"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists

[The Whispering Monk]

Pretty much being a homemaker is a full time job so a woman like that should be take. Care of.

I used to work in a field where I sold life insurance. My company did a study of what it would cost to replace all the work that a homemaker did for their family. Came out to around $40,000 + (depending on cost of living adjustments). This was over 10 years ago...so add inflation to that number.

Now, a widow/er can certainly offset some of that with their own efforts, but then you also start to quickly lose out as time spent doing that is time NOT spent earning money at their job.

 

[King Arts]

It used to be. It still is in third world. But in first world with the family size and technology involved its a half time job at most. And most families aren't even big enough for that.
It's no about "modern capitalism", its about technology, culture, lifestyle.
No, in the past wages were not higher, you could say they are kinda stagnant over last half century but that's it.

I don't see how technology has anything to do with it. The 1950's were not backward backbreaking work that only men could do and women weren't able to. They could do the work, society and the law just did not allow them.(For good reason, a healthy society is one where gender roles are a thing and people divide the work, everyone doing everything is inefficient and bad. It was better when women took care of the home and the common man was able to "bring home the bacon".

I used to work in a field where I sold life insurance. My company did a study of what it would cost to replace all the work that a homemaker did for their family. Came out to around $40,000 + (depending on cost of living adjustments). This was over 10 years ago...so add inflation to that number.

Now, a widow/er can certainly offset some of that with their own efforts, but then you also start to quickly lose out as time spent doing that is time NOT spent earning money at their job.

So you do agree that if only men were working that would improve things for both men AND women?

 

[mrttao]

I used to work in a field where I sold life insurance. My company did a study of what it would cost to replace all the work that a homemaker did for their family. Came out to around $40,000 + (depending on cost of living adjustments). This was over 10 years ago...so add inflation to that number.

Now, a widow/er can certainly offset some of that with their own efforts, but then you also start to quickly lose out as time spent doing that is time NOT spent earning money at their job.

The main issue is the "home maker" part.

Sure, if you assume she cooks properly, cleans, raises the kids, drives them around, etc. Lots of man hours.

On the other hand, she could be ordering food delivery every day, or buying instant microwave dishes. And ordering maid service once a week.

 

[Marduk]

I don't see how technology has anything to do with it. The 1950's were not backward backbreaking work that only men could do and women weren't able to. They could do the work, society and the law just did not allow them.(For good reason, a healthy society is one where gender roles are a thing and people divide the work, everyone doing everything is inefficient and bad. It was better when women took care of the home and the common man was able to "bring home the bacon".

A lot of what was traditionally women's work was heavily automated with machines so that it takes a small fraction of the time it took back in the past. Compare laundry with a 2000 washing machine vs laundry in 1900's village.
A lot of male work went similar way, which also made women more realistically able to do them.
Also massive explosion of bureaucracies and office work, though that's more law and culture.
No, it absolutly wasn't the case that "they weren't allowed".

Apparently half as big proportion of women was "allowed" back in the 50's as now, and with single women the difference is minimal. The culture didn't promote it as much and there were less cushy options and favoritism, but that is it.
There is also probably a big effect with shift of lifestyle due to urbanization and lower amount of people living on farms, where women in theory were "homemakers" but in practice worked as much as the men, on the farm, not doing the exact same things as the man, but still doing things that needed to be done for farming purposes.

Note that this particular chart is screaming BS to me. Quite bluntly, my guess is that they only looked at people who earn wages hourly, but I can't quite be sure.

In actuality, both real household and real personal income (real means adjusted for inflation, nominal means not adjusted), has risen over the decades. And that also doesn't account for us simply having better stuff now as well.

Note, while I hate the Fed, the St Louis Fed does have very useful tools for analyzing public data, which you can in fact use. Below are two links to the real household and real personal income graphs, but there are more and you can even download the datasets.

Real Median Household Income in the United States

View the inflation-adjusted value of the 50th percentile of the U.S. income distribution, as estimated by the Census Bureau.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Real Median Personal Income in the United States

Graph and download economic data for Real Median Personal Income in the United States (MEPAINUSA672N) from 1974 to 2022 about personal income, personal, median, income, real, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Yes, it is hourly, by hour, and adjusted by purchasing power, its Pew so its probably not bullshit.

 

[Abhorsen]

The main issue is the "home maker" part.

Sure, if you assume she cooks properly, cleans, raises the kids, drives them around, etc. Lots of man hours.

On the other hand, she could be ordering food delivery every day, or buying instant microwave dishes. And ordering maid service once a week.

I'll tell you straight up, from a math grad's opinion, that life insurance companies hire the best statisticians. So whatever number that is, that's for the median life insurance purchaser's homemaker, with probably a bunch of other ways to normalize stuff and quantify stuff that make it a really good answer.

So all of those exceptions, etc? They're all accounted for here. From the 'homemaker' that's actively useless, to the one taking care of 10 children. All averaged out into a number. Note that there's likely also an answer for how to adjust based on the number of children as well (probably in the cost of living adjustments).

Yes, it is hourly, by hour, and adjusted by purchasing power, its Pew so its probably not bullshit.

Given that the same data tells a radically different story when we look at yearly income which shows real increase, yeah, there's some BS going on there. Note that Pew may not be directly responsible for the bullshit, someone just asked them a question designed to elicit a biased response. GIGO happened, and there you go.

I think I might have found the issue: the focus on income vs wages. See, the ACS (American Community Survey, run by the Census Bureau, and the likely source for the info) is actually incredibly good about dealing with excluding rich outliers, as it caps reported income at 300K to allow for privacy. A lot more Americans now own a small business or are self employed, have alternate income streams, etc. Excluding this makes income look flat when in actuality, a lot of people increased their incomes.

 

[mrttao]

No, it absolutly wasn't the case that "they weren't allowed".

Yea, people keep on saying "they were not allowed" but its all feminist fantasy.

do you have any sources showing it was illegal for a woman to be a blacksmith and she was arrested if she tried?

because there were a bunch of examples of female blacksmiths all throughout

Female Blacksmiths in History (Famous Female Blacksmiths) - Working the Flame

Accounts of female blacksmiths in history and females in the blacksmithing trade during the middle ages, colonial period, and modern age.

workingtheflame.com

This "women were arrested if they tried to not be housewife" is, as far as I can tell, just revisionist history by feminists.

It should be noted that smiting is hard dangerous physical labor. Which is basically the last thing 99.999% of women want to do.

 

[S'task]

So you do agree that if only men were working that would improve things for both men AND women?

If the estimated value of housework is $40k, then it depends on the situation of the family. If the wife is making >$40k from her professional work, then it very much might be that they cannot afford to have her stay at home full time depending on the husband's income and all their expenses. And no "they can just cut back their standard of living" isn't really a viable answer for many of these dual income families. Mortgage/Rent plus power, water, internet, and food (and yes, this is a basic essential in this day and age) can eat up such a huge percentage of the basic income depending on where they live that "cutting back" isn't an option. And don't pretend that moving somewhere cheaper just handwaves this, moving is a major expense of time and money that many families cannot simply afford to do on a whim, and to lower the costs of housing you often increase other costs like the costs of transportation in such a way as to completely offset what is gained.

It's not something that can easily be addressed in the general, as each individual's family situation is unique to them, and those specific expenses all end up generalized...

And then you have situations where the wife is just... bad... at housework...

 

[King Arts]

If the estimated value of housework is $40k, then it depends on the situation of the family. If the wife is making >$40k from her professional work, then it very much might be that they cannot afford to have her stay at home full time depending on the husband's income and all their expenses. And no "they can just cut back their standard of living" isn't really a viable answer for many of these dual income families. Mortgage/Rent plus power, water, internet, and food (and yes, this is a basic essential in this day and age) can eat up such a huge percentage of the basic income depending on where they live that "cutting back" isn't an option. And don't pretend that moving somewhere cheaper just handwaves this, moving is a major expense of time and money that many families cannot simply afford to do on a whim, and to lower the costs of housing you often increase other costs like the costs of transportation in such a way as to completely offset what is gained.

It's not something that can easily be addressed in the general, as each individual's family situation is unique to them, and those specific expenses all end up generalized...

And then you have situations where the wife is just... bad... at housework...

No I'm saying socially accross the entire society it's better for women to not work. Yes I get for an individual family to have two incomes, however it is a perverse incentive that should be clamped down on because if EVERYONE does it then wages will go down because you've doubled the work force, the more plentiful something is(in this case workers) the cheaper it becomes. Thus a company can then lower wages, conversely if there are fewer workers wages will go up.

The same argument applies to migrants lets pretend that all immigrants will follow the law and not cause any problems. Does that mean we should allow mass migration? NO! Because then there are more workers competing for more jobs, thus wages will be lowered. The rarer something is the more it is worth the more common something is the lower it's worth on average.

What I am saying is IF there was a law that enforced social norms from the 50's so women were barred from working, then wages of all workers will go up(because you cut the workforce in half) the common men who now have a higher wage will be able to afford to take care of a wife and kids and houses will survive with a one person income. This would become the average.

 

[Marduk]

No I'm saying socially accross the entire society it's better for women to not work. Yes I get for an individual family to have two incomes, however it is a perverse incentive that should be clamped down on because if EVERYONE does it then wages will go down because you've doubled the work force, the more plentiful something is(in this case workers) the cheaper it becomes. Thus a company can then lower wages, conversely if there are fewer workers wages will go up.

The same argument applies to migrants lets pretend that all immigrants will follow the law and not cause any problems. Does that mean we should allow mass migration? NO! Because then there are more workers competing for more jobs, thus wages will be lowered. The rarer something is the more it is worth the more common something is the lower it's worth on average.

What I am saying is IF there was a law that enforced social norms from the 50's so women were barred from working, then wages of all workers will go up(because you cut the workforce in half) the common men who now have a higher wage will be able to afford to take care of a wife and kids and houses will survive with a one person income. This would become the average.

And prices of all the goods and services those workers make... will also go up, so everyone will be able to buy less of those.
And as we have established, no, in 1950's women were not barred from working. There were twice as many married women not working as now, that's the difference, but a third still worked.

It's not something that can easily be addressed in the general, as each individual's family situation is unique to them, and those specific expenses all end up generalized...

And then you have situations where the wife is just... bad... at housework...

Yup, circumstantial differences on the need and in turn value of necessary housework can massively change the equation. Say, if you have a family with 4 kids living on a farm, there's plenty of housework to go around, even on childcare alone the wife can probably save around minimum wage job worth by not working, plus she does some farm and yard work, probably great financial decision in total.
OTOH you have a upper middle class urban family with one teenage kid that dines out a lot and has a cleaner do a round twice a week. Unless they have a mansion or are clean freaks then there probably isn't much housework to do.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

have you noticed that the common thread in this discussion is that women where responsible for the management of the families resources?

 

[ParadiseLost]

Note that this particular chart is screaming BS to me. Quite bluntly, my guess is that they only looked at people who earn wages hourly, but I can't quite be sure.

In actuality, both real household and real personal income (real means adjusted for inflation, nominal means not adjusted), has risen over the decades. And that also doesn't account for us simply having better stuff now as well.

Note, while I hate the Fed, the St Louis Fed does have very useful tools for analyzing public data, which you can in fact use. Below are two links to the real household and real personal income graphs, but there are more and you can even download the datasets.

Real Median Household Income in the United States

View the inflation-adjusted value of the 50th percentile of the U.S. income distribution, as estimated by the Census Bureau.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Real Median Personal Income in the United States

Graph and download economic data for Real Median Personal Income in the United States (MEPAINUSA672N) from 1974 to 2022 about personal income, personal, median, income, real, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Yes, but changes in inflation and changes in purchasing power are two very different things.

For example:

Real median personal/household income is up about 20-25% since 1990.

Median Sales Price of Houses Sold for the United States

Graph and download economic data for Median Sales Price of Houses Sold for the United States (MSPUS) from Q1 1963 to Q4 2023 about sales, median, housing, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Median Home price is up a whole fucking 238%. Basically tripled.

The cost of a public 4 year college has quadrupled.

The problem is that while a lot of tech has dropped in price, essential goods for living a middle class life have skyrocketed.

Sure, its way easier for people to buy fancy gadgets today. Its way harder to afford getting an education that will get you a decent paying job and buying your own home to raise kids in.

 

[Abhorsen]

Yes, but changes in inflation and changes in purchasing power are two very different things.

Not in the same country. What you've talked (housing, college) about is actually all part and parcel of inflation, though some graphs will use a CPI (consumer price index) minus something, where they leave out say, housing, rent, food, or something else. That's usually a sign of BS unless they have a very clear reason to do so (though the graph I called BS initially didn't do this specific thing, tbc). But basically, all those insane price increases are balanced by other, non-insane price changes.

To elaborate:

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is designed to basically show the difference between today's $1 in China (or some other country), vs today's $1 in the US. Basically the idea that you can live like a king earning $50k a year in some countries.

Inflation is the difference between yesterday's $1 in the US vs today's $1 in the US. Basically the idea that you could live like a king earning $50k a year if you lived in the 1800s.

Basically, inflation is PPP when applied to time instead of locale, and visa versa. They are interchangeable enough that the terms can be used interchangeably except where both apply (usually foreign GDP).

So when talking about the past in the same country, inflation is the entirety of the difference, by definition of what inflation is. And sometimes inflation is called purchasing power instead, but that's the same thing.

 

[King Arts]

And prices of all the goods and services those workers make... will also go up, so everyone will be able to buy less of those.
And as we have established, no, in 1950's women were not barred from working. There were twice as many married women not working as now, that's the difference, but a third still worked.

Economics is very complicated. But you can't deny that less women worked then. Majority of women who were married did not work, and most women got married. So a job was just a temporary thing similar to how teenagers are suppose to have McDonalds jobs. It was not designed to be able for you to respectfully have a liveable wage. It is meant to get a little bit of pocket money.

Now with women having to work that previous assumption and the stable society of the 50's was thrown out of whack, and that has many negative effects.

 

[Marduk]

Economics is very complicated. But you can't deny that less women worked then. Majority of women who were married did not work, and most women got married. So a job was just a temporary thing similar to how teenagers are suppose to have McDonalds jobs. It was not designed to be able for you to respectfully have a liveable wage. It is meant to get a little bit of pocket money.

Well it was not so temporary for a third of married women still. Now its a slim majority.
There was no design in it, sorry, you are mixing it up with the other world power of the time.
Speaking of, the economic climate then was quite unique, with USA reaping the benefits of being the only major industrial power not needing to rebuild from WW2 in the world. That's not something that can be assumed to be replicated often even with competent leadership.

Now with women having to work that previous assumption and the stable society of the 50's was thrown out of whack, and that has many negative effects.

Choosing to work for various reasons. The graph also does not correct for increasing levels of urbanization, as the incentives for women having jobs are different in rural farm and related properties vs city lifestyle like i've explained. Comparing that with farm labor statistics and urbanization rate, it seems those effects ( much less percent of workforce is in agriculture, bigger proportion of people live in cities) could be responsible for about third to half of the difference, possibly more in the even earlier times.
Both the cultural and economic implications of city life here could be a big factors, and in not just this but all sorts of other social and cultural issues.

 

[Ixian]

Not just that. he goes on the over/misuse of "gold digger" too.
By ripping into guys who say they want a trad wife who is feminine and raises the kids... but also don't want a gold digger who expect them to be the sole breadwinner.
Finishing with "if you want a trad wife, you are gonna have to pay for it".

Honestly it is pretty disgusting how we have villianized "home maker" women who stay at home and raise the kids, cook, and clean as "gold diggers".

Its feminism causing that problem again.

Feminism has taught women they don't need to do housework, they don't need to take care of the kids, or clean, or organize. It has taught them that is "unpaid labor" and "sexist". So all these women who have been raised the last 40 years in our feminist-saturated society believe they deserve the full time working husband who pays for everything, without needing to do anything themselves, thus men's growing disgusted at "gold diggers".

Sure, maybe she wants to be a full time housewife, but more then likely she just wants you to pay for everything while she scrolls youtube all day and then complains that the man hasn't done the dishes when he gets back from his 8 to 12 hour workday.

 

[Cherico]

Its feminism causing that problem again.

Feminism has taught women they don't need to do housework, they don't need to take care of the kids, or clean, or organize. It has taught them that is "unpaid labor" and "sexist". So all these women who have been raised the last 40 years in our feminist-saturated society believe they deserve the full time working husband who pays for everything, without needing to do anything themselves, thus men's growing disgusted at "gold diggers".

Sure, maybe she wants to be a full time housewife, but more then likely she just wants you to pay for everything while she scrolls youtube all day and then complains that the man hasn't done the dishes when he gets back from his 8 to 12 hour workday.

such things are of course completely unsustainable, sacerfice that is not rewarded, appreciated or even thanked in time stops existing.

 

[Ixian]

such things are of course completely unsustainable, sacerfice that is not rewarded, appreciated or even thanked in time stops existing.

Already happening, large numbers of men in the western world are completely checking out of dating, and intimate relationships altogether.

Denmark was begging men to get wives and make babies, to a resounding "meh, no thanks" from the male Danish population.

EDIT: lol, it was called the "Do it for Denmark" campaign.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/27/do-it-for-denmark-campaign-wants-danes-to-have-more-sex-a-lot-more-sex/

It ended in failure, because it turns out men across Denmark (and Western Civilization) are reaching the end of their tolerance for the double standards and second-class treatment.

Denmark Begs Men to Have Sex with its Feminists - John Davis BA JD LLM

<img

johndavis.gonevis.com

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Personally I don't care if I end up with a 'trad wife" or not, I just want a girl and who will be as determined to making the relationship work as I Will. That to me is the big problem more than anything.

 

[IndyFront]

Sure, maybe she wants to be a full time housewife, but more then likely she just wants you to pay for everything while she scrolls youtube all day and then complains that the man hasn't done the dishes when he gets back from his 8 to 12 hour workday.

This is the exact scenario that makes me scared of gender roles and being in a traditional monogamous marriage. I realize I'm in the minority here but gender roles are weaponized against men just as much as they're weaponized against women, if not moreso. Would much rather be with someone who knows how to fight just as well as I do, and isn't going to womansplain to me about how to do housework, and understands men and what men (or at least man-shaped people) go through to an extent. But that'll probably never happen because gender roles have seen a resurgence in feminist movements recently, mainly to keep men "under control" and try to normalize slutshaming men (and I'm against slutshaming women too, but slutshaming men has become almost normalized in our gynocentric society).

 

[LordsFire]

This is the exact scenario that makes me scared of gender roles and being in a traditional monogamous marriage. I realize I'm in the minority here but gender roles are weaponized against men just as much as they're weaponized against women, if not moreso. Would much rather be with someone who knows how to fight just as well as I do, and isn't going to womansplain to me about how to do housework, and understands men and what men (or at least man-shaped people) go through to an extent. But that'll probably never happen because gender roles have seen a resurgence in feminist movements recently, mainly to keep men "under control" and try to normalize slutshaming men (and I'm against slutshaming women too, but slutshaming men has become almost normalized in our gynocentric society).

'Slutshaming' is the natural response to how destructive promiscuity is. Shame is natural for someone flagrantly sleeping around, and public shaming is more or less an immuno-response to that.

Like anything, it can certainly be taken too far, but any man or woman who is pursuing and participating in casual sex should be ashamed, because it's one of the most socially destructive non-violent behaviors there is, and that's before you even get into the personal devastation.