Do Millennial Men Want Stay-at-Home Wives?

[JA]

The reality is that the higher up the household income ladder a family goes, the women are statistically less likely to be employed. This isn't a result of choice alone, but of means. So all these people wanting a housewife, without struggling financially, will need to have a pretty high income - especially in coastal urban areas. It also reveals the inequality of opportunity and choice available to couples; that an arrangement which may be desirable for them is unfeasible for a majority of American families. Basically, the mere option of a feasible housewife arrangement (or househusband) is unattainable for working and even most middle class families and is a luxury reserved for the minority of the financially privileged.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No, I like women who talk to me.

What's that supposed to imply?

It speaks for itself.

[Leinad]

The premise of this question is that it's the man's job to make that call. Sexism! Sad!

[Türkisblau]

I want a fem-dom that will make me work in exchange for the priviliege of me seeing her feet.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

No, I like women who talk to me.

What's that supposed to imply?

It speaks for itself.

Reactionary women exist, whether they know it or not. This is not to say that they are the majority.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pretty much confirms my view that we've been losing ground on women's rights since the mid-1990s. The Handmaid's Tale may be reality by the 2040s.

The women's rights movement has been floundering for a long time. If a Conservative SCOTUS overturns Roe V Wade, it might ironically re-spark the movement.

Despite some pushback by the annoying right wing religious zealouts, women still have it fairly good in the US...so much so that they don't feel a need to fight for more rights

Women have been losing ground for 20 years. Every other liberal identity group- gays, trans, minorities, have made gains but not women. They have been fighting (see the women's match, Hillary campaign), but our society has been getting increasingly misogynistic. Now Democrats are raving about overturning abortion rights. In the 1970s only Republicans debates that.

     The idea that a desire for a stay-at-home wife is misogynistic might have something to do with that. As I said above, I would prefer to marry a woman who works full-time. If another man prefers to work and marry a homemaker, and he can find a woman to marry who prefers to be one, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

     Saying that there is something wrong with that (as I saw someone insinuate last year in regards to Donald and Melania Trump) boils down to trying to control how people live their lives. It's not suddenly any better when this campaign of control is waged in the name of a feminist cause, and people are not going to be comfortable with being told that their preferences are sexist.

I never said there was something wrong with that at an individual level.

But the idea that a big part of feminism hasn't been a push to get women out of the kitchen and into the work force is dishonest. That was the biggest achievement of late 20th century feminism. It gave women a measure of financial independence, power in society, and the ability to utilize their talents and skills for something other than child rearing.

     I don't deny that was a goal at the time, but there is also the matter of choice. Women were not taken seriously as members of the workforce, and that was deeply wrong. I like to think we have made great strides in that regard, and my experiences talking to older feminists with the perspective of multiple generations have corroborated that. If women have the freedom to pursue careers, I see nothing wrong with large numbers of them avoiding that and choosing voluntarily to return to the kitchen. That in itself is not evidence of regression on the issue of women's rights.

[Beet]

Pretty much confirms my view that we've been losing ground on women's rights since the mid-1990s. The Handmaid's Tale may be reality by the 2040s.

The women's rights movement has been floundering for a long time. If a Conservative SCOTUS overturns Roe V Wade, it might ironically re-spark the movement.

Despite some pushback by the annoying right wing religious zealouts, women still have it fairly good in the US...so much so that they don't feel a need to fight for more rights

Women have been losing ground for 20 years. Every other liberal identity group- gays, trans, minorities, have made gains but not women. They have been fighting (see the women's match, Hillary campaign), but our society has been getting increasingly misogynistic. Now Democrats are raving about overturning abortion rights. In the 1970s only Republicans debates that.

     The idea that a desire for a stay-at-home wife is misogynistic might have something to do with that. As I said above, I would prefer to marry a woman who works full-time. If another man prefers to work and marry a homemaker, and he can find a woman to marry who prefers to be one, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

     Saying that there is something wrong with that (as I saw someone insinuate last year in regards to Donald and Melania Trump) boils down to trying to control how people live their lives. It's not suddenly any better when this campaign of control is waged in the name of a feminist cause, and people are not going to be comfortable with being told that their preferences are sexist.

I never said there was something wrong with that at an individual level.

But the idea that a big part of feminism hasn't been a push to get women out of the kitchen and into the work force is dishonest. That was the biggest achievement of late 20th century feminism. It gave women a measure of financial independence, power in society, and the ability to utilize their talents and skills for something other than child rearing.

     I don't deny that was a goal at the time, but there is also the matter of choice. Women were not taken seriously as members of the workforce, and that was deeply wrong. I like to think we have made great strides in that regard, and my experiences talking to older feminists with the perspective of multiple generations have corroborated that. If women have the freedom to pursue careers, I see nothing wrong with large numbers of them avoiding that and choosing voluntarily to return to the kitchen. That in itself is not evidence of regression on the issue of women's rights.

This thread is about men's preference, not women's. High school women are no more likely to support traditional roles than in 1994, but men are. Further, women are still not taken seriously as members of the workforce. The rise of the male-dominated tech industry has marginalized women in the fastest-growing job field. They may not be legally excluded, but they are culturally excluded and sexually harassed. The U.S. remains the last major industrial nation not to provide paid family leave. The cost of child care is also prohibitively high. Many women who would work, cannot earn enough to justify the cost of child care. At the same time, teachers and child care workers are paid very little. Women do not make choices in a vacuum. Every indicator suggests they want their rights, but society is saying no. I mean, look at politics. Men just elected the white version of Bill Cosby president, I don't think you can credibly say that women are choosing their own degradation when they voted Clinton by a 10 point margin. Now male Democrats think the lesson to take away from it is to give up on abortion rights.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, I like women who talk to me.

What's that supposed to imply?

It speaks for itself.

Reactionary women exist, whether they know it or not. This is not to say that they are the majority.

God I know Atlas has to make everything be about politics (and I know Cathcon in particular might have meant it as a compliment), but for f**k's sake, there's nothing "reactionary" about a man or a woman choosing to dedicate themselves to raising their children.

And I'm still not quite sure what Gully was trying to imply, but I'll guess it was probably insulting so I'll just say f**k him.

[Deblano]

That's not even economically sustainable these days.

BOTH the husband and the wife need to work to bring home the bacon.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's not even economically sustainable these days.

BOTH the husband and the wife need to work to bring home the bacon.

All right, I'll say it: ideally, housework should be remunerated with a living wage.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That's not even economically sustainable these days.

BOTH the husband and the wife need to work to bring home the bacon.

All right, I'll say it: ideally, housework should be remunerated with a living wage.

I'd rather every adult get a minimum wage of $7,500, which would replace all other Federal social programs.

I suppose that would be a "living" wage, in the same way that eleven hundred calories a day kept many people alive in the Warsaw Ghetto.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Pretty much confirms my view that we've been losing ground on women's rights since the mid-1990s. The Handmaid's Tale may be reality by the 2040s.

The women's rights movement has been floundering for a long time. If a Conservative SCOTUS overturns Roe V Wade, it might ironically re-spark the movement.

Despite some pushback by the annoying right wing religious zealouts, women still have it fairly good in the US...so much so that they don't feel a need to fight for more rights

Women have been losing ground for 20 years. Every other liberal identity group- gays, trans, minorities, have made gains but not women. They have been fighting (see the women's match, Hillary campaign), but our society has been getting increasingly misogynistic. Now Democrats are raving about overturning abortion rights. In the 1970s only Republicans debates that.

     The idea that a desire for a stay-at-home wife is misogynistic might have something to do with that. As I said above, I would prefer to marry a woman who works full-time. If another man prefers to work and marry a homemaker, and he can find a woman to marry who prefers to be one, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

     Saying that there is something wrong with that (as I saw someone insinuate last year in regards to Donald and Melania Trump) boils down to trying to control how people live their lives. It's not suddenly any better when this campaign of control is waged in the name of a feminist cause, and people are not going to be comfortable with being told that their preferences are sexist.

I never said there was something wrong with that at an individual level.

But the idea that a big part of feminism hasn't been a push to get women out of the kitchen and into the work force is dishonest. That was the biggest achievement of late 20th century feminism. It gave women a measure of financial independence, power in society, and the ability to utilize their talents and skills for something other than child rearing.

     I don't deny that was a goal at the time, but there is also the matter of choice. Women were not taken seriously as members of the workforce, and that was deeply wrong. I like to think we have made great strides in that regard, and my experiences talking to older feminists with the perspective of multiple generations have corroborated that. If women have the freedom to pursue careers, I see nothing wrong with large numbers of them avoiding that and choosing voluntarily to return to the kitchen. That in itself is not evidence of regression on the issue of women's rights.

This thread is about men's preference, not women's. High school women are no more likely to support traditional roles than in 1994, but men are. Further, women are still not taken seriously as members of the workforce. The rise of the male-dominated tech industry has marginalized women in the fastest-growing job field. They may not be legally excluded, but they are culturally excluded and sexually harassed. The U.S. remains the last major industrial nation not to provide paid family leave. The cost of child care is also prohibitively high. Many women who would work, cannot earn enough to justify the cost of child care. At the same time, teachers and child care workers are paid very little. Women do not make choices in a vacuum. Every indicator suggests they want their rights, but society is saying no. I mean, look at politics. Men just elected the white version of Bill Cosby president, I don't think you can credibly say that women are choosing their own degradation when they voted Clinton by a 10 point margin. Now male Democrats think the lesson to take away from it is to give up on abortion rights.

     As the quoted section of the article indicates, women are also changing in regards to attitudes towards the family structure, though less markedly so. I do concede that women could face problems if men's attitudes change too severely and their own attitudes do not. I would like to see how these numbers compared to those in the 1950s before freaking out though. I'm sure those numbers don't actually exist, but I imagine that both sexes today are still vastly more feminist than their grandparents were.

     Tech is a plague on everyone and everything (except autistic CS grads). Its problems and the fact that it is considered a desirable industry to work are problems that go well beyond gender and boil down to the roots of what is wrong with American corporate culture. That the culture is toxic to women is not shocking. The problem is one that needs to be dealt with but it won't be.

     The cost of child care is absurdly high and the pay rather low, but I am not sure what you propose doing with it. The amount of people needed to care for young children has a lot to do with that. It simply isn't economically efficient as an industry, and is effectively built to "waste" labor in that regard. Paid family leave is a fine idea, and one that a Democrat President should have pushed harder by now.

     I know a number of women who voted for Trump, and the ones I have spoken to about this matter would find the idea that Trump was a white Bill Cosby or that voting for Clinton meant rejecting the degradation of women absurd, if not highly offensive. That is neither here nor there though; these are just anecdotes after all.

[Beet]

Pretty much confirms my view that we've been losing ground on women's rights since the mid-1990s. The Handmaid's Tale may be reality by the 2040s.

The women's rights movement has been floundering for a long time. If a Conservative SCOTUS overturns Roe V Wade, it might ironically re-spark the movement.

Despite some pushback by the annoying right wing religious zealouts, women still have it fairly good in the US...so much so that they don't feel a need to fight for more rights

Women have been losing ground for 20 years. Every other liberal identity group- gays, trans, minorities, have made gains but not women. They have been fighting (see the women's match, Hillary campaign), but our society has been getting increasingly misogynistic. Now Democrats are raving about overturning abortion rights. In the 1970s only Republicans debates that.

     The idea that a desire for a stay-at-home wife is misogynistic might have something to do with that. As I said above, I would prefer to marry a woman who works full-time. If another man prefers to work and marry a homemaker, and he can find a woman to marry who prefers to be one, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

     Saying that there is something wrong with that (as I saw someone insinuate last year in regards to Donald and Melania Trump) boils down to trying to control how people live their lives. It's not suddenly any better when this campaign of control is waged in the name of a feminist cause, and people are not going to be comfortable with being told that their preferences are sexist.

I never said there was something wrong with that at an individual level.

But the idea that a big part of feminism hasn't been a push to get women out of the kitchen and into the work force is dishonest. That was the biggest achievement of late 20th century feminism. It gave women a measure of financial independence, power in society, and the ability to utilize their talents and skills for something other than child rearing.

     I don't deny that was a goal at the time, but there is also the matter of choice. Women were not taken seriously as members of the workforce, and that was deeply wrong. I like to think we have made great strides in that regard, and my experiences talking to older feminists with the perspective of multiple generations have corroborated that. If women have the freedom to pursue careers, I see nothing wrong with large numbers of them avoiding that and choosing voluntarily to return to the kitchen. That in itself is not evidence of regression on the issue of women's rights.

This thread is about men's preference, not women's. High school women are no more likely to support traditional roles than in 1994, but men are. Further, women are still not taken seriously as members of the workforce. The rise of the male-dominated tech industry has marginalized women in the fastest-growing job field. They may not be legally excluded, but they are culturally excluded and sexually harassed. The U.S. remains the last major industrial nation not to provide paid family leave. The cost of child care is also prohibitively high. Many women who would work, cannot earn enough to justify the cost of child care. At the same time, teachers and child care workers are paid very little. Women do not make choices in a vacuum. Every indicator suggests they want their rights, but society is saying no. I mean, look at politics. Men just elected the white version of Bill Cosby president, I don't think you can credibly say that women are choosing their own degradation when they voted Clinton by a 10 point margin. Now male Democrats think the lesson to take away from it is to give up on abortion rights.

     As the quoted section of the article indicates, women are also changing in regards to attitudes towards the family structure, though less markedly so. I do concede that women could face problems if men's attitudes change too severely and their own attitudes do not. I would like to see how these numbers compared to those in the 1950s before freaking out though. I'm sure those numbers don't actually exist, but I imagine that both sexes today are still vastly more feminist than their grandparents were.

The quoted section of the article only broke down two statistics by gender. In one, women's attitudes became more retrograde, but by far less than men's; and in the other, women's attitudes actually became more progressive, but again, men's attitudes became more retrograde. The title of the article says it all; the story is men becoming more retrograde against women, not women "voluntarily" being convinced of their own servitude. Here is the graphic chosen for the piece:



Here, the women's attitudes have remained the same since the 1980s, whereas the men's have turned against their independence. Now I have no doubt that with sustained force, shaming, coaxing, harassment, humiliation, political opposition, bribery, flattery of their vanity, and other forms of social pressure, even in some cases beating, rape, and murder, women can eventually be "convinced" that a return to the kitchen is best for them (only by the time we get to 50s attitudes and you finally concede that point to me, if we are both still active on Atlas, it will of course be far too late)... even if they are never really quite as dedicated to their subjugation as men are. Which, by the way, I suspect to be the case even in the most rigid theocracies, such as modern day Saudi Arabia, Iran, or ultraconservative Christian churches. Most women in those societies will claim to be satisfied with their lot (comparatively), but loosen the male-created restrictions, and their attitudes would change quickly. Human nature is constant; it does not want to be suppressed, regardless of gender. I only seek to document the coercive male-led process that regression will take.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly, but it remains a problem for women.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They certainly should!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Precisely; they are just anecdotes. That a minority of women disagree should not deny the majority of women the right to equality. It is the majority demanding their equality that we should listen to. Further, even if 90% of women in 1872 did not want the right to vote, it does not follow that Victoria Woodhull should have been denied that right; for she is not those 90%. A right, equality, or respectful consideration as a class in society need not be utilized, but there is no harm in it being present; but if one wants to utilize it and it is not present, there is a harm in that.

The aggregate exit poll shows Clinton won among women by over 10 points, which would be the biggest landslide since 1984 if taken alone. In an era of polarization such as this, it's a huge margin. As a group, it was men who elected Trump against the will of women. This is especially significant to the present discussion because if women had their way, we would have a president who wanted to enact paid family leave & probably subsidize child care, and a Congress willing to go along. And once those changed incentives were enacted, women's "choice" would be different, as well. It is not women standing in their own way, it is men.

[Shadows]

I can not personally live with a lifetime Stay-at-Home wife. That is not the environment where I grew up in & I like strong, independent women.I feel strongly that a woman should have their own career, financial independence, self-reliance, colleagues/friend circle etc (& this is completely independent of money which is not an issue for me). People have got one life & women should do more then cook, rear a child & do household stuff.

For a child though, the first few years are very important & men don't have the motherly, feminine qualities to connect to a child, can't breastfeed & a child needs a mother more than a father. So I think it is fair to expect a woman (in the initial months or 1-2 years) to try to spend a little more time with the child (& maybe make some small sacrifices career wise like work timings/hours which a father should also make when needed). It is not the woman's responsibility alone to take care of the child though!

I have a disdain for men who don't do any household work & never even attempt to learn & expect servile women to do everything. I can do household work, cook frequently & handle my cousin's babies fine. Everyone can't cook or do this/that, but you should try to learn & contribute somewhat.

It is highly insulting that men will dictate that a women can't work after marriage.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The quoted section of the article only broke down two statistics by gender. In one, women's attitudes became more retrograde, but by far less than men's; and in the other, women's attitudes actually became more progressive, but again, men's attitudes became more retrograde. The title of the article says it all; the story is men becoming more retrograde against women, not women "voluntarily" being convinced of their own servitude. Here is the graphic chosen for the piece:



Here, the women's attitudes have remained the same since the 1980s, whereas the men's have turned against their independence. Now I have no doubt that with sustained force, shaming, coaxing, harassment, humiliation, political opposition, bribery, flattery of their vanity, and other forms of social pressure, even in some cases beating, rape, and murder, women can eventually be "convinced" that a return to the kitchen is best for them (only by the time we get to 50s attitudes and you finally concede that point to me, if we are both still active on Atlas, it will of course be far too late)... even if they are never really quite as dedicated to their subjugation as men are. Which, by the way, I suspect to be the case even in the most rigid theocracies, such as modern day Saudi Arabia, Iran, or ultraconservative Christian churches. Most women in those societies will claim to be satisfied with their lot (comparatively), but loosen the male-created restrictions, and their attitudes would change quickly. Human nature is constant; it does not want to be suppressed, regardless of gender. I only seek to document the coercive male-led process that regression will take.

     I do suspect that there are certain confounding factors at play in that graph, but it does paint a rather curious picture. The noisiness in the female population (regularly jumping by ~10% between polls) does clash with the clear downward trend for the male population though, which makes me wonder what the variance here actually is. I would also be interested in a gender-flipped version of the question, but I am sure no such thing exists.

     The constancy of human nature is an interesting argument to be made by a liberal. I do think it is much more true than most liberals grant, but the extent to which we are shaped by our society should not be underestimated as a factor. Given how much we have come to accept irreligion and multiculturalism in much of the United States, I have a hard time seeing a return to the America of the 1950s. There are certain long-term trends alongside the cyclical nature of history, and one of those trends has been an increasing respect for the agency of women. Or do you eventually expect to see a return to the 1800s, when women weren't allowed to vote?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Precisely; they are just anecdotes. That a minority of women disagree should not deny the majority of women the right to equality. It is the majority demanding their equality that we should listen to. Further, even if 90% of women in 1872 did not want the right to vote, it does not follow that Victoria Woodhull should have been denied that right; for she is not those 90%. A right, equality, or respectful consideration as a class in society need not be utilized, but there is no harm in it being present; but if one wants to utilize it and it is not present, there is a harm in that.

The aggregate exit poll shows Clinton won among women by over 10 points, which would be the biggest landslide since 1984 if taken alone. In an era of polarization such as this, it's a huge margin. As a group, it was men who elected Trump against the will of women. This is especially significant to the present discussion because if women had their way, we would have a president who wanted to enact paid family leave & probably subsidize child care, and a Congress willing to go along. And once those changed incentives were enacted, women's "choice" would be different, as well. It is not women standing in their own way, it is men.
[/quote]

     You misunderstand me; they are not against women. Rather, they conceive of women's liberation differently. As with any ideological movement, I have noticed that feminists often fall into the trap of assuming that there is only one way to advance the cause. But I digress.

     Regardless, the way you portray this election is bizarre. There were many other factors in play that would lead to more women voting for Clinton and men voting for Trump. These issues that appeal to women particularly were not heavily emphasized (nor were any other issues), which mutes any attempt to read the results as a comment on these policies. Besides, the results could be read just as easily as women trying to elect Clinton against the will of men. This is like a reversed version of the popular conception of the gender gap as hurting the GOP, when it is fundamentally neutral.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Hell no (25-34) this to me is a depressing social trend to be honest.

[Tender Branson]

I personally would be opposed to the idea. But it really depends if you only have a GF and no kids or kids too, where you live and what your income is. During the early years, it would certainly be better if at least one parent is home for most of the time looking for the kids. Later on, you can switch back to full-time employment. But if you have a GF and no kids, I'd want my GF to work full-time.

In rural Austria for example, it's virtually impossible to have kids and work-full time as a woman because there are not enough all-day care spots available. It's much easier to work part-time. My oldest brother's GF (2 adult kids) works full-time and like him is in a leading position and earns a lot. My other brother's GF (1 kid aged 10) worked and works part-time with increasing hours as my nephew gets older. Any my sister (2 nieces, also around 10 years) also works part-time, but she said she'll probably work full-time again when the kids are going to high-school ...

[tik 🪀✨]

For a child though, the first few years are very important & men don't have the motherly, feminine qualities to connect to a child [snippity snip] & a child needs a mother more than a father.

The rest of your post is more or less fine by me but this is some hot, sweaty nonsense, and frankly disturbing.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

No, I like women who talk to me.

What's that supposed to imply?

It speaks for itself.

Reactionary women exist, whether they know it or not. This is not to say that they are the majority.

God I know Atlas has to make everything be about politics (and I know Cathcon in particular might have meant it as a compliment), but for f**k's sake, there's nothing "reactionary" about a man or a woman choosing to dedicate themselves to raising their children.

And I'm still not quite sure what Gully was trying to imply, but I'll guess it was probably insulting so I'll just say f**k him.

I assure you, the label was at least partially tongue-in-cheek. That said, of course such an idea is backwards in a world where it is expected that every person have a career so they and their spouse (both married around age 35) can afford their lifestyle.

[Shadows]

For a child though, the first few years are very important & men don't have the motherly, feminine qualities to connect to a child [snippity snip] & a child needs a mother more than a father.

The rest of your post is more or less fine by me but this is some hot, sweaty nonsense, and frankly disturbing.

I personally feel in the initial few months or a year or 2, a child needs the mother much more than the father. Most of the time mothers are inherently better at raising the child when the child is very young & there are many stuff which an overwhelming amount of fathers just can't do but a mother can. I was born to a working professional who had a full time good job all her life before & after I was born & never left her job etc, so I 100% support working mothers.

The connect a child has with his/her mother in the 1st 15-20 months though is unreal & something you wouldn't understand unless you have a child or have seen children of near one's grow up.

You can disagree & I said it is the responsibility of both parents to raise the child & not the mother. So I find your comment frankly very offensive.

[mvd10]

Lol no (I don't know whether I'm millennial or generation z though). I thought we were past this stage. But I also would absolutely hate being a stay-at-home dad/not working fulltime so that's going to be a problem. Never having children probably is the best solution in my case.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Frankly, I haven't met - let alone dated - a women so far who has considered that an option or goal for her life. Taking the parental leave you're legally entitled too, sure. But other than that...

Where do you find these women?

[progressive85]

I think in every couple with a small child,  there should be one person at home and one person at work, IF the economy was such that it allowed a family to live COMFORTABLY on just one income.  There needs to be somebody at home.

The wife can work and the husband can stay home too.  If she's a cardiologist and wants a career, she can do her job, and her husband can take care of the baby.

[tik 🪀✨]

For a child though, the first few years are very important & men don't have the motherly, feminine qualities to connect to a child [snippity snip] & a child needs a mother more than a father.

The rest of your post is more or less fine by me but this is some hot, sweaty nonsense, and frankly disturbing.

I personally feel in the initial few months or a year or 2, a child needs the mother much more than the father. Most of the time mothers are inherently better at raising the child when the child is very young & there are many stuff which an overwhelming amount of fathers just can't do but a mother can.

"Mom is *magic*" (meanwhile, somewhere, a chorus of gay married men are singing in dissonance)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CONTRAST THIS WITH THE FOLLOWING (please also note how it is important to emphasize that ones mom is a "professional")

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is an amazing, semi-uniquely Atlasian assumption to make about other posters. For the record, I am currently 17 months old and completely disagree with your silly assertions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I respect that you have a unique innate ability to reply to my posts and will forego any criticism from now on.

[Person Man]

Everyone has to work but someone stays home when there is a kid in diapers. The person who stays home is the one who makes less or maybe the mom if they decide to feed naturally.