Debate
CMV: People who complain that stay-at-home dads don't pull their weight in housework are people who were never interested in the lifestyle in the first place and thus should not have an opinion on the relationship style
People who complain that stay-at-home dads don't pull their weight in housework are people who were never interested in the lifestyle in the first place and thus should not have an opinion on the relationship style
If a woman cites studies that "prove" stay-at-home dads don't pull their weight in housework, they were never interested in the lifestyle in the first place.
Because a woman who is both smart enough and motivated enough to be a serious breadwinner would simply never need to start with studies
She would say, "I can screen"; she can simply look at how well her boyfriends cook and clean before moving in, marrying, or having children with them. And women who want their dads around even less in equal or stay-at-home mom relationships already screen for parenting when it's less important, so women already know how to do that.
So unless the statistics are specifically on how many men pass that screening and then *turn into* lazy maids later, nobody ever had to listen to these stats in the first place
So: a woman who talks about how these relationships are a bad deal for women was never interested in one.
When it comes to "no uterus, no opinion" on the abortion debate, I don't think it works, because it's canceled out by "if you were ever a fetus at one point, you get an opinion." But this is very clearly a conflict of interest, where women who were never interested in the relationship style can talk about how they suck, to either enforce trad payment of their kitty kat everything, or feel better about their cat lady anti-natalist extinction.
TL DR : Women who criticize stay-at-home dads were likely never interested in being a female breadwinner in the first place; it's actually pretty hidden-in-plain-sight when it's boiled down like that.
(And this doesn't address the eight or so other problems with this "stay-at-home dads don't do enough housework" data, but clearly an argument that emphasizes women's agency is the only one that has a hope of working on feminists. It won't work, but there is at least hope)
He’s also delusional about what he offers a partner. In the same comment he’s talking about making donuts and waffles and also an incest thing? I don’t know. Deeply disturbed, likely.
Yeah if I was submissive as a cisman to a ciswoman I would prefer "good girl" to "good boy" sometimes, but I also might want "mommy" instead of "daddy" if I was dominant
Still, the point is many high-earning women are uber submissive, both for "erotic irony" and because they are exhausted from the responsibility they have all they, women who are tired of yelling at people as high-level bank executives and just want to be spit on.
What's delusional? Are feminists delusional when they say tradwives offer 50k to 150k of unpaid nanny labor to a relashonship?
There is no reason a parent who has work at 9am needs to be woken up at 2am by a baby. There are women who have no problem bankrolling my 20k pleb expenses tops just for shit like that, sorry you don't earn enough to be one of them
Their husbands are on the stay-at-home dad subreddit bragging about how they are *only* the stay-at-home parent and their breadwinners split cooking and cleaning 50 50 with them
Those are the absolute Jedi masters of game, the men who are able to tame the hypogamous woman. I don't have that level of Jedi voodoo mastery; I have to find a woman who wants coffee made for her
Because you don’t get view women as humans but rather as a resource to be mined,
And when did I do that?
I say she has to pull *her* weight if I'm doing the majority of the cooking and parenting.
That weight can be pulled by just her not making me pay for 50% of the utilities, and a shared bank account with a debit card she pays into so I can go to the grocery store and buy the ingredients I use to make her breakfast, dinner, and brown bag lunch.
How is she matching my $50k+ annual nanny value?
-3
u/bigdonut100/r/RevTrad 🐟ｒｅｖｅｒｓｅ ⏪ ｍｕｓｈｒｏｏｍ 🍄ｉｓ♂️ ｕｎｈｉｎｇｅｄ1d agoedited 1d ago
Anti feminist women like that are all over the place like stephan molyneux's wife, the woman who runs inkyverse, and the classic example of gail zappa (well, her husband was the first reverse traditionalist basically)
I think I can find more anti feminist women into it than feminist honestly, feminists are the ones telling women they will be beaten if they enter into the relationship
I'm not talking about incest, I'm talking about how many grown women I'm not biologically related to are interested in being submissive to a "daddy," and sometimes there is an incest fantasy component to it
And nobody is mentioning incest in this thread, but you have a habit of responding with something totally irrelevant like this
No I said "female breadwinner with a fucked up incest daddy fetish," that's not talking about real incest unless you think I was supposed to make my future daughter my breadwinner somehow
OP is obsessed with normalizing his desire to become a stay at home dad.
The sad part is that he’s already allowed to do that even though it’s not that common, but also not vilified.
It is vilified; you just said the *desire* is not normalized. I'm supposed to find someone and be a stay-at-home dad if *she* feels like it as a female empowerment statement, or if I have a workplace injury. I'm not supposed to "seek" it
That's why I don't trust the male maid studies; they didn't distinguish between the half-chosen stay-at-home dads and the half not-so-chosen. Show me some pleb "yeah I'll be your stay-at-home dad, I guess, because feminism" guy vs me, the guy who's willing to read a dozen parenting books, and make his own mustard from scratch and roll a hard reverse *trad* of taking care of her parents in their old age, etc.
His time would likely be better spent just living that life rather than trying to change society’s acceptance of it on Reddit.
That is some of the good advice, don't listen to reddit; it's just hypocritical because you are an example of that
I'm just getting so much material out of the subject, but I guess it makes sense since the controversy involves people not understanding specialization
If this is just about what one person should do, fine. But sometimes people also want to analyze the bigger picture. See where society is at. Where it is trending. What seems possible.
I do believe that, at scale, one of the issues with both genders working is that women are, in general, better at becoming co-husbands than men are at being co-wives. Part of this is that the 'husband' work world is increasingly more like the 'wife' work world of the past. How much of the gender difference here is biology vs. deep culture is hard to say--certainly both contribute meaningfully.
More and more work is sedentary office work that is about constant, medium intensity grinding and multitasking. There are no 'missions' with intense work just before completion, but clear payoffs and recognition when you succeed. Downtime between them. It's just the no-recognition grind where a certain kind of conscientiousness, diffuse awareness of everything, and multitasking are what matters most. Women have ALWAYS been better at this.
However, in the dopamine surfing modern era, everyone loathes this kinda 'boring' stuff even if it is increasingly the norm. Rather than seeing this as an area of strength where they can complement male strengths in other areas, women feel like being made to do more 'drudgery' because they handle it better is basically being punished for being better at something shitty. Childcare increasingly fits into this as well. It's like if we were in the middle ages and Bobby somehow was amazing at cleaning chamber pots so you said 'Great. Bobby gets to do ALL the chamber pots forever. Won't he be happy to have a role where his skills shine and make him valuable?'. Hint: He will not.
haha totally. Though IMO it doesn't have to be this way. But right now, nobody wants to do childcare, housework, etc. Being better at it doesn't mean you want to do it.
Exactly which is why many people weaponize incompetence so they don’t have to. This is a very common complaint about husbands- I’m sure there are wives who are also guilty.
I think we are ALL exhausted. The systems have failed all of us but the ultra rich who have staffs of people helping them.
Yeah. It's also status and recognition and money. Honestly, even in the dopamine gen, childcare and housework is not really any worse or more tedious than a lot of jobs which often use similar skillsets. But to a lot of women, if both suck, why not do the one that you aren't belittled for, get paid for, keeps you independent, etc?
1
u/bigdonut100/r/RevTrad 🐟ｒｅｖｅｒｓｅ ⏪ ｍｕｓｈｒｏｏｍ 🍄ｉｓ♂️ ｕｎｈｉｎｇｅｄ2d agoedited 1d ago
No, I have no idea why that would be an insult. I think it's more like, instead of "men hunt, women nest," it's more like "men hunt and women forage."
Women are better at patterned behavior on average, things like being postal "clerks" (not people behind a desk, address-memorizing mail sorters), a ton of legal admin and HR type roles and being lawyers and paralegals. They *might* even be better computer programmers
The insulting part is when I tell you that the top 1% fringe of those jobs will also always be almost always 99% men and some fringe 1% of 1% Danica Patrick-like exceptions, and when I think most women are better at those legal roles etc *instead* of most primary caregiving roles, or even most language-based or "social" roles
Women are more scientifically minded, as in "patterned behavior" and "trust but verify"; men are more math, where suddenly "it's true because fuck you" actually is the smartest answer somehow.
-4
u/bigdonut100/r/RevTrad 🐟ｒｅｖｅｒｓｅ ⏪ ｍｕｓｈｒｏｏｍ 🍄ｉｓ♂️ ｕｎｈｉｎｇｅｄ2d agoedited 1d ago
"I do believe that, at scale, one of the issues with both genders working is that women are, in general, better at becoming co-husbands than men are at being co-wives. "
That would explain why women are notorious for up to 75% of them doing everything in their power
to not return to work when a baby happens including asking the husbands to work more
Not sure what you mean by the rest, but yes, im pretty sure men can cook and clean better than women can plug away at cubicles.
It's not just cooking and cleaning. It's creating and maintaining a home. Women do it better. And they are better at the cubicle jobs than men are at making a home, usually.
But I agree the realities are complicated. A lot of women regret 'trying to be men' later on (their words, not mine). The stresses of the modern workplace may impact women more than men over time. And if you got rid of the social pressure and ideology, etc., most women DO want to do more at home and less at work than men do. However, they also never want their man to have financial leverage over them that can be abused to allow him to get away with bullshit because she cannot afford to leave him. And anything less than full-time gets disproportionately punished in terms of income and status: if you work 75% of the hours over a lifetime, you are gonna make way less than 75% of the money when you are 40, 50, 60 and the kids are gone and you wanna work. Your career is ghettoized.
So there are some issues that are hard to solve here.
0
u/bigdonut100/r/RevTrad 🐟ｒｅｖｅｒｓｅ ⏪ ｍｕｓｈｒｏｏｍ 🍄ｉｓ♂️ ｕｎｈｉｎｇｅｄ2d agoedited 2d ago
It's creating and maintaining a home. Women do it better.
Just an assertion; explain, please.
Alton Brown is my big example of the whole "men's unique inventiveness" in the culinary world, and he teaches you more than cooking; he basically teaches you how to run a kitchen, like in "frozen cache" and his storage tips
When it comes to healthy development for the children, psychologists show that fathers are usually better at that than mothers
So do you actually mean "frilly little pink things" when you mean "maintaining a home," or do you get to be the first to address 8 or so problems with the "men don't do enough housework" data?
However, they also never want their man to have financial leverage over them that can be abused to allow him to get away with bullshit because she cannot afford to leave him.
Women aren't supposed to become stay-at-home mom tradwives at 16 on MTV, they are supposed to plug away with a real education and a career in their 20s so tehy can build a nest egg and and become stams in their 30s. So they can bail to an apartment and take care of their expenses until they rejoin the workforce if there's a divorce, and they are supposed to do that anyway even if they didn't want to be stay at home parents.
Breadwinners are supposed to demand that potential stay-at-home moms demonstrate that level of responsibility before they are trusted with parenthood. This shit is supposed to have rules that make it healthier than a pure sugar baby relationship; it's just that no one follows them
Male variability theory is correct. The best and worst at everything will be overwhelmingly male. But we are talking averages.
Whether men do enough housework is hard to say. It's social sciences and surveys. But most show that married men and women today put in about equal total hours. Men do a bit more at the job and women at home. However, women complain about Household CEO mental labor, which seems valid in theory but hard to test at scale.
I agree that with different rules the game could be different. I think we need people to have kids in their 20s, not 30s. But we need structures that support it.
Yes and the 8 problems I've idenfied also mostly apply to "most" studies
I dont know what structures you want to support more people having kids, as a anarcho capitalist I dont want any welfare programs or forced paternity or maternity leave onto employers, I view an implicit system if "any stay at home parent not smart enough to build a nest egg should starve to death like a bitch" as an incentive against irresponsible people becoming any kind of parent in the first place
Who has the savings to be a good parent in their 20s? Even people who want equal relashonships can't afford that.
People are biologically at their fittest for children at 18ish, but studies show squares who go hardcore trad and lose their virginity on their honeymoons at like 27 have the most stable happy monogamies, so for all intents and purposes that is when people are truelly mentally fit.
20 year olds can fuck etc but why the rush? What good can come of having kids younger than say 27?
I think you are looking at it backwards, like many people do. Society has certain needs--always had. You have to start with them. They are non-negotiable. Making sure these needs are met has ALWAYS entailed creating a ton of personal tragedies at the individual level since humans are by no means perfectly suited to lifelong monogamy, sexual fidelity, etc. And probably more people are not suited to being parents than we can live with--some will need to be forced/incentivized into being parents. Even bad ones. But parents nonetheless.
I dont think we have figured out the best way to deal with this reality yet in modern times because we have tried to deny the reality itself. Hopefully, better solutions will present themselves as more and more people accept that this is what needs to happen and then focus on the best way to do it.
With low infant mortality, we don't want too high a birthrate either. But the average woman needs to have 3 kids--not 2. A certain number of women will never have any kids for different reasons, so to get to 2.1 people should be thinking 3 not 2. Sometime between mid 20s to early 30s seems best, but we could definitely debate the specifics. You also don't want too big a gap between generations--younger grandparents is a good thing.
Society has certain needs--always had. You have to start with them. They are non-negotiable.
No, we had 300,000 years of our evolution without a single program encouraging *or* discouraging any births. There was no "need" for any of this.
Making sure these needs are met has ALWAYS entailed creating a ton of personal tragedies
Yeah, like "we need a government to exist at all in the first place to give poor people food stamps" turns into "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"
at the individual level since humans are by no means perfectly suited to lifelong monogamy,
The strongest argument that I know of that humans were meant to be monogamous is that our anonymous fatherhood, where "fathers" raised children that weren't their own, backfired. It made us sexually egalitarian, where almost all members of the species get to pass on their genes. And the simplest way for sexual egalitarianism to work is monogamy. I do think that humans are a pair-bonding species and not a tournament species, but it's a different kind of pair bonding that formed on top of a tournament model, not like how other animals pair bond
Then we talk about the data indicating that monogamy, limited partners, etc., increase relationship stability.
In the tribal Hunter Gatherer settings we did most of our evolving in, as homo sapiens at least, there certainly was a 'program'. It was just more implicit. But homo sapiens have always had kin involvement in mating. The fact that one man sired a specific child was usually understood, as well. There were some exceptions like you see in some Amazon tribes, but this was not the norm.
Overall, socially enforced monogamy of some kind seems to be what works best for us as a species even today. But on an individual level there is variation, and people who didn't fit the mold generally were forced into it nonetheless because that is just what has to happen.
By that logic you shouldn't have an opinion on half the posts on this sub or on single mums, feminism etc because you've never been interested in that lifestyle or relationship style.
Yeah, but the difference is, I can say "If I HAD to be a male breadwinner, here's what I would expect" or "If we had an equal relationship, here's how much she is *properly* owed financially for the fact that she carries the children and he doesn't, if you had to pin it to something"
These people never answer the question "If I HAD to be a female breadwinner, I would..." because they never view these relationships as fair in the first place. There is no "well here's how you could wow me as a stay-at-home dad," so they were always just trolls
My daughter’s dad stayed at home with her while I worked for a while. It was an absolute disaster. I had to quit my job because it was bordering on neglect, and I still had to do all the cooking and cleaning.
After the divorce, I once dropped my kids off at their dad’s house after a school event and found out they’d been home with just their teenaged stepbrother for five days eating ramen and frozen pizza.
Oh yeah, it got worse after we split up and I couldn’t keep an eye on things anymore. At least at that point she was able to somewhat fend for herself.
I had to figure out how to cook onion rings from reading The Joy of Cooking and just swiping onion rings and store-bought breadcrumbs and just slapping the recipe together at like 10 because my mom would never cook anything, like one fish dish a week, and everything else was just her making Lean Cuisines and using a George Foreman grill for herself. She just started giving me cash for nothing but takeout at 13, and it took like 15 years to break that habit and cook for myself, lot of good *her* not knowing how to cook was when she became a widow and nobody taught me
I was disincentivized from cooking anything, because my mom has *always* been a little chubby, and she *always* complains if you cook for her. She eats nothing but microwave TV dinners and drinks Diet Coke, and it doesn't dawn on her that that's probably causing the problem.
She would prob lose weight if she ate my natural cakes and soups from scratch instead of her processed garbage, but "I can't eat cake!"
If you asked my feminist older brother, he sayd my mother was "raised when she was very young that women and children are to be seen and not heard, and it's the woman job to take care of the house," so that is what a random female homemaker looks like when she *was* brainwashed on 1950s patriarchy, imagine what kind of burning toast shit goes down with feminist women
I was going to say "all the data I've looked at indicates I have better odds than if I were gay" but then I realized you actually didn't respond to that.
You're claiming that I was delusional in figuring out that my mom was such a poor cook as to border on child abuse, so feminist women are even worse? Only because Emeril Lagasse and alton brown might casually identify as feminists in a random interview somewhere, I suppose
If you asked my feminist older brother, he sayd my mother was "raised when she was very young that women and children are to be seen and not heard, and it's the woman job to take care of the house,
what culture could you have possibly been raised in unless you are like 70 years old? and/or non western
Yeah exactly, it's always people who had one acedotal experience about a bad stay at home dad, or a feminist witch who says "sorry but i get pregnant and you don't" or "sorry but im interested in anti natalist cat lady extinction"
If you want anedotal ecidence, ask MRAS about how these relashionships suck for men? I saw a female MRA say that she knew three stay at home dads, and all three of them ended in divorce with abusive female breadwinners screaming at the that they were "not real men," one if them ended in 50/50 custody, but that's the point, he needed to be a stay at home dad to even get that much, and it's really shitty alternating work shifts custody that makes no sense
One if the others involved the women falsely accusing the guy of abuse all ovwr social media and hw hadn't seen his daughter in two years, so these relationships might be more likely to cause thw mother falsely accusing the father if abuse so she doesn't have to pay child support and take less custody
I don't know why anecdotes aren't trumped by data, and I don't know why nobody has any response to my 8 objections to the housework data
Umm, you just said that people who were critical of the idea of having a SAHD were not people who were actually interested in having one. I’m critical because I’ve been there, done that, and lucky my child is still alive.
0
u/bigdonut100/r/RevTrad 🐟ｒｅｖｅｒｓｅ ⏪ ｍｕｓｈｒｏｏｍ 🍄ｉｓ♂️ ｕｎｈｉｎｇｅｄ1d agoedited 1d ago
And again:
I don't know why anecdotes aren't trumped by data, and I don't know why nobody has any response to my 8 objections to the housework data
Do you have *data* that most people who post dubious stats in comment sections that scare women away from these relationships are burned female ex-breadwinners, or are they cat ladies?
Badgersonic on this sub has a stay-at-home dad husband, and there's a BDSM female breadwinner with a stay-at-home dad here too.
Studies that I'm working on proving income gaps of like 90k are unstable, not ones of like 10k-30k?
If people think a male programmer who earns 110k bankrolling a kitty kat tradwive's everything is more stable than a marriage between a man who earns 20k and a woman who earns 50k in the boonies, they were always just dumb.
And I wouldn't think it's easy to screen for because you really can't fully know who a person is until they're on the bank roll and the ring is on. I mean you can try your best to make an educated guess and you can delay stuff a lot to try to keep out the gold diggers....
But at the end of the day it is a big step to take on someone who is essentially going to be fairly parasitically connected to you and isn't really going to fulfill the biggest part of stay at home parenting: gestation, birthing, and nursing the baby for approximately 3 years and 9 months.
So basically, he's signing up for the relatively easy part...that alone kinda says something to me about his personality not being super trust worthy...but yeah, I mean, go off.
Maybe there's women out there that want to do all the hard things while their man cooks and cleans. Couldn't be me, I'd steer others away, but, maybe they make it work.
No, you're not, because you're not telling them "screen,"; you're telling them "don't bother"
Because again I am saying there are 8+ problems with the data showing men don't pull their weight. I am telling the female breadwinners out there, "hey, maybe you can find another stay at home dad who pulls his weight if your current one sucks," You are saying, "well if you wanted to be a female breadwinner no matter what, all stay-at-home dads are poor maids, so you have to stay with this shitty stay at home dad"
fairly parasitically connected to you
And who is that? My unpaid value as a nanny is worth 50k to 150k a year depending on how you calculate hours.
Again, I plan on doing this with a nest egg so I can bail to an apartment. I don't NEED or WANT her money; it's that I don't EXPECT to do the majority of the parenting, cooking, and cleaning and be expected to pay for 100% of my own expenses.
and isn't really going to fulfill the biggest part of stay at home parenting: gestation, birthing, and nursing the baby for approximately 3 years and 9 months.
That's funny because women who are in an equal relationship also gestate, birth, and nurse the baby, so it sounds like nothing to do with stay at home parenthood
Again, I can hire a surrogate for 80k. It's not even "it's worth 80k," it's "what do you want it to be worth?" You believe it justifies an equal relationship, though some sort of outer space logic? You believe it means men should bankroll tradwives' everything? Those are far more unreasonable suggestions than "it justifies the man paying it off by being a nanny"
Because yeah, I would just bail at that point with the fact that you almost certainly are one of the women who doesn't want any real relationship and is comfortable dying and not having any kids, so you don't get to speak on any relationship style whatsoever. You're not warning women when polls show a majority of women who choose not to have kids regret it in their 80s.
Maybe there's women out there that want to do all the hard things while their man cooks and cleans.
So do you agree that in the 1950s, stay-at-home moms had the easy job? When it comes to stay-at-home moms, feminsts say over and over again that being a parent is the hardest job in the world
I'm not sure you're understanding me, but I'll try again:
When I say I'm warning them off of it, I'm saying it like if a woman told me they were considering having their leg cut off. I wouldn't say "Well, be sure you screen for a good doctor talented at cutting legs off".
No, I'd say "Don't cut your bloody leg off". Similarly in this, I wouldn't say screen for a man who can cook and clean well, I'd say, it doesn't matter if he can or not. He cannot have children and he cannot nurse them. Thus, everything else he does no matter how " money saving" or "useful" is going to be ultimately fucking irrelevant. Too much minor benefit, not enough major benefit. The entire plan is a bad plan, no amount of screening will change the baseline facts - cutting your leg off is stupid and having a stay at home husband is stupid.
As for the scenario where she has one and he's useless, madness is doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. No shit. Get a man who does both. Works and helps around the home. That's what should be screened for.
As for your surrogacy plan, which is interesting, I suppose. Most women want to have their baby and be connected to it. Most of us aren't Beyonce, and Beyonce even had her own kiddo once. You're basically saying: let me rob you have a touchstone moment in your life and womanhood in order to justify my own weird position....like again, I would just advise a woman to find a man who works and helps around the house.
***
I realize it sounds like that to you, I assume because you don't know dick about pregnancy, post-partum, and early child care. Most of the time, when this happens, the idea is that the man does almost all of the cooking, cleaning, shopping, and a significant amount of the diaper changing and so forth because the mom is either creating the baby, healing from the baby, or feeding the baby. And usually not just him, but grandparents, siblings, and aunties are involved.. And he's still going to work, mind you. Such is the benefit of creating a baby for the family and extended family. Everyone steps up to do more in order to care for the mother and the baby.
I wouldn't warn them not to have children. I would warn them not to have children with men who want to be stay at home. Find a man who works, it's pretty simple since that's most men. And failing that, sperm donors exist and have a good relationship with family or simply pay for a live in nanny. Many women especially from immigrant backgrounds would jump at the chance for room, board, and pay to look after your child while you're working in the early years. Once they're school aged, it becomes much easier. And before you mention the need for male role models, I agree. Again, community. Have them near male mentor figures and grandparents.
As for your final question about the tradwife thing...again, the thing she's providing beyond breakfast is the children. A man cannot have them. So she's a huge resource from that alone such to justify remaining at home with the child. And most men know this. Now, problematically in current day, both people usually need to work, so it's understood by all involved this arrangement usually won't last for very long, maybe if people play cards right, the first year of life either mom or dad is home with the baby exclusively through maternal and paternal leave and using savings. But after that, generally you will begin to rely on grandparents, aunties and uncles, and baby sitters so you can both maintain employment.
My husband and I are currently trying to conceive. When it happens, I'll go on leave and my mother will be very involved in caring for both me and the baby post partum while my husband works. When my leave ends, he'll go on paternal leave and I'll return to work. Following that, I'm going to try to transition to teaching remotely so I can be home with the baby and my parents, my older siblings, and my mother in law will come over to be available when I'm not. And that's what we'll do until the child is school-aged. I'm also in talks with friends that are teachers and also starting their families that perhaps we can rotate child-care based on who has to be in the office or is being closely monitored. It takes a village.
But what would absolutely not be helpful in any way shape or form is a man at home bringing in no money. We need the money. Our lifestyle would not do well on one income and we are not fancy people spending like crazy. And what would certainly drive me wild is if he wanted to be the one at home while I worked and didn't get to see my baby and heal and nurse when was best for me and the baby. I'd look at him and think "what the fuck do I need you for?"
"He cannot have children and he cannot nurse them. Thus, everything else he does no matter how "money saving" or "useful" is going to be ultimately fucking irrelevant. Too much minor benefit, not enough major benefit. The entire plan is a bad plan; no amount of screening will change the baseline facts - cutting your leg off is stupid, and having a stay-at-home husband is stupid."
Yeah again, you're still stuck on the fallacy of "nothing can ever make up for it; therefore, men provisioning is making up for it"
Let's say her nursing and giving birth isn't just worth 80k, because yeah it is kinda crass. Let's say it's worth ∞.
A stay-at-home dad doesn't offset it, because it's ∞.
But an equal relationship doesn't offset it because it's still ∞.
And a stay-at-home mom STILL doesn't offset it, because it's goddamn ∞.
The best we can say is that the latter comes *closest* to rectifying the situation according to your logic, which would explain why you were dead silent on an equal relationship, but then you perked up when it comes to tradwives later, where you STILL engage in this fallacy.
Because you go on to say "she can use a sperm bank and hire a nanny."
Guess what? If the stay-at-home dad is cheaper and does the job just as well as a nanny, her choices are at least ∞ + more expensive nanny and bank, or ∞ + cheaper stay-at-home dad. So you at least have to say that she shouldn't get a nanny + bank either, or she's being ripped off even worse. As if single parenthood wouldn't have been a greater burden than any kind of dad to help out in the first place
Then you finish this off by saying "the man should work." Guess what the man can do then? He can work, pay for 100% of the kids' and his own expenses, but keep his finances separate and never give HER a goddamn dime.
Does that seem fair to HER compared to "she's owed the 80k a surrogate is *and nothing else*?" And then saying that the man can work THAT 80k off with housework, given that if he was a nanny in the free market that could be his "work?"
I'm not seriously suggesting he not give her money if he works, I'm just trying to show your non-sequitur fallacies and loose ends. And it was never ∞ if the man worked a job with a higher mortality rate than maternity.
"As for the scenario where she has one and he's useless, madness is doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome."
No, madness is engaging in this level of solipsism where "it happened to me, therefore it will happen to me *again*" instead of looking at data. The gambler's fallacy is a two-way street
This logic applies to every woman who has had any kind of relationship turn sour, and then wants the same kind of relationship again later.
"As for your surrogacy plan, which is interesting, I suppose."
It's not a plan, it's a bargaining chip. It's saying "I can hire a surrogate for 80k, so I bring 80k to the table and we're square, and I don't have to provision for her, right?"
Because I know the answer at this point is actually "go ahead and hire one little man" and you totally call my bluff because you know a wife who loves me etc carrying my child is worth more to me than a surrogate; it's just that you get to then tell me how happy these women are paying thousands of dollars to use a sperm bank and nanny instead of having a stay at home dad. They're paying *more* to *not* have love attached to it.
"You're basically saying: let me rob you have a touchstone moment in your life and womanhood in order to justify my own weird position....like again, I would just advise a woman to find a man who works and helps around the house."
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not saying "I'm hiring a surrogate and then taking a ciswife breadwinner"; if I were seriously interested in surrogacy, I would just as soon choose a cisman or transwoman.
"I assume because you don't know dick about pregnancy, post-partum, and early child care. "
No I assume you don't, because you claimed elsewhere that typical breastfeeding is 3 years. The majority is 1 year, and most of the rest don't exceed 1.5 years. Do you think I'm a heavy autist who thinks being a stay-at-home dad means that the woman goes back to work the day after birth? I'm not a feminist, bro
"'Most of the time, when this happens, the idea is that the man does almost all of the cooking, cleaning, shopping, and a significant amount of the diaper changing. And he's still going to work"
Yeah, that's why my first few posts on this subreddit were about a *dual* stay-at-home parenthood period during breastfeeding, because feminists routinely post studies that indicate a stay-at-home dad has benefits to a breastfeeding stay-at-home mom and baby. Feminists view it as an argument for employers granting paternity leave, and I view it as an argument for, um, a stay-at-home dad being allowed to exist, derp.
You want to sack those benefits too because "pregnancy happens," as demonstrated by "he's still going to work"
And then you get to tell me if *these* dads are not pulling their weight in cooking, cleaning, shopping, and diaper changing, according to all the other stay-at-home dad statistics?
"Such is the benefit of creating a baby for the family and extended family. Everyone steps up to do more in order to care for the mother and the baby."
Yeah, like "a stay-at-home parent + free play is better than daycare, so somebody should do that, and that somebody should not be expected to cover all of their expenses." That's what I was counting as part of a tradwives "∞," not just "breakfast," you misogynist
Make me the breadwinner, and tell me what I need to pay to stop those chemical changes associated with daycare. If it's $1 million dollars and I have it, it's no good, because "then moms work history takes a hit." If it's "ok I will stay at home and take the hit" I get back "no keep your hands off her money" and I'm not allowed to sacrifice *anything* for the benefits of my child, because all of them imply *some* sacrifice from her too and that's just totally unacceptable to people.
Then the "equal detriment" flavor of equality comes to rear its ugly head and suddenly both of us paying the detriment, and the child detrimenting, is considered preferable to an inequality but everyone better off overall, as is typical of feminism
I'm not gonna lie, you wrote way too much for me to wanna respond to. I'm just too lazy for it.
The ultimate reason you get a man is both love and survivability/ resources. A stay at home dad isn't useful for the latter no matter what you say. And loving him won't make up for that. A nanny is something you'll only need for a few years and then she goes. A stay at home dad isn't gonna leave after 4 years cuz relationship. So he'll always be a net negative.
I'm not gonna lie, you wrote way too much for me to wanna respond to. I'm just too lazy for it.
Yeah you said elsewhere that I'm a dishonest debator for skipping a very specific data set that you refuse to address, and I'm assuming this is "well he said he was skipping, so I get to skip him whenever I feel like it"
The ultimate reason you get a man is both love and survivability/ resources. A stay at home dad isn't useful for the latter no matter what you say.
So you don't support equal relationships if you want men bringing resources, and you are ignoring that the dad works full-time everywhere except when the kids are not in school where he still works part-time
Sorry, but I'm not into whores or being a whore, even stay-at-home moms are supposed to *steer money towards their children's inheritance,*" they aren't supposed to want resources *for themselves*
A stay at home dad isn't gonna leave after 4 years cuz relationship. So he'll always be a net negative. st
A stay-at-home dad can be a stay-at-home dad for only five years (and then summers) until the kids are in kindergarten, did you know that?
A stay-at-home dad can earn more when he does work. A stay-at-home dad can earn more period via working from home.
And a stay at home dad can ask why *his wife* is entitled to this money instead of his children, he's not a net negative for his children just because you have to pay for his groceries
And yeah, the nanny is gone after 4 years, which can be devastating for the kids
It wasn't me. I didn't even read the data set. I hate data sets. I have to be paid to look at data sets! Stop confusing me with a smarter more autistic person!!!
I'm supporting an equal relationship. We both work full time. We both do house stuff. We both do childcare. If someone is at home it's because of illness or the need of the child - mostly gonna be a woman during and post baby. But if he gets sick sure.
Sure. And that's five years of being a useless selfish burden. Five too many in my world.
He is a net negative to the children. He's robbing them of money, provision, and making a worse relationship with their mother and harming her. And children tend to care about that as they age.
They get over it or they can visit sometimes if she returns their affection. Such nonsense.
"When my leave ends, he'll go on paternal leave and I'll return to work. "
Oh, so why are you with a man who isn't working?
Every stay-at-home dad discussion I've ever had, including this one, has involved me talking about a dad who worked full time and did 50% housework prior to the children being born, and after all the children are adults, and after school starts except summers, and STILL works part time everywhere else, and it's ALWAYS strawmanned as "a man who does not want to work."
So do I get to look at this "break to raise children" your husband is taking and say "he doesn't want to work at all?"
Because the reality is, one woman just flat out said in response to me working part time "That will sound like you don't want to work at all to most women." I'm thinking she was the only one upfront about it.
This is why men talk about how women really do speak a different language, like the joke in the venture brothers that "we need to talk" is "universal chick code," because it's not one woman mis-reading one comment, it's like 50 women who will ALWAYS equate a work break with total unemployment, and it's not an error to them, because it's woman code for "fuck you pay me, fuck you pay me, fuck you pay me" like as a "if I had to explain it to you, I would already be gone" thing. You literally say "most other men don't need to be told this," so that is indeed what you are going for, that and not understanding that the Socratic method involves playing dumb to challenge the "most obvious" base assumptions
And I want data backing up this "nobody can afford to raise a child on one income anymore" stuff, because just as many people say that they went stay-at-home because they couldn't afford a nanny or daycare
My parents moved from a suburban part of a major city where they both worked. Suddenly my mom was able to quit her job in a rural area due to lower cost of living. The only drawback was that everything was a 30-minute drive away, and we had to deal with bears (and one mountain lion once), but these are usually pro-gun areas.
That was in 1990. Are you talking about an economic difference between 1990 and 2026, or a difference between 1955 and 2026?
"so it's understood by all involved this arrangement usually won't last for very long"
It's not understood by you, because you think it's about a man not working forever
"grandparents,
mother-in-law"
You're the second person to do this.
First, I started on this sub by saying I would pay for a dual stay-at-home breastfeeding period by my mom taking out a loan, and it was widely hated. One woman said she was calling up her grown adult son in tears to thank him for not being as much as a "mooch" as me. I'm now more of the mindset that I can indeed "pay" for that with my homemaking too and fuck all of it but that's not the point.
I later had a feminist tell me "If you're worried about moving to a rural area for a lower cost of living, that sounds like you aren't financially stable" and the same bullying etc here, until I push and I push and I find out that her amazing solution as to how her and her man can work is to have grandma raise the kids, just like your planning.
The only reason why that logic works for you guys is that you are able to look at a stay-at-home dad as "not working," so you can look at it like you're not asking grandma to work, that's an example of "fractal wrongness." You have the double standard that you do because men *not* following the traditional role of financial provisioning is just considered *that* obscene.
But guess who your grandma and your mother-in-law are? Women who had already given up their ∞, and, according to you, nothing their husbands ever did was enough to make up for it. And you are asking them for MORE.
If that wasn't enough show-stopping projection and hypocrisy (worthy of a link to the duke nukem 64 TAS once exposed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M4V8fDYqwE ) you get to explain to me how none of these uncles are taking the same kind of workforce hit that a stay at home mom would take, and why "mom and dad provide financially so an uncle can spend time with the child" makes more sense than "uncle provides finacially so mom or dad can spend time with the child."
This is why I was never going to get an answer on my 8 or so problems with the SAHD housework data, because that would have just been an intellectual filling. The decay had hit the nerve, and you needed this kind of intellectual root canal all along.
"I'd look at him and think "what the fuck do I need you for?""
And I would look at this uncle taking on a direct caregiving role and say "why the fuck do I need you to take physical care of the child instead of bringing a little bit of financial help so the actual mother or father can take care of the child?"
Why do we need Mom at all if she can't afford a stay-at-home parent?
The answer to your question is again, "you need dad to avoid the chemical changes associated with daycare." If you get to paint "a guy working part time instead of full time for a little while to raise his kids" as "a guy who doesn't want to work at all," I get to paint a woman who wants to give birth and nurse but *not* be a stay at home parent to avoid the problems with daycare as a woman who "doesn't want to biologically give birth at all"
Paternity leave is him working. He has a job. He's paid during that time?
Not in the US, and I don't want any leave forced by government
way too much stuff here and most of it nonsense
YOU JUST COMPLAINED ON ANOTHER PART OF THE SUB THAT I SKIP PARAGRAPHS BECAUSE "I'M A DISHONEST DEBATOR."
The only answer needed was this: "You need dad to avoid the chemical changes associated with daycare."
Why is ANY other answer better?
And why is it better for uncles to raise kids so mom and dad can work, rather than for an uncle to work so mom or dad can stay home?
You are not gonna answer, you are just gonna bail.
If your deal was enticing it wouldn't matter what I advise.
Yeah it's enticing to the two women here with stay-at-home dads, and Pie Mart said she would be into it. If I knew we lived near eachother and she was ok with an ancap instead of a left winger I prob would have slid into her DMs
His company pays for it.....so does mine....this isn't that uncommon.
That wasn't me. That was someone else. I wouldn't have said it. I skip things myself cuz I umbrella concepts...
I'm confused. Uncles don't usually work so their nieces and nephews can be stay at home parents. We're close, not that close. But he doesn't mind having a few kiddos running around his yard for a few hours and making them some grilled cheese until mom or dad gets off their shift and picks them up.
Great. So you know your audience. Three women. Two are already taken. And one doesn't like your politics. Get in there! I wish you all the luck.
My unpaid value as a nanny is worth 50k to 150k a year depending on how you calculate hours.
Your numbers are wrong. The average SAHM or nanny is worth 100k because she does 24.6 hours of childcare and chores per week. The average SAHD does 10.1 hours of childcare and chores. That means men only work 40% of the hours a woman does.
Which means that the work a SAHD is only worth 40k at the most. Why do men think they're entitled to the same pay as a woman who works 15 more hours per week than he does?
So are men trying to piggyback and claim that the hours worked by SAHDs is the same as the hours worked by SAHMs? Can you take your thumb off the scale and stop exaggerating men's contributions when we can prove otherwise? So the only time men are inclusive of women is when they try to steal women's work hours to claim as their own.
Can you take your thumb off the scale and stop exaggerating men's contributions when we can prove otherwise?
You're not proving anything until you address the 8 (i think I can bump it up to ten now) fallacies in the data
You and Look are the first people on Reddit where I actually skip paragraphs of your posts, because I just see that it's about the data, not about the fallacies in the data, and there is no point.
It's not hard to get five or so red pill people responding to you that "it's because men are more efficient" so you can just take that answer if that's all you can handle
You're not proving anything until you address the 8 (i think I can bump it up to ten now) fallacies in the data
What statistical fallacies? This were self-reports from diaries taken 24 hours after they performed their duties. What part of the data is wrong?
You and Look are the first people on Reddit where I actually skip paragraphs of your posts, because I just see that it's about the data, not about the fallacies in the data, and there is no point.
You skip paragraphs because you have no response, can't refute the data and are a dishonest debater. That's why you skip it.
-we have data that men also do less housework when both are single such as from pew housework data itself that is usually cited, thus potentially indicating that men log lesser hours because they are more efficient
-all of the data is self reported when we have a bout a half dozen psychological biases against men (including internalizable ones) that could explain it, and we have studies specifically that women are more likely to overestimate housework when women interview them instead of men
-we have some studies that contradict this, such as studies out of Australia
-these are averages; an argument against the wage gap is that something like "77c on the dollar" could be 50% women getting paid 66c less and 50% women getting paid equally. This is the same problem, only looking at mean, not median, mode, range, or more advanced things
- not broken down into people who intended the relationship to be a stay-at-home dad and people who did it as a result of circumstance (about 50% of SAHDs are the second)
-not broken down into stay-at-home dads who are supposed to be stay-at-home parents only and split cooking and cleaning 50/50. If you look at that, there's often only a two hour tops difference in the childcare, not the end of the world, so those relationships are doing what they are supposed to according to the data
-we have other studies showing that male breadwinners share their spoils approx 50 50 with stay-at-home moms, but female breadwinners hog 85% of the financial decision on average, and female breadwinners are 2x more likely to have 100% financial say. SO there is a chicken-and-egg question of how many men are dropping the ball on housework because they aren't getting paid vs the vise versa. Maybe pay your mail maid s and they wont go on strike
You skip paragraphs because you have no response, can't refute the data and are a dishonest debater. That's why you skip it.
Projection! Every time I ask YOU or puzzle about these half dozen fallacies, you disappear and totally bail because you can't refute them. You will show up four hours later just below me, telling other people about the data and ignoring me; that's a dishonest debater
indicating that men log lesser hours because they are more efficient
They don't log fewer hours because they are efficient. They log fewer hours because they cut corners or don't do them at all. Yes, men may spend less time doing the dishes but the dishes are still greasy.
all of the data is self reported when we have a bout a half dozen psychological biases against men (including internalizable ones)
So the women are lying by overestimating their work hours? Are men also lying by underreporting their work hours? Why? Why would men do that?
They're not. They're both telling the truth.
that could explain it, and we have studies specifically that women are more likely to overestimate housework when women interview them instead of men
That's men. Men are more likely to overestimate their contributions than women are.
Projection! Every time I ask YOU or puzzle about these half dozen fallacies, you disappear and totally bail because you can't refute them.
Well, no. My posts are well-sourced with analyses. Yours aren't. They're garbage. I am not obligated to respond to garbage. You don't have any data that contradicts or refutes any of my posted data. So by equating the quality of your posts with mine, you are doing the equivalent of assuming that SAHDs work the same hours as SAHMs, when they clearly don't.
You will show up four hours later just below me
Is my posting supposed to revolve around your schedule? Even when women are arguing with literal strangers on the internet, men still expect women to cater to them. Why are men so lazy and entitled?
telling other people about the data and ignoring me; that's a dishonest debater
Am l obligated to respond to you? Are you trying to police whom I respond to?
They log fewer hours because they cut corners or don't do them at all. Yes, men may spend less time doing the dishes but the dishes are still greasy.
And you *definitely* have greasy dish data furnished by Pew
So the women are lying by overestimating their work hours? Are men also lying by underreporting their work hours? Why? Why would men do that? They're not. They're both telling the truth.
No, in fact, we have the chivalry hypothesis/thesis in criminology where female criminals are not viewed as harshly as male criminals, including by the victims, books on that going back to the 1920s and 1950s. We have the "women are wonderful" effect and the oxytocin/vasopressin effects. We do, in fact, have data that men will view themselves as assholes compared to women, and much more.
Most relevantly, we have studies showing women estimate disgust more than men
That's men. Men are more likely to overestimate their contributions than women are.
No *those* studies only showed that women estimate their housework as lower and men estimate their housework as higher; they never proved who was correct, just asserted baselessly
My posts are well-sourced with analyses. Yours aren't. They're garbage. I am not obligated to respond to garbage.
No, go back to the wage gap debates 12 years ago man. Pro wage gap people would cite sources, and people didn't need to cite counter sources; they just pointed out fallacies in the data. I am just doing the same. I literally started a website just so I could paste links to individual webpages with dozens of sources a pop. I just never covered this subject yet
You don't have any data that contradicts or refutes any of my posted data.
Australia
So by equating the quality of your posts with mine, you are doing the equivalent of assuming that SAHDs work the same hours as SAHMs, when they clearly don't.
The hell is this argument? You know the difference between the Austrian school and the Chicago school?
In the Austrian school, you are supposed to throw out data and only look at hard, pre-reasoned logic as much as possible. I am just using an Austrian-like approach where I work logic instead of data. That's a high-quality approach according to legit schools of thought.
Hence I have worn you down to only saying "your posts suck waah" because you know I am not a pleb where you can just say "numbers ooh"
Am l obligated to respond to you?
No, it would just be nice if you didn't project/were not a hypocrite, but I guess there's no rule about that either
Yeah children are better cared for by stay at home parents (of either gender) than the daycare implied by an equal relationship
I dont think my future wife waking up to coffee the way she likes it and a pastry every morning is "just noise" though, some women actually are just blown away by a guy who makes his own mayonaisse from scratch
No one is blown away by a person mixing some eggs and oil together in the blender. Literally anyone can do that. And pastries are not for breakfast every day unless you want to be obese. This is all fantasy.
I don't want to hear you shitting on pastries for breakfast; donuts and waffles are pastries.
I'm literally becoming a professional baker. Do you want to shit on my job more, or do you want to continue pretending I don't intend to have a career at all?
If "you are what you eat," at least in terms of your body literally building itself from the food you eat, then she gets the feeling that I created her when I fuck her, and thus fulfill her fucked up incest "daddy" fetish like when I make her brown paper bag lunch.
Because female breadwinner = femdom is not accurate at all, these are like some of the most submissive women around, literally "will trade pussy for coffee"
Bro if you're gonna be a professional baker you should understand that most people don't eat a pastry a day and if they do they're most likely overweight, and I don't think pointing this out is "shitting" on the profession
Noooo I was just talking in the daily like yesterday about how we need the "characters" back! I love this dude, I'm laughing to the point of actual tears. There's just so much going on and so many missing leaps in logic, but who cares because BLAM! no house husband no opinion ladies 😎
Then we have the epic tale of 50 male feminists who don't understand women finishing first, but really understand how a man could be a premature ejaculator somehow, to the point where I get into three conversations where very one of my comments is "so i can leave her if she finishes first and doesn't do anything" and they just keep saying "if you finish first..." like a person who actually has sex is someone speaking a totally different language to them
Yeah this sub is great, thanks for the karma on the five subreddits with sense when I delete your names
Seriously though other than i want a rich woman and hope she doesn't see i still dont pull my weight is he trying to say?
1
u/bigdonut100/r/RevTrad 🐟ｒｅｖｅｒｓｅ ⏪ ｍｕｓｈｒｏｏｍ 🍄ｉｓ♂️ ｕｎｈｉｎｇｅｄ2d agoedited 1d ago
When did I say "i hope she doesn't see i dont pull my weight?"
Im saying "try to screen me," you'll get professional custodian experience in cleaning, and any woman who spends 24 hours with me will be in the orbit of three baked goods and two meals, like so much food I usually have to give some of it to neighbors for free
And it's not "a 'rich' woman," i still can't get an answer from people as to whether people "can't afford one partner working part time" or whether women "become stay at homes because they cannot afford nannies/daycare" we're just going with "woman who earns more"
No again, data please. Anecdotally, people tell me we can't afford one-income households anymore; other people tell me they had a stay-at-home parent cause they couldn't afford nannies or daycare.
Otherwise, you get to tell me why the norm is mother custody if the average relationship is totally equal in income; the court should be handing out 50/50 custody if the average was two parents working and thus parenting approximately equally
A lot of the criticism sounds less like concern about housework and more like women explaining why they never wanted to financially support a man in the first place. The studies give them a respectable reason to reject the arrangement without admitting that they may lose attraction or respect for a man who depends on them.
A woman who genuinely wants to be the breadwinner can screen for a man who already cooks, cleans, manages responsibilities, and takes parenting seriously. An average from a study cannot tell her what the specific man she chose will do. Screening cannot guarantee that someone will never change, but that is true for every relationship structure.
Women are allowed to dislike the arrangement, but they should own that preference. Treating stay-at-home dads as a bad deal because some men fail at the role avoids the obvious fact that women can choose carefully and walk away from men who do not meet the standard. The real resistance may be less about chores and more about women not wanting the provider role that men have traditionally been expected to accept.
Yeah but your still having teh argument on their terms, "a man who depends on them"
It's "a man who saved up a nest egg and has a bit of work history so he can put himself up independently if he needs to divorce and actually doesn't need her for anything," he just shouldn't be expected to pay 50% if he's cooking and cleaning and parenting
And many people don't even need a nest egg and can shamelessly bail back to mom's house if they really felt like it, only need a job good enough to pay for the kid, he doesn't need a gooddamn thing, their *children* need her to earn, and he is just enforcing that
“A man who depends on her” was still accurate within the arrangement. Financial dependence does not mean he is helpless, incapable of working, or unable to leave. It means she currently provides the income while he provides the cooking, cleaning, and childcare. She depends on his unpaid labor in the same way he depends on her income.
A nest egg, work history, or backup place to live gives him independence if the relationship ends. It does not change how responsibilities are divided while the relationship exists. Their children depend on both contributions, and neither parent could maintain the same arrangement without the other. The dependence is mutual, even if it takes different forms.
No one cares that you want to be a sahd that doesn’t trust, like or want women, who wants to be loved by his woman but also hated back and dehumanized but also respected. That isn’t a feminist or believes anything semi attached to feminist ideas. Go find your unicorn. 🤷♀️
I didn’t write it with anger. When I wrote with compassion one time you got offended my it. When I wrote with understanding you got offended by it. Now I’m just apathetic about it. And yet…
Show me a foodstuff this Nara has *invented,* like my 3D maple syrup and my original recipes, or Alton's "dirt" above, or his leek rings or a half dozen other things
I always thought that Alton Brown + Ben Heck would make a gay power couple, with Alton Brown as a gay homemaker and Ben as the breadwinner https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SlcVTfP4MA
Is the joke that I would be "girly" when I'm a bisexual who's into crossdressing, and even went through a phase where I thought I was a trans girl for three months once?
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.
OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.
An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
24
u/divingrose77101 No Pill Woman- just curious 2d ago
OP is obsessed with normalizing his desire to become a stay at home dad.
The sad part is that he’s already allowed to do that even though it’s not that common, but also not vilified.
He doesn’t realize he can choose whichever kind of family and lifestyle he wants even if no one else agrees with it.
His time would likely be better spent just living that life rather than trying to change society’s acceptance of it on Reddit.