In terms of a relationship, I don't want my gf/wife to stay at home. If she can work, she should.

A woman who stays home can't really do anything for me that I don't want to do for myself. Cook and clean? I already work full-time and can manage it on my own. Running errands? Driving around in silence is therapy for me.

Furthermore, you don't need to quit your job to raise a child. Remote work is available everywhere and both parents can coordinate schedules to share the effort. You don't need to be willingly unemployed to make grilled cheese and turn on Sesame Street.

I've broken things off with a lot of girls who want to be "homemakers" or "stay-at-home moms." One of them really told on herself recently when she lied about being on birth control and then screamed at me for not fucking her because she "wanted to get pregnant so [she] could quit [her] job." To me, it seems as if these "trad" girls just want a free ride.

Meanwhile, all the right-wingers I know call me a "godless liberal" or "progressive" because I don't want to be a provider for an able-bodied adult for the rest of my natural-born life. Why would I willingly adopt a NEET in exchange for some sucky sucky and a babysitter that I don't need? Someone who partners with me in life should be a teammate, not a liability.

Thoughts? Am I a pansy/liberal/feminist for this?

My wife works 10 hours a week because she likes her wfh job and wants to keep her place in the company, and otherwise focuses fully on taking care of our farm and kid. She doesn't bring in much money but she absolutely contributes as much value as I do to our life. If you think feeding kids intellectual and dietary slop is good enough please don't have children. Raising kids at all is a bit of work, doing a good job is a labor of love. Honestly you sound bitter that you can't support a household on your income.

>>33267462 (OP)
It's not wrong. Women can get degrees and good jobs more easily than men. If things keep going like this, in the near future they'll be more often the breadwinners of the family. Anyway you need a double income.
Being a stay at home wife just doesn't work in this economy.

>>33267477
>Anonymous 06/24/25(Tue)10:11:14 No.33267477▶
Yeah, I know my example was a bit hyperbolic. IK that's not all there is to children. If I had a kid I'd be wholly committed to making sure their physical and mental development are top-tier. It's not that I couldn't support a household, it's that my spouse should do their part regardless of how much money I have.

>>33267480
With the opportunities afforded to them educationally and vocationally, there's something about a woman with zero real world skills that is just unattractive to me.

>>33267462 (OP)
>ou don't need to be willingly unemployed to make grilled cheese and turn on Sesame Street
As an uncle, it's harder than that. At least with a -1 year old baby. The first half of that year you have to constantly support them. I mean physically. It's like looking after a cripple. You don't want them lying on their back all day. Then the next half of the first year you still have to constantly keep an eye on them, and entertain them. You have to do that and all the other daily tasks that need done, like feeding yourself as well as the baby. Getting them to sleep several times a day. It just requires your full attention, all day. It's hard enough

But after that when they grow a bit older, like 5 years old, I'd imagine it's not as hard, and probably pretty easy

>>33267531
Yeah, I've babysat my nephew a number of times by myself and it did require a lot of my attention ngl. I can imagine it only being like 50% as much effort with somebody else around, though. That's what I want out of a family scenario when I think about my future.

>>33267462 (OP)
>>33267531
So other than that I think you are correct. Women always worked when they could. If a woman won't contribute to the household when it is needed then she's not worth it, she's a lazy bitch

>>33267538
The whole point in marriage is you're a team. You have your head screwed on right. This "tradcuck" shit is made up crap. An actual traditional woman were hard working

my wife works one day a week basically just because she wants to but i value the cleaning, child care, and errand running she does 5 days a week at a premium

also i had a really easy work from home job when my son was a baby and i still couldnt handle caring for him and the job you would have to be a real do-nothing to swing that imo

>>33267558
I've got one of those right now, so I don't imagine it would be a monumental task to also have a baby at home if that's what I want one day. LMAO I say "one day" like I'm not 27 already. Time flies

>>33267462 (OP)
>Thoughts?
You've already had them. What more are you expecting? You have your priorities and they clash with the mainstream narrative.

>>33267609
>You've already had them. What more are you expecting? You have your priorities and they clash with
Throwing em out there to see if what I'm expecting is reasonable or not. In a world where we all have our own echo chambers and boxes we like to stay in, it's easy to get wrapped up in yourself and think you're the smartest person on the planet who's right about everything.

>>33267462 (OP)
>I've broken things off with a lot of girls who want to be "homemakers" or "stay-at-home moms."
A bridge too far, the shitposting was revealed

>>33267670
It's a pattern bro trust me
>Suckers you in by talking about how hard they work
>Start to complain about their job
>You offer solutions to help them fix it but they don't give a fuck
>They start saying stuff like "I can't wait til I can just be a mother and not have to work a dumb stupid job"
>They get really sexually aggressive and pushy
>You realize what's going on and turn them down
>They call you gay or insult your manhood
>You break up with them
>They throw a hail mary and admit they want to be barefoot and pregnant for the next 10 years and you're the ONLY man they want to do that with
>Block them on everything
>Repeat cycle

>>33267727
No, you drooling loser, the idea that someone that successful with women would come *here8 to complain about wanting an ass-busting woman?
RIDICULOUS!
Anyone in the grindset mindset who can also freely date is meeting PLENTY of women that never want to own a minivan you fucking moron.
And this,
>all the right-wingers I know call me a "godless liberal" or "progressive" because I don't want to be a provider for an able-bodied adult for the rest of my natural-born life
Actual SoCons don't hang out with hedonistic losers and if they are forced to work with them avoid comment because why sully yourself talking to scum?
A Libertarians luuuuurve them working wives, which you'd know if you left the house.
Reading your fiction is like reading a 14 year old virgin girl write about how soldiers talk to each other

>>33267462 (OP)
If you love someone, why would you want them to spend their life working a soul crushing job instead of staying at home raising your children?

>>33267641
>In a world where we all have our own echo chambers and boxes we like to stay in, it's easy to get wrapped up in yourself and think you're the smartest person on the planet who's right about everything.
I can do that when I'm by myself. Get on my level.

>>33267462 (OP)
I agree with you.

>>33267462 (OP)
Your a lazy beta with no ambitions and no social connections. Your wife should be like your helper that you treasure because you have so much on your plate. A real man is too busy to cook and clean, even if it's too busy drinking with the guys.

>>33267462 (OP)
I won.t read requests to calibrate what is normal for subhuman, formulaic retards.

>>33267462 (OP)
no, this isnt wrong. this is just called being equal in a relationship

>>33267946
Oh hell yeah I should've thought of that
Alcoholism is fucking based

>>33267837
Because I wouldn't fall in love with someone who is content to sit around at home, waiting for me to arrive at 6:30 to a mediocre dinner that I didn't get to participate in making. I want to be active and do things together, even if it's house work and cooking meals. I like doing that stuff.

>>33267827
I must have missed the part where I'm a beta male that can't get my dick wet, but you definitely missed the part about how I keep having to break up with girls who DO work that are trying to bait-and-switch me.

>>33267462 (OP)
>Remote work is available everywhere
Not every job can be done remotely.

A SAHM is not a NEET. Child care is a job that requires constant stkill upgrades as children age.

>>33267462 (OP)
Nope I couldn't agree with you more.
I always wanted to be a stay-at-home father and have a woman to be a breadwinner unfortunately that couldn't happen so I'm the breadwinner oh well.

But then again I've always been the type that wanted a dominant woman in my life ;)

>>33267462 (OP)
>"homemakers" or "stay-at-home moms."

That was legit when electric appliances weren't around, running a household without those is an actual full time job.
Just point these to the nearest welfare office, jobs been automated and is no longer available.

>>33268577
>[retarded LARPer noises]
lol

in an idealized world a stay at home wife would be great.
practically, most of us will never reach an income level that could facilitate that. this aint the 60s and i look at my bills and wonder how i would be able to support both a grown woman and even just 1 baby with my current job trajectory

>>33267462 (OP)
I love that my wife works because she gets in contact with other men at work and I imagine they have sex.

>>33272794
Reality of 2024-2025 - about 30% of all married women that have children 18 years old or younger are stay at home mothers.
the percentage of SAHMs has been increasing in every income quintile for about 25 years.
So men today are MUCH MORE likely to have a SAHW than in 1999, about as likely as men in 1974.
You are falling for a psyop, you chump.

>>33267462 (OP)
Any woman with the education, skill, drive, and such to succeed in the academic or business world is going to be an excellent stay at home wife.
Your issue is your total ignorance of what actually running a household entails. you think 'washing dishes and buying a taco' = 'homemaking'.
lol
First, there are the expenses of a woman working - the average working woman spends over $10k/year on transpiration to and from work, clothing, and increased food costs so her TAKE HOME pay needs to be adjusted downward by $10k to show how much she really earns.
A good homemaker is saving her household a fortune by shopping sales, preparing more foods from scratch, keeping a high level of cleanliness and maintenance, and so on. The average SAHW saves her family $4k/year this way, so adjust her take home pay down by that much, too
Further, a stay at home mother decreases costs related to children *massively*. Just child care costs are an average of $11 k/year (rounded down) so - again - subtract that from her take home pay.
The average GROSS income of a White woman in her 30's who works full time is $46,700 a year, round up to $47k. That's an annual take home of about $34k
So if you have one kid and she's working her effective take home is actually $9k.
Two kids?
You are LOSING $2k/year.
And let me point out - this is very, VERY optimistic on her take home and costs. you live in a high-cost of living area, a high-tax state/city, or both?
You're fucked immediately.