"Survey finds stay-at-home mothers are more satisfied than any other profession"

[Hotmail]

I agree with that statement and would like to flip it on its head as a thought exercise as one of my friends is a stay-at-home dad - he is just progressive like that.

He proudly calls himself a “domestic engineer.” And like many stay-at-home parents, he is re-writing the history books for what it means to be a committed partner in a marriage. Indeed, many of us assume that in most marriages, the mother is the default partner who not only wants to stay home and raise kids but is also the one who will take the least financial hit... not in his case, though.

His wife Carol is a lawyer and is very motivated since the work pays well. My friend even quit his job at a bank and even took his wife's last name in marriage just to fully immerse himself into that kind of experience.

So yeah I would say that this is highly situational. Different things will make different people happy.

[Sunseeker]

From what country? Because in teh western nations, history has been liberalized. If you are learning history in west, you are learning historical revisions.

Take your crap elsewhere. You're more brainwashed than any teacher I ever had. Oooooo the big bad liberals are coming to get you!!! SCARY!!!! lol weak.

[The One Percent]

My fries could use your salt. Do the earth a favor and never breed.

Don't worry, my offspring are already telling you and your offspring what to do.

[Powerogue]

I'll bet it has to do with the pattern that people who feel their work is meaningful and see the impact it has on a regular basis are more satisfied with it. As a stay at home mom it'd make sense they're both seeing the house get cleaner and, more importantly, seeing children learn and grow up due to their influence.

[PACOX]

Its an occupations they more of less chose.
Great job security
Decent spousal support
Own boss

I could see why there is amount of job satisfaction but people are out of there asses if they think its easy, unless the kids are saints.
A good at home mom is keeping the kids on point, house in order, meals done, councilor, community liaison, etc. You ever play a game and had to carry as support? Imagine doing that 24/7, 365, except it actually mattered.

My moms did it for half my childhood as a single parent working a full time job and its tough but there is a supportive group behind you.

[Deleted]

I don't quite understand the disagreement going on. Are people actually saying that housewives weren't a thing for a long, long time?

Yep, apparently some people have never read any history before 1914, it's very odd

The notion of a housewife is simply a woman working in the home (owned by the husband) and taking care of their joint children; something women of every culture and social class (including slaves/servants) have done throughout history simply because that is what worked

It's arguable that laws, ethics and the entire concept of civilisation grew out of the ways in which we have organised families around the role of the mother-housewife - as that was the best way to birth and raise children in a stable society

Lao Tzu wrote of how women were at the core of home life; Socrates mentions with humour of the reasons he kept his hostile and demanding wife whose name I forget around; the first law codes always put emphasis on the protection of housewives and how families are organised, recognising that they are the core of what makes society

[urasim]

Yes, that it was not a recent phenomenon. Context is important. The article isn't talking about the wives of the super-rich.

Yeah, I don't care. I wasn't arguing that. Try to keep up and stop building strawmen.

Where I lied ? Go check my posts. I said from the first post that ''stay at home'' mothers in the common sense of the word
are

A)relatively recent if not very recent
B)not widespread, and certainly not universal

Yes, for a short period, it was possible to live confortably with a single income in the United States on a pretty normal salary. The golden period for it was the same period for most Western countries : late 1940 to mid 1970.

It's recorded as far back as china in 220 bc...

You're probably not a liar... It's much more likely you don't know the meaning of the word "recent".

[sarahtasher]

Okay, so you think that Socrates and Lao Tseu were average Greeks and Chinese ?

And once again, you are gravely mistaken if you think that even the higher classes had ''homemakers'' raising their children extensively. What is, according to you, a wet nurse ? (no, it's not a nurse that fell into a vat of white sauce in that anime , no...)

[sarahtasher]

Yep, apparently some people have never read any history before 1914, it's very odd

The notion of a housewife is simply a woman working in the home (owned by the husband) and taking care of their joint children; something women of every culture and social class (including slaves/servants) have done throughout history simply because that is what worked

It's arguable that laws, ethics and the entire concept of civilisation grew out of the ways in which we have organised families around the role of the mother-housewife - as that was the best way to birth and raise children in a stable society

Lao Tzu wrote of how women were at the core of home life; Socrates mentions with humour of the reasons he kept his hostile and demanding wife whose name I forget around; the first law codes always put emphasis on the protection of housewives and how families are organised, recognising that they are the core of what makes society

You do realize that employing slaves and servants to do the work in the house means

A)you are from the upper strata of the society
B)quite different for taking care yourself of the children

Also, the mere concept of the house ''owned'' by the husband make considerably reduce the ''width'' of your examples to...pretty much suburban America for the first decades of the 20th century (non-rural workers did obviously not owned their own houses in their immense majority in Europe well after WW2)

[Deleted]

You do realize that employing slaves and servants to do the work in the house means

A)you are from the upper strata of the society
B)quite different for taking care yourself of the children

Also, the mere concept of the house ''owned'' by the husband make considerably reduce the ''width'' of your examples to...pretty much suburban America for the first decades of the 20th century (non-rural workers did obviously not owned their own houses in their immense majority in Europe well after WW2)

I've read a lot of nonsense here and elsewhere but this is some of the weirdest nonsense I've read in a while, like if you combine someone with zero knowledge of history with someone who believes things they invented in their own head

a) Most people got married, including aristocrats, slaves, and everyone in between
b) Housewives were the norm in every social class enumerated above
c) Men (and in some cases women) have owned property and houses for millennia
d) Many ancient societies have legal codes specifically talking about housewives and their legal rights

[sarahtasher]

Dude, in what world do you think most people in Europe owned their own house and lands ? You really think that a coal miner in England bought his own house ? Or that a railroad worker in France had a nice suburb pavillon ? (they did got them eventually..after decades)

Please, give me the title of that fascinating book of your. That's going to be fun.

(In Western Europe, there was a relatively large class of peasants owing their own house, lands, and beasts of burden. But in those family units, everyone worked)

[Deleted]

Dude, in what world do you think most people in Europe owned their own house and lands ?

In Western Europe, there was a relatively large class of peasants owing their own house, lands, and beasts of burden. But in those family units, everyone worked.

Wait - do you think society was always just 1% nobles and kings, and everyone else was some kind of dispossessed slave, working the land naked like animals with no possessions and no life?

Have you ever read an actual book?

Peasants - even serfs - had basic huts

It wasn't in any way luxurious but they had possessions, the landowners paid them even if they weren't actually free citizens, they had families and housewives who worked in the home and took care of children

The life of peasants in the middle ages was not so different from the poor in the third world today, who live in shantytowns and have only the most basic things - there too, today, in 2016, there are housewives and children

[Draco-Onis]

Well of course. The fantasy that stay-at-home moms just work cleaning the house and taking care of their kids while making sure everything is perfect is just that: a fantasy. Stay at home moms spend their time basically however they want and if the kids didn't die they succeeded for the day, and that's if the kids aren't at school or somewhere else.

Out of morbid curiosity, do you have any children?

[Kalis]

Have you ever read an actual book?

Only a little red one.

[sarahtasher]

Wait - do you think society was always just 1% nobles and kings, and everyone else was some kind of dispossessed slave, working the land naked like animals with no possessions and no life?

Have you ever read an actual book?

Once again, which book you read ? Which book told you the workers of the industrial revolution owned their own houses ? What means according to you words like ''enclosures'' (English) or ''métayers'' (French ?)

Actual books would told you that in 1789, the vast majority of the French peasants did not owned lands, or at least not owned enough land to scrape a living-they had to rent themselves to wealthier peasants, laboureurs

- - - Updated - - -

Only a little red one.

Oh, I would damn like to know what is this book that explains that most peasants in Europe owned their lands prior to 1789. I would really like to know this book.

[Deleted]

Once again, which book you read ? Which book told you the workers of the industrial revolution owned their own houses ? What means according to you words like ''enclosures'' (English) or ''métayers'' (French ?)

Actual books would told you that in 1789, the vast majority of the French peasants did not owned lands, or at least not owned enough land to scrape a living-they had to rent themselves to wealthier peasants, laboureurs

Oh, I would damn like to know what is this book that explains that most peasants in Europe owned their lands prior to 1789. I would really like to know this book.

OK so you're just uneducated and think that human society began sometime in the 17th century, and that there was no nuance, no professions, no civilisation until post-renaissance Europe, just slaves and masters

Here's a quick copy paste about Mesopotamia, 4000BC - 2000BC or so:

-----------

The upper class included merchants who owned their own companies, scribes, private tutors, and, in time, high-ranking military men. Other occupations of the upper class were accountants, architects, astrologers (who were usually priests), and shipwrights. The merchant who owned his own company, and did not need to travel, was a man of leisure who could enjoy the best beer in the city in the company of his friends while attended by slaves. Scribes were highly respected and served at court, in the temple, and in the schools. Every teacher was a scribe, and one of the most important disciplines taught in every Mesopotamian school was writing. Only boys attended school. While women did enjoy almost equal rights, they were still not considered intelligent enough to be able to master literacy. This paradigm remained in place even after the notable career of Enheduanna. Private tutors were also held in high regard and were paid well by the wealthy families of the cities to help their sons excel at their school work. Private tutors not in the employ of a school (which was often run by the temple) were considered men of exceptional intelligence, virtue, and character. They devoted themselves completely to the student, or students, under their tutelage and, if they had a client of high means, lived almost as well as he did.

The lower class was made up of those occupations which kept the city or region actually operating: farmers, artists, musicians, construction workers, canal builders, bakers, basket makers, butchers, fishermen, cup bearers, brick makers, brewers, tavern owners, prostitutes, metallurgists, carpenters, perfume makers, potters, jewelry makers, goldsmiths, cart and, later, chariot drivers, soldiers, sailors, and merchants who worked for another man’s company. Of those listed above, prostitutes, perfume makers, jewelry makers, and goldsmiths could also be considered upper class professions under the right circumstances (such as exceptional skill or finding favor in a wealthy patron or the king). Any member of the lower class could, however, climb the social ladder. The Assyriologist Jean Bottero notes that, "the town of Kish was ruled not by a king but by an energetic queen called Ku-baba, a former tavern keeper, about whom we know nothing else" (125). For the most part, women were relegated to the lower class jobs but, clearly, could hold the same esteemed positions as males. Women were the first brewers and tavern keepers and also the first doctors and dentists in ancient Mesopotamia before those occupations proved lucrative and were taken over by men.

The lowest social order was the slaves. One could become a slave in a number of ways: being captured in war, selling oneself into slavery to pay off a debt, being sold as punishment for a crime, being kidnapped and sold into slavery in another region, or being sold by a family member to relieve a debt. Slaves had no single ethnicity nor were they solely employed for manual labor. Slaves kept house, managed large estates, tutored young children, tended horses, served as accountants and skilled jewelry makers, and could be employed in whatever capacity their master saw they had a talent in. A slave who worked diligently for his or her master could eventually buy their freedom.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Well of course. The fantasy that stay-at-home moms just work cleaning the house and taking care of their kids while making sure everything is perfect is just that: a fantasy. Stay at home moms spend their time basically however they want and if the kids didn't die they succeeded for the day, and that's if the kids aren't at school or somewhere else.

Thats weird, society makes it sounds like the hardest thing to do imaginable.

[sarahtasher]

OK so you're just uneducated and think that human society began sometime in the 17th century, and that there was no nuance, no professions, no civilisation until post-renaissance Europe, just slaves and masters

Here's a quick copy paste about Mesopotamia, 4000BC - 2000BC or so:

-----------

The upper class included merchants who owned their own companies, scribes, private tutors, and, in time, high-ranking military men. Other occupations of the upper class were accountants, architects, astrologers (who were usually priests), and shipwrights. The merchant who owned his own company, and did not need to travel, was a man of leisure who could enjoy the best beer in the city in the company of his friends while attended by slaves. Scribes were highly respected and served at court, in the temple, and in the schools. Every teacher was a scribe, and one of the most important disciplines taught in every Mesopotamian school was writing. Only boys attended school. While women did enjoy almost equal rights, they were still not considered intelligent enough to be able to master literacy. This paradigm remained in place even after the notable career of Enheduanna. Private tutors were also held in high regard and were paid well by the wealthy families of the cities to help their sons excel at their school work. Private tutors not in the employ of a school (which was often run by the temple) were considered men of exceptional intelligence, virtue, and character. They devoted themselves completely to the student, or students, under their tutelage and, if they had a client of high means, lived almost as well as he did.

The lower class was made up of those occupations which kept the city or region actually operating: farmers, artists, musicians, construction workers, canal builders, bakers, basket makers, butchers, fishermen, cup bearers, brick makers, brewers, tavern owners, prostitutes, metallurgists, carpenters, perfume makers, potters, jewelry makers, goldsmiths, cart and, later, chariot drivers, soldiers, sailors, and merchants who worked for another man’s company. Of those listed above, prostitutes, perfume makers, jewelry makers, and goldsmiths could also be considered upper class professions under the right circumstances (such as exceptional skill or finding favor in a wealthy patron or the king). Any member of the lower class could, however, climb the social ladder. The Assyriologist Jean Bottero notes that, "the town of Kish was ruled not by a king but by an energetic queen called Ku-baba, a former tavern keeper, about whom we know nothing else" (125). For the most part, women were relegated to the lower class jobs but, clearly, could hold the same esteemed positions as males. Women were the first brewers and tavern keepers and also the first doctors and dentists in ancient Mesopotamia before those occupations proved lucrative and were taken over by men.

The lowest social order was the slaves. One could become a slave in a number of ways: being captured in war, selling oneself into slavery to pay off a debt, being sold as punishment for a crime, being kidnapped and sold into slavery in another region, or being sold by a family member to relieve a debt. Slaves had no single ethnicity nor were they solely employed for manual labor. Slaves kept house, managed large estates, tutored young children, tended horses, served as accountants and skilled jewelry makers, and could be employed in whatever capacity their master saw they had a talent in. A slave who worked diligently for his or her master could eventually buy their freedom.

Dude, in addition to the fact that this link is a mere factoid, where in this link they mention that the farmers owned the land ? (hint : Egyptian fellahs certainly did not) What do you think means the word ''kleros'' for instance ?

''I own this piece of terrain and I can do what I want with it'' (right of use and right of dispose) were not the common regime of land ownership in Western Europe, let alone Eastern Europe for most of it's history.

[Draco-Onis]

Thats weird, society makes it sounds like the hardest thing to do imaginable.

Just like at work you have lazy workers, people who do the minimum and the hard workers, you can easily raise your kids on auto pilot but that's not parenting. Most stay at home people want to say they are parents but being a parent is hard.

[Kalis]

Dude, in addition to the fact that this link is a mere factoid, where in this link they mention that the farmers owned the land ? (hint : Egyptian fellahs certainly did not) What do you think means the word ''kleros'' for instance ?

''I own this piece of terrain and I can do what I want with it'' (right of use and right of dispose) were not the common regime of land ownership in Western Europe, let alone Eastern Europe for most of it's history.

Xarim said they were home owners, not land owners - you can own a house but not the land it is on.

Even today the concept ''I own this piece of terrain and I can do what I want with it'' is not going to wash in many regions. Try implementing that in your freehold house in Kensington and see how far you get, so does that mean there are no housewives in Kensington?