You don't have to be rich. For many, the cost of daycare and the limited employment options dictate the lifestyle. Also, plenty of people do not believe in having kids only to dump them into someone else's care. Being there for the kids is more important than working for them.
You're responding to many comments on here with the same comments over and over. Do you have a job? Or are you a stay at home mom? You seem to be very defensive of this excuse to not work or go outside of a home someone else is paying for.
Did you miss this part of my first post: "I've done work+house/child care, work+spouse did (some) house/child care and stay at home mom. They all have their pros and cons and which one is 'right' varies by the individual and their partner."
Like I have said...you don't know what these couples' values, finances or job prospects are. You have this narrow-minded, COMPLETELY uninformed opinion formulated. In your eyes, one is living off of the working partner. Period. No exceptions. No information needed. Again, explain how that is valid? You know NOTHING about these people and why they live like this yet you are the authority that gets to decide that it's wrong/lazy/immoral? I know several people who would knock your fucking teeth in for implying that their partner lives off them.
I'm being hateful, and you're telling me I'm going to get my fucking teeth knocked out by daring to notice that a person (really it doesn't have to be a woman, but society is infinitely more critical of men in the stay at home situation) who makes no income is living off the income of a person they live with. Do stay at home moms never eat? Do they sleep outside? Of course not, they eat food and live in houses paid for by other people, therefore they are living off of said people. Simple logic really
How do you have a kid and still pay all your bills? You either have to earn enough or have one parent stay at home. It's not 'living off of someone' if your contribution is worth what it would cost to hire a babysitter, maid, chef and accountant. It's also not your call to say someone is living off someone else...some people hold the value that says I won't have kids unless me or my SO can stay home with them. Those are the people who have an issue with you...the people who decided what's right for their life whether it's moral or financial. Where do you get off declaring that to be wrong or usury?
Since you continuously seem to reply to every single comment on here I'll asuume you "worked and saved up" So you could not have a job and watch tv/troll on isitnormal all day. Its only work if it provides for your living situation. A single mom can't support a family solely by taking care of her babies, therefore any other person involved is supporting her financially! Wow logic dictates reality! Only control freaks want to work extra hard so their wives dont have to, and people stuck in 1840s society wise. And lazy women.
I think you have a real problem in how much you tie your self-worth in with a job. Nobody ever looks back on their life and says 'gee, I wish I spent more time at work'.
IIN to hate "stay at home moms"?
← View full post
Personally I do see it as a euphemism that sounds better than saying "I'm unemployed". That is how I hear it, sorry about it.
That said I'm not hating. If you're privileged enough to have a rich husband who doesn't mind being the sole breadwinner then eh, why not.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You don't have to be rich. For many, the cost of daycare and the limited employment options dictate the lifestyle. Also, plenty of people do not believe in having kids only to dump them into someone else's care. Being there for the kids is more important than working for them.
--
Anonymous Post Author
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You're responding to many comments on here with the same comments over and over. Do you have a job? Or are you a stay at home mom? You seem to be very defensive of this excuse to not work or go outside of a home someone else is paying for.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Jeez, you're ignorant.
Did you miss this part of my first post: "I've done work+house/child care, work+spouse did (some) house/child care and stay at home mom. They all have their pros and cons and which one is 'right' varies by the individual and their partner."
Like I have said...you don't know what these couples' values, finances or job prospects are. You have this narrow-minded, COMPLETELY uninformed opinion formulated. In your eyes, one is living off of the working partner. Period. No exceptions. No information needed. Again, explain how that is valid? You know NOTHING about these people and why they live like this yet you are the authority that gets to decide that it's wrong/lazy/immoral? I know several people who would knock your fucking teeth in for implying that their partner lives off them.
--
Anonymous Post Author
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm being hateful, and you're telling me I'm going to get my fucking teeth knocked out by daring to notice that a person (really it doesn't have to be a woman, but society is infinitely more critical of men in the stay at home situation) who makes no income is living off the income of a person they live with. Do stay at home moms never eat? Do they sleep outside? Of course not, they eat food and live in houses paid for by other people, therefore they are living off of said people. Simple logic really
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
How do you have a kid and still pay all your bills? You either have to earn enough or have one parent stay at home. It's not 'living off of someone' if your contribution is worth what it would cost to hire a babysitter, maid, chef and accountant. It's also not your call to say someone is living off someone else...some people hold the value that says I won't have kids unless me or my SO can stay home with them. Those are the people who have an issue with you...the people who decided what's right for their life whether it's moral or financial. Where do you get off declaring that to be wrong or usury?
--
Anonymous Post Author
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Okay makes sense, so why not both couples share responsibilities and then the other one would only have to work half as hard at a job!
If you're a sucker and want to work twice as hard so your wife can live a life of leisure just cause shes a girl, thats how I look at it.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Define 'work'...
--
Anonymous Post Author
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Something that pays for you to eat?
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So it's only work if you get paid?
--
Anonymous Post Author
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Since you continuously seem to reply to every single comment on here I'll asuume you "worked and saved up" So you could not have a job and watch tv/troll on isitnormal all day. Its only work if it provides for your living situation. A single mom can't support a family solely by taking care of her babies, therefore any other person involved is supporting her financially! Wow logic dictates reality! Only control freaks want to work extra hard so their wives dont have to, and people stuck in 1840s society wise. And lazy women.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I think you have a real problem in how much you tie your self-worth in with a job. Nobody ever looks back on their life and says 'gee, I wish I spent more time at work'.