life than most people of your generation

>>17047320
>Situations like these often lead men to jail because they end up having to choose to pay all of these, or buying some food or getting a shelter over their heads
i know that's an actual posibility in america. and it baffles me. but i'm PRETTY sure that you won't end in jail if you go and declare that you don't have enough money first thing. then you might have to collect wellfare, but you won't end up on the streets or in jail. if you do, i just assume that you are too proud to collect wellfare, which is a stupid kind of pride in a situation like this. but again, if you take precautions, there is little chance that this ACTUALLY happens to you

>Because it's not likely to be feasable, and these days, it puts a great deal of risk on men.
i agree on the risk. but i don't agree on feasibility. if you are willing to make a budget and stick to it, and also willing to not live in unnecessary luxury for 5 short years, it is very doable.

> So fuck the rose tinted glasses
and instead never give it a try? what do you plan to do then? not get married at all? not have a relationship at all? not have kids at all? what do you plan to do all the long rest of your life then?

>Particularly if you get bored at home all day and actually start paying attention to the misandric media
i get that this might be a problem with girls who have never had a political opinion or thought about gender roles in the first place. ones who have no "own opinion" to start out with. i don't think i'm at risk for that. i think i'm pretty much over that whole second-wave feminism and can spot that ideology from afar. but sure, i can never guarantee anything, i'm not a "clearvoyant".

>Divorce is a $50billion industry, they have way to make you want it
sure it is. but if you are aware, i doubt that this "propaganda" can get to you.

>>17047337
based advice. i'll fucking do that. thanks anon

>>17047337
to add: my only concern is that this >>17047287
ideology has already spread too far and guys are now very reluctant to do what you lined out. that why i tried to find out what exactly it is that makes people think it's a bad idea. but this thread was pretty helpfull.

>>17047342

You're welcome. Be the best stay at home mom you can, enjoy your life, and anyone who doesn't like it can go piss off

>>17046555
>Why is this so looked down on?
Some people need something to look down on.
Those that put a lot of stock in career advancement tend to look down on it especially if their own careers aren't going well since they don't have a lot of other things to look down on. Basically some people see it as a game everyone is playing and where the only people who say they're not are just the ones who lost.
That said, it's undeniably gotten easier in recent times. The whole women with real jobs thing was prompted by labor saving equipment which meant buying them and spending your time working to pay for them was a better deal. It's the same old story, machines that make your job easier end up taking it from you.

>I will still do it, no matter what everyone thinks of me, but i would really like to know why this is not acceptable anymore?
It's fine, ignore the tryhards desu.

A fair number of guys will be reluctant but you only need to find one

>>17047372
>Those that put a lot of stock in career advancement tend to look down on it especially if their own careers aren't going well since they don't have a lot of other things to look down on. Basically some people see it as a game everyone is playing and where the only people who say they're not are just the ones who lost.
interesting concept... i can see some truth in that. atleas in what i have experienced personally. thanks for giving me food for thoughts, anon

>>17047372
Fake edit:
There's also the recent issue where company loyalty is more or less dead and people can expect to get laid off at any given time. This obviously is less of a problem when both people in a relationship are working.

>>17047236
>so, can i safely dismiss the loathing of traditional gender roles as narrow-minded second-wavers ideology?
Not quite. The second wave tapped into it and exacerbated it, and it probably wouldn't have taken its modern form without them. But at its core, it's much, much older than that.

>>17047382
very true! thank go i already found my "one".

>>17047385
>when both people in a relationship are working.
fair enough. but then again i think there is a difference between being aware of possible risks aka healthy respect of "what if's" and straigt up fear of the future. the first one is something to take into consideration. the second one is not something i want to guide my actions and decisions

>>17047386
>But at its core, it's much, much older than that.
as you stated earlier: then why is it that society never went beyond "paying lip service" to it? why does humanity not value the work of a mother very highly? i know there are cultures who do, more so than western culture. but still, why is this not a common thing? what happened? evolutionary seen, it is one of the most important work you can do.

In a capitalist society, the only work that is generally valued is work that someone makes money doing.

Happy stay at home moms are counter cultural that way.

>>17047420
but doesn't it somehow make money? imagine a family with two kids who are toddlers. they aren't in kindergarden yet, so they need to go to daycare for the mother to be able to go to work. that'll cost money. usually, tarifes are directly related to your income. so, if you and your wife make more money, you have to pay more. then there's the problem of taking care of the household. either you get help with that, which also costs money, or you do it after work/on weekends, which MIGHT lead to you both being stressed, which might lead to "less than stellar performance" at work, which leads to "counter cultural detoriation". then you probably also need two cars to juggle two working parents and organizing that the kids are at the right place to the right times every day. costs money. then it might happen more often that you are too busy to cook, which might lead to eating out or ordering food. which is more expensive than "homecooked meals from scratch". also, stay at home moms can take over work that otherwhise would cost a lot of money too. you might be able to take in your elderly grandma instead of putting her in a home for the elders. or she can simply check up on your sick dad, bring him some medicine and change his bedsheets. something you would need an organisation for (i don't know if that concept is in place in america too, but hereit's called spitex. people who take care of old and sick people at home). which wuold cost a TON of money.

>>17047444
in the end, sure, her income might just be even with the expenses. but then you also have the "non material benefits", like less strain on the relationship, more controle how your kids are raised (i worked in daycare for a while. it's fucking HORRIBLE how they handle kids...), a home wich feel more like an actual "home", and so on. sure, those thing's aren't ruled out by a working mom, but pretty often, they are. and on the other hand, having a stay at home wife doens't automatically mean that all this is in place. but it should. or else you need to have a serious talk.

Sure, but most people don't look that deeply into the economics. Also, our hyper individualistic system doesn't see the economics of a family unit. Two wage earners are assumed. Capital likes it that way as it increases the paid labor force and puts downward pressure on wages

>>17047460
>don't look that deeply into the economics
then they really should.

>our hyper individualistic system doesn't see the economics of a family unit
a fucking shame. why not? it's pretty "in yo face" for me...

>increases the paid labor force
>downward pressure on wages

so, feminists are essentially just the canon fodder of a capitalistic agenda? neat

Why even bother going to school if you're just going to end up at home all day...

>>17047505
because the time i would stay at home with kids would be rather short since i would take up working parttime again as soon as my presence isn't needed 100% anymore.

>I mean, obviously i would go the extra mile since this is my JOB.

Pretty fucking cushy, self indulgent "job"

Off topic, OP, you mentioned you're a special-ed teacher,How is that like?

I'm a male robot who's doing liberal studies (teaching) and I have to choose a focus. Btw, are male teachers discriminated against? I still have time to change careers, I guess.

>>17047515
depends. if you do it right, it's pretty demanding and time consuming. otherwise, i do agree. but there are other jobs you can do that aren't very demanding either. so what exactly is your point?

>>17047505
Because a person who stays home is still educating their children, voting, driving, and fulfilling any number of other duties and responsibilities associated with being a member of civilisation.

If you think we only need to educate people who 'do things' with their life, you're ignoring one of the main reasons we bother educating people at all. Even if they don't use their education in a practical sense, they and civilisation at large still benefit from educated citizens.

>>17047519
>male teachers discriminated against?
no, not at all. infact, they get priorized. simply because it's better for kids to have male AND female attachment persons. and most poeple in special needs care are female, so as a male, you have NO problem getting a job. i also worked with (mentally and physically) disabled older people. it's the same. they need guys there DESPERATELY. if you hand in an application in this field as a guy, chances are you get that job without any questions asked.

on how it is: i really love my job. it's demanding sometimes, sure. but if you generally have a patient and empathic side, you're in the right place. people always talk about how bad it is to be a teacher. but in special needs, it's very different. the classes are held small. we only have up to 8 kids/class. you also area always more caregivers. we're never alone with those 8 kids. and the focus is on individually encourage every single child to live up to THEIR potentioal. there are no grades and no general learning targets, so you don't have the stress of "getting done with this and that topic before the year is over". you can work with the tempo of every kid individually. it's pretty neat. and also, the payment is a lot better.
do it, anon! it's an awesome job.

>>17047535
thank you for providing me insight into the field, lady-anon.

i hope this works out for me because i just want a comfy and stable job. i live in california, and teachers are also paid here adequately. .but still, do you know if most girls would balk at a teacher's salary though? In other words, do you think they might feel that it's not enough? That's my remaining concern.

Most current mainstream feminist thought serves the capitalist agenda very well.

An educated mother is better equipped to raise smarter and healthier children

Those were two different replies to two different conversations, btw

>>17047550
i'm from europe, so i have no idea about living costs and salaries in california. but i'm pretty confident that the salary of a guy that had some education and is working fulltime ALWAYS is enough. maybe not for a golddigger, but you want to scare those away anyways, so win-win.
i'd be happy with a teacher as a husband.

oh, and special needs is pretty stable since a lot of the money is from the government. i don't know what it's called in america, but here, disabled people get paid for education and such by the gov. you get checked pretty rigidly, if you deserve that money, but if you do, you get quiet a lot.

>>17046555

>why is a stay at home mother frowned upon
Because of feminism
>but feminism is about empowering yourself to do what you want
No it's not.

>>17047558
you should really learn how to respond, anon... it's difficult to keep a convo going like that.

it's not that hard. just click on the number at the end of the row that starts with "anonymous" from the post you want to reply to.

>>17047562
>hypocrisy

>>17047559
Ah, okay. Yeah, there may or may not be a difference in terms of economics here. Obviously, at least Western Europe, pays its public employees a lot better etc. In the U.S. public sector jobs are often held in low regard because of the low salaries.

Well yeah, I'm hoping the things you said carry over and are universal. Again, thanks for the input.

As for your post, OP. I'd like to give you my support. You have proven yourself to be a hard worker, an educated young woman, who doesn't need a man to carry her through life. You have nothing to prove to anyone because you've already accomplished a lot. Your significant other is lucky to have you. I can only hope that I'll find a genuine and hard working young lady like you someday. If becoming a stay-at-home mom will make you happy, then please do it and ignore the nay-sayers!

Best of luck.

>>17047565
Yeah, but on my phone, it is a PITA

>>17047570
>pays its public employees a lot better
meh, being a public school teacher doesn't pay very much. especially regarding that you need a degree to do so.
but special needs is different. you have a phlethora of different jobs. most people at our school aren't "teachers". they mostly are social pedagogues or remedial teachers. those jobs pay better than simply being a "teacher". i'd say we're talking about 80-100'00 a year. which is PLENTY. and since it's basically a gov job, they have different wage levels than in the private sector.
i'd say, venturing into special needs care and all surroundin jobs is definitely worth it. my mom got into it when i started too. she got a degree as a social worker and is now the team leader in a residentail group for adults with disabilities. she makes around 90'000 after 4 years education and working in the field for 4 more years. pretty fast career if you ask me.

thanks so much, anon. i really appreciate your words. i would still do it, regardless of what people think of me, but i like to grasp the concepts behind stuff. that's why i asked.

best of luck to you too!

>>17047576
i'm on my phone too... you can do this. it's just a little effort that goes a long way.

>>17047339
>and instead never give it a try? what do you plan to do then? not get married at all? not have a relationship at all? not have kids at all? what do you plan to do all the long rest of your life then?

Be single, and safe.

>sure it is. but if you are aware, i doubt that this "propaganda" can get to you.
You ever hear a joke, know it's a joke, and still somehow, you find it funny.
I've heard girls, sweet as day, nicest girls you'll ever meet who hated the feminazi shitstorm brewing up in colleges, in their weakest moments will utter hateful shite like "all men are pigs".

All it takes is one bad day to give into confirmation bias and become hateful.

It doesn't matter what I or she knows, it matters what shitstorm could come and tear it all away.

The problem with long term plans, are that there is more time for things to go wrong.
I'd rather not bet everything I've ever earned and everything I ever will earn on a long term plan that'd last till the day I die.