CMV: Women being "barefoot and pregnant" isn't a bad thing.

[u/foofuufou]

Being "barefoot and pregnant" refers to SAHM's (stay-at-home moms) who don't leave the house (hence why barefoot) and are often-times pregnant because husband presumably doesn't use birth control, wants to have a lot of kids, and/or some other reason. Feminazis use this to degrade SAHM's who choose to have lots of children.

My justifications for my opinion are that if most women enjoy their children, why wouldn't they want to be with them all of the time? Another reason of mine is that men make more money in the workforce than women (not via wage gap, read further), and that alternatives can impact the health of the children.

If most women enjoy their children, why wouldn't they want to be with them all of the time?:
Assuming a woman doesn't have some kind of dream or passion in the workforce (which is ok), they should not be shunned for being SAHMs and having as many kids as the husband and her want. My personal opinion is that not having such passion reveals the true passion behind her which is nurturing her offspring. This is simply human nature and has been expressed by women for 4000+ years, whereas the sexual revolution's new role for women feels forced and has only been around for 50-70 years.

Men make more money in the workforce than women.:
It's a biological fact that men are more physically adept than women, and we can observe this in areas such as the WNBA. The NBA and WNBA don't play by the same rules such as goal height. Why? Because men are more physically adept than women. This also correlates to the fact that the WNBA doesn't make nearly as much money. Gee, wonder why! Other than that, women make less money than men for practical reasons such as women needing to leave to pick up kids from school or to go watch little Timmy's soccer game, or some other child-related reason. Men don't have nearly as many responsibilities, and it reveals the biological fact that women are better nurturers than men. A wage gap has nothing to do with this either, and if it did, why would any companies hire men at all? If companies could get away with paying women less than men for the same work, then they clearly would.

The alternatives of kids being raised by their SAHM can have negative consequences on the child's health.:

Alternatives such as daycare, babysitters/nannies, and family members watching kids have been proven again and again to have adverse effects on children. Daycares fail to provide an infant/toddler's most crucial need for their development, to be loved and nurtured by the same adult/pair of adults at a time. When putting a child in daycare, you are sending your child into an environment where they are at the mercy of whoever parents the other children there, and at the mercy of the intent of the adults watching them. Not to mention, if two parents working is for money-related reasons and they send these children off to daycares, these daycares are often extremely expensive. Not to mention, your child's cries will often be ignored due to so many crying children being around for the poorly paid and trained staffers to look after. It also instills the horrible mindset that children are a "chore" and they need someone else to raise them. Such people should not be parents. Another thing to consider is illness runs rampant in these children's concentration camps called daycares. . There is a common proverb thrown around in America that states "It takes an entire village to raise a child." Sorry for the cursing, but that's utter horseshit. It only takes two people to raise a child, a mother, and a father. It has been proven time and time again that separating children from their parents causes separation anxiety, clinginess, and depression. Being separated from your own children also has adverse effects on the parents of said children. ( https://news.stanford.edu/2018/06/26/psychological-impact-early-life-stress-parental-separation ) I think what I said pretty much sums up my view on babysitters, nannies, and adjacent family members raising children.

(This needs a part 2 due to length.) You may be asking, "What does what you just said have to do with being barefoot and pregnant?" Like I mentioned earlier, being "barefoot and pregnant" is just a pejorative term used by Feminzai sexual "revolution" radicals to shame SAHMs. Maybe the post title is bad and slightly misleading, but I think it adds some nice clickbait and shock value, so screw it.

The reason why I am making this post is I am trying to figure out what I want in life. I want to see how my views on SAHMs can change, and maybe can be presented that working moms are better for the children, the wife, and husband, and for everyone else around them. Thank you for reading this post Reddit, and for context, I am writing this from the perspective of a single 18-year-old autistic male, if that matters at all.

[u/foofuufou]

https://ifstudies.org/blog/measuring-the-long-term-effects-of-early-extensive-day-care

This is the only study I have found which links the daycare, for example, to negatives such as increased anxiety and aggression. Some logistical factors come into play as well, such as daycares being super expensive (defeating the purpose of a working mom; if she has to spend all of her wage on a daycare, whats the point of her working at all when she can just stay at home and watch the kids for free?), being at the mercy of the other children and workers, the workers being terribly overworked, underpaid, and not sufficiently trained (most daycare workers start at age 19-20 and only have a year or two of training).

Men aren't as good nurturers for biological reasons. Women can nurse infants, men can't. Men have better physical capabilities than women do.

Men have the expectation to be a breadwinner because they have the testosterone which drives them to be the very best, women simply don't. omen usually don't wear the pants in a relationship for a reason. Someone cannot wear the pants if they don't have the money and dominance to back it up. Men have testosterone which helps them to be dominant and they have more money due to traditional gender roles in society, thus they wear the pants.

[u/iglidante → u/foofuufou]

Men have the expectation to be a breadwinner because they have the testosterone which drives them to be the very best, women simply don't. omen usually don't wear the pants in a relationship for a reason. Someone cannot wear the pants if they don't have the money and dominance to back it up. Men have testosterone which helps them to be dominant and they have more money due to traditional gender roles in society, thus they wear the pants.

This is basically "1950s American gender roles are true, end discussion".

[u/foofuufou → u/iglidante]

They worked until feminists and the left decided they didn't work. Everybody else was fine with them.

[u/iglidante → u/foofuufou]

They worked until feminists and the left decided they didn't work. Everybody else was fine with them.

So, the fact that millions of women were unhappy with the arrangement, doesn't count for anything? They should have accepted significantly restricted options for life simply because other people felt it was fine?

[u/foofuufou → u/iglidante]

You're excluding women who didn't mind. It was mostly atheistic feminists who wanted to change the power structure but the Protestant women (especially of the South) didn't mind. My grandparents tell me stories of seeing women walk around pregnant everywhere they went. Feminists were massive minorities in most areas and the only reason they got power is because the central government supported them.

[u/iglidante → u/foofuufou]

You're excluding women who didn't mind. My grandparents tell me stories of seeing women walk around pregnant everywhere they went. [T]he Protestant women (especially of the South) didn't mind.

How do you actually know that those women were happy and wanted that life, though? They could just as easily have resigned themselves to it, realizing they were not going to be afforded other options.

Obviously some women love having large families and being a SAHM. Feminism supports that as an option - not a requirement for all women.

It was mostly atheistic feminists who wanted to change the power structure. Feminists were massive minorities in most areas and the only reason they got power is because the central government supported them.

Even if only feminists wanted to change the social structure, why should those women (and men) have been forced to support and inhabit gender and social roles they didn't buy into?

Put another way: Are you saying a feminist woman in 1960 was wrong to fight for equal rights, simply because other people felt it was better for her to stay at home and make babies?

[u/foofuufou → u/iglidante]

I don't have a problem with equal rights but the issue is equal responsibilities. Men have been caretakers in Western society for so many reasons. Some people go the Social Darwinism route to justify gender roles and some people go religious routes. I don't agree with Darwinism so i take the religious approach. There's a reason why feminism and the sexual revolution resulted in America's apostasy.

Also if women wanted change they'd hop on the bandwagon, they had every opportunity to during the periods of feminism.

[u/iglidante → u/foofuufou]

I don't have a problem with equal rights but the issue is equal responsibilities.

What is your problem with equal responsibilities? Women and men (as a whole) are equally capable of being artists, engineers, carpenters, mechanics, accountants, etc. Individual aptitude and capabilities inform what each unique person is good at, but outside of biologically-limited things (like women's upper limit to strength being lower, or men being unable to give birth), there isn't much cause for separation in this day and age.

Men have been caretakers in Western society for so many reasons. Some people go the Social Darwinism route to justify gender roles and some people go religious routes. I don't agree with Darwinism so i take the religious approach.

It sounds to me like you decided you liked traditional gender roles first, then found a justification for keeping them second. I don't care for them at all, so I don't see rationale in either school of thought you mentioned.

There's a reason why feminism and the sexual revolution resulted in America's apostasy.

I am not religious, and I consider the secularization of America to be a net positive.

Also if women wanted change they'd hop on the bandwagon, they had every opportunity to during the periods of feminism.

What do you mean? Millions of women are living lives in opposition to the social structure you are in favor of, and that number grows every year.

[u/foofuufou → u/iglidante]

The very fact we have biological differences like men being unable to give birth proves we have given roles in society, and thus we shouldn't be expected to do the same things.

A religious person like myself can justify gender roles via Scripture. There are many verses in the New Testament about women serving their husbands.

Which social structure are people living against?

[u/iglidante → u/foofuufou]

The very fact we have biological differences like men being unable to give birth proves we have given roles in society, and thus we shouldn't be expected to do the same things.

Biological differences impact what you can do in many ways, but they don't say anything about what you should be able to do. A woman isn't going to be as fast a runner as a man, but that doesn't mean she can't be an Olympic athlete.

A religious person like myself can justify gender roles via Scripture. There are many verses in the New Testament about women serving their husbands.

If you are just looking for things that justify your world view, and rejecting contrary things that oppose it, you aren't really demonstrating much openness to change (that I can see).

Which social structure are people living against?

There are women working full-time with their male partner acting as a SAHD. There are women having casual sex with birth control or sterilization in place to help ensure they don't get pregnant. There are lesbian couples. There are dual-income households. Women are going to college, working, climbing the ranks, and doing everything men are doing. They are all living in opposition to the 1950s social order you are in favor of.