#Tradwife

[Luckystrike123]

I really don't see the appeal.

I love my wife because she challenges me, doesn't need me to do stupid things like inflate her car tyres or fill her car up with petrol, I like our intellectual musings that are a result of her mind being active as a deputy head teacher, rather than just talking about our children all the time, I like the fact that we can manage on either of our incomes if something happened to either of us, I like that she is capable of making important decisions regarding our family, rather than it falling onto me all the time. I like the way she is with me because she wants to be, not because she relies on me and is trapped.

I'd be bored with a #tradwife in about a week.

My wife is a biology teacher who is leaving the profession (one that she hates) and we'll be taking up more traditional roles with me as the earner and her as a mother / house wife.

Honestly I'd prefer it if she liked her (good) job, but she doesn't, and she thinks the change will make her happy. I don't see that I'll be 'bored' with her because of a career change....

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Honestly I'd prefer it if she liked her (good) job, but she doesn't, and she thinks the change will make her happy.

I don't know many happy housewives.

As mentioned earlier, I tried the house husband thing, it was cool for a while (I didn't like my job either) but the happiness was short lived.

I don't see that I'll be 'bored' with her because of a career change....

For both your sakes let's hope not.

 

[Hades]

Yep I'm sick of women trying to be men. Gimme a tradwife any day.

Regarding the economics. Doubling the supply of labour has halved the price of it. The current 2 salaries are equal to what 1 mans salary would otherwise have been. Business is getting 2 workers for the price of one. And the family is worse off because they also have to pay childcare. Its why salaries havent gone up. If everyone did this tradwife thing the supply of labour would halve and salaries would rise. Once again the mans salary would cover everything.

I've been saying this for years. Obviously it's everyone's right to work, both man and woman. But in the past it was optional for a married woman to work. Nowadays it's just about compulsory. I can't help but thinking that the understandable push for equality has actually resulted in a worse life for everyone.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

I've been saying this for years. Obviously it's everyone's right to work, both man and woman. But in the past it was optional for a married woman to work. Nowadays it's just about compulsory. I can't help but thinking that the understandable push for equality has actually resulted in a worse life for everyone.

It's certainly got worse for the big men babies that want to replace their mum with a wife so they can carry on getting looked after

 

[Caracus2k]

I don't know many happy housewives.

But yet a common finding is declining self reported happiness for women over the decades as they have increased their degree of workforce participation?

Happiness inequality
Happiness inequality in the US and other rich countries

The General Social Survey (GSS) in the US is a survey administered to a nationally representative sample of about 1,500 respondents each year since 1972, and is an important source of information on long-run trends of self-reported life satisfaction in the country

Using this source, Stevenson and Wolfers (2008)....

..... the gender happiness gap has disappeared entirely (women used to be slightly happier than men, but they are becoming less happy, and today there is no statistical difference once we control for other characteristics

Perhaps these 'tradwives' are onto something?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

But yet a common finding is declining self reported happiness for women over the decades as they have increased their degree of workforce participation?



Perhaps these 'tradwives' are onto something?

Correlation != causation.

 

[Caracus2k]

Correlation != causation.

Says the person who provided anecdotal information!

Really?

 

[Angilion]

nope.
the whole point of equality is to replace slavery.

paying white men = x cost
paying black slaves = 0 cost
+ women not working

to

paying men 1/2 x cost
paying women 1/2 x cost

it's more workers, same money

all the rest of it is psychology to make people think it's their choice.

That makes no sense unless you're arguing that mass time travel is involved somehow.

For starters, slavery has never been common in the UK so your argument could never apply. But even if it had been (and it wasn't), slavery in the UK ended ~150 years before the 1950s. The first formal court ruling that slavery was illegal in the UK was in the 1770s and it was explicitly outlawed nationally not long afterwards. So your argument can't possibly be true.

I'll look up the dates for you:

Actually, it turns out that I was wrong. The first recorded formal legal ruling that slavery was illegal in the UK was a ruling in England in 1569. Not 1959. 1569. That ruling was later challenged, leading to a formal declaration upholding it by the Lord Chief Justice in 1701, which took it a step further and explicitly stated that any slave who set foot on England was automatically freed. This was again challenged, though not formally and sometimes ignored by people who sometimes got away with it, so it was again put to court of law and again upheld very explicitly by another Lord Chief Justice in 1772 (which was the legal ruling I was thinking of). Scotland followed suit in 1778, so that covered the whole of UK at the time. 1778. Not 1958. By 1808, the UK was at full on war against slavery and I mean literal war. Many Britons died fighting slavery in the early 1800s.

I can't think of a way in which you could be more wrong.

 

[Angilion]

It's very odd, it's like some parody of a 1950s housewife too, completely heightened these aspects of being subservient etc.. While women more traditionally stayed at home they didn't all do so and the dynamics didn't necessarily work like that. [..]

Agreed. Anyone who's read my posts here will know that I'm a bit fanatical in my opposition to sexed roles, gendered roles or gender in general. But I'm also opposed to lying about them, regardless of how fashionable it is to do so. The past was never as simple as feminist dom/sub fantasies.

Anecdote time...

My maternal grandfather worked almost all his life from the age of 14. Traditional for a man in those days. He never controlled the money he earned. Before he married, he gave his unopened wage packet to his mother. After he married, he gave his unopened wage packet to his wife. Nobody thought that was weird, unmanly or untraditional because it wasn't - that was traditional. Many "traditional wives" handled all the money - the head woman in the house ran the house, so she handled the house's money. Women's sphere of influence was in the house, men's was outside the house. Neither was necessarily subservient to the other.

 

[R.P.L]

Before he married, he gave his unopened wage packet to his mother. After he married, he gave his unopened wage packet to his wife.

Screw that

 

[413x]

I don't earn enough to have a tradwife

Wouldn't be opposed to it or desire it.
On plus side hey amazing cooking. On negative side less cash. Intelligence thing isn't really a thing. But staying at home all day (job or not ) could probably make a lot of people dull

But I don't earn enough anyway to consider it. Nor even enough to have kids

 

[moon man]

I don't earn enough to have a tradwife

Wouldn't be opposed to it or desire it.
On plus side hey amazing cooking. On negative side less cash. Intelligence thing isn't really a thing. But staying at home all day (job or not ) could probably make a lot of people dull

But I don't earn enough anyway to consider it. Nor even enough to have kids

I found the opposite that on a low wage the government would throw money at you with 2 kids and only 1 income ,i definitely wouldn't have bought down here for cash without that help and i dont think my daughter would be a Doctor (of science) ny other high up in Heritage with national trust, without my ex being a stay at home mum (moving on to part time and looking after her dad who was long term sick )
remember EMA ,they even paid your kids 30 quid a week to go to 6th form and then grants instead of loans ,bursary for uni.
wasnt playing the system ,it was just the situation ,the government can be embarrassingly generous

 

[Freakbro]

Amen. I couldn't think of anything worse in a partner.

I'd say a predilection for eating human flesh is probably up there.

 

[OpenToSuggestions]

Where do I find me of these women.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[robgmun]

Me and my wife both worked up until about 18 months ago, she was so stressed she needed to quit. She started to stay at home and just run her small Trading business from there and she's far happier and fitter.

It's different for every woman but the traditional roles just suit a majority of women, if someone whats to have a career and try to be sucessful then more power to them, but some feel very forced to be 'superwomen' have try to have it all and it causes more stress then they could possibly imagine.

 

[Randomface74]

That makes no sense unless you're arguing that mass time travel is involved somehow.

For starters, slavery has never been common in the UK so your argument could never apply. But even if it had been (and it wasn't), slavery in the UK ended ~150 years before the 1950s. The first formal court ruling that slavery was illegal in the UK was in the 1770s and it was explicitly outlawed nationally not long afterwards. So your argument can't possibly be true.

I'll look up the dates for you:

Actually, it turns out that I was wrong. The first recorded formal legal ruling that slavery was illegal in the UK was a ruling in England in 1569. Not 1959. 1569. That ruling was later challenged, leading to a formal declaration upholding it by the Lord Chief Justice in 1701, which took it a step further and explicitly stated that any slave who set foot on England was automatically freed. This was again challenged, though not formally and sometimes ignored by people who sometimes got away with it, so it was again put to court of law and again upheld very explicitly by another Lord Chief Justice in 1772 (which was the legal ruling I was thinking of). Scotland followed suit in 1778, so that covered the whole of UK at the time. 1778. Not 1958. By 1808, the UK was at full on war against slavery and I mean literal war. Many Britons died fighting slavery in the early 1800s.

I can't think of a way in which you could be more wrong.

Think globally.
UK owned most of the planet.
US imported africans as slaves.
Once this stuff ended they needed to replace the labour.
They did it by getting women to work. It's legal slavery because businesses got that labour for no extra cost.
There's a step after that too, once all your population is working - import more of them. That's why we're so "diverse". It's nothing about being tolerant or cultured, it's about creating more labour.
Next it's robots, cloning, etc.

 

[Angilion]

Think globally.

What does thinking globally have to do with the time travel required by your argument?

UK owned most of the planet.

No, it didn't.

US imported africans as slaves.

Slavery was outlawed in the USA in 1865. Which is before the 1950s. You're still arguing mass time travel. Also, the UK ceased to own the USA in 1776. Which is before the 1950s. And before 1865.

Some Islamic countries still had slavery in the 1950s. But perhaps you should think globally.

Once this stuff ended they needed to replace the labour.

So what did they do in the intervening ~100 years? Teleport women from the future in huge numbers...but that wouldn't work because then everyone would have known about it. So you'd have to add in memory wiping, the implantation of false memories and total control over all history books. But that still wouldn't work because of the huge number of women from the 1950s who suddenly went missing because they were teleported to the 1860s.

They did it by getting women to work. It's legal slavery because businesses got that labour for no extra cost.

The word "slavery" has a meaning. It's not the one you're using. You are arguing that women who work, for pay are legally owned by the employer, that they are property. That is simply untrue, regardless of how inequitable the employment relationship is. Also, it doesn't just apply to women. Even calling it serfdom would be at best hyperbole because there isn't a lifelong legal obligation to the employer.

You can make a valid point regarding the way work is implemented, the issues caused by massive variations in wealth and so on and so forth. Or you can not even bother trying and instead talk nonsense about it in an attempt to appeal to emotion.

There's a step after +that too, once all your population is working - import more of them. That's why we're so "diverse". It's nothing about being tolerant or cultured, it's about creating more labour.
Next it's robots, cloning, etc.

There you do have a point. Although I think probably not with cloning.

 

[Angilion]

Screw that

It wouldn't appeal to me either, but it was a widespread custom and I know it worked for that particular couple for decades of apparently happy marriage. It was widespread enough for people working for organisations helping elderly people to comment on it in my youth, stating that they often encountered elderly men who had outlived their wife and were in trouble because they didn't even know how to pay bills and suchlike as they'd never handled money. The custom had pretty much died out by then, but of course a fair few people were still alive from the time in which it was more common. It wasn't universal, of course, but it wasn't rare either. Reality has rarely if ever been as simple as the stereotypes created by the politics and prejudices of the people creating them. In this case feminists, but of course all irrationally prejudiced people do the same thing as part of rationalising their irrational prejudices.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I'd say a predilection for eating human flesh is probably up there.

In the right circles, that can be a tidy little earner, you know... I can think of several people who'd pay for a body disposal service!

 

[Blackjack Davy]

Sounds like yet another fad to me.

BTW Historically women have always worked, be it at home raising children, or out in the fields harvesting crops. Remember that until very recently it was entirely normal for a woman to have 8 or more children. Raising so many children is a full-time job. And there were no conveniences like washing machines. Washing clothes and sheets was hard work: women in villages didn't go down to the stream to do the laundry because they enjoyed it! Women worked at home so the men could work outside. It wasn't oppression; rather a division of labour.

And it was entirely common for single women to be servants.

Its interesting I was reading the biographical account by someone who grew up in a farming community women had separate but equal spheres of influence men worked the fields and women looked after things closer to the house presumably so they could keep an eye on the children including the dairy but it was an equal partnership they even had separate incomes and money was often passed down from mother to daughter and even granddaughter all quite separate from the males in the family he recalled when his father had an eye on horse but thought he could never afford it his wife bought it for him as an anniversary present totally surprising him, he had no idea and never inquired that was her business and no-one elses.

It was victorian middle class households where the idea of the stay at home, wife of leisure came about, middle class housewives couldn't be seen to be sullying their hands with the thought of actual work. What would the neighbours think? Thats what servants were for.

I don't earn enough to have a tradwife

Wouldn't be opposed to it or desire it.
On plus side hey amazing cooking. On negative side less cash. Intelligence thing isn't really a thing. But staying at home all day (job or not ) could probably make a lot of people dull

But I don't earn enough anyway to consider it. Nor even enough to have kids

My mother worked before she got pregnant with me but was forced to give up her job as a result, they really struggled on just my fathers income but that was how it employers dropped you and that was that. Can remember my mother washing clothes in the sink it can well remember the first washing machine it was like an alien had landed in the kitchen my mother was overjoyed. She did work later when we were at secondary school and worked till she retired afterwards. She tried to make like the good little housewife while not working but was never really happy infact I think she was pretty miserable.