[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Question: how would the obesity epidemic be affected if there were more stay at home moms cooking meals for their kids as opposed to buying them McDonalds ?[/quote]
Probably about the same way it would be affected if there were more stay-at-home dads?[/quote]
Yeah, which would also effect the divorce rates.
We might as well abandon marriage as a whole and start carving clubs.
First off, are you the Phlly fan from the MLB thread a while back? I vaguely recall your handle.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
OK. So more women should stay home. Letās say that the average age for marriage is 26. That means between 18 and 26 the woman will either go to school or enter the job market. [/quote]
And why do you think the average age a woman gets married has shifted to their mid-to-late 20ās? Itās only as a result of the advent of women in the workplace combined with widespread access to abortion and contraception. Thereās no need to get married that late if you are a homemaker.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
BUT, what employer is going to hire a person he knows is going to be exiting the work force at 26 to raise a family? Thatās just bad business. Hmmmm. Looks like our fair lady will be relegated to the secretarial arts or other ātemporary positionsā with little to no room for advancement. Becauseā¦you knowā¦its not like they are going to need it. [/quote]
If youāre suggesting thereās a gender gap youāre dead wrong. In fact women in their 20ās make more thna men. If you need Iāll provide linkage but Iām not 100% thatās what youāre getting at here. Iāve posted these links here before.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
And really, if she is just going to become a secretary or cashier, is there a huge reason to rack up college loans? It seems unfair that her future husband should have to shoulder the financial burden of paying off her loans so she should probably just skip that. [/quote]
Itās unfair?
For most of human history a division of labour existed where men worked and were financially productive while women stayed home and were socially productive. Weāre talking about an organization of society that has lead to great advancements of the human race throughout its existence. Itās only in the last 50 years or so have we gotten away from that. Look around you, are things really better now that we have āequality?ā
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
And then at 26 she gets married. She has 3 kids. Stays home to raise them. When they are old enough to leave the nest she finds herself a 50 year old with no education. Her then 50 year old husband begins to resent her for not contributing more to the familyās finances. HE wanted to play a larger role in the childrenās lives but was always so busy working to support them that he missed out on the best years.
Things become so unbearable that the couple decides to separate. The woman hasnāt been in the work force for 25 years and has limited education. She sacrificed that part of her life to family and while she doesnāt regret her decision, she cannot afford to support herself at all. [/quote]
While your scenario could arise I would argue the current setup we have where both parents work is much worse.
Stat #1: Women who contribute 60% or more to household income have extremely high divorce rates. Women generally resent their partners if they have to bring home the bacon, or at least most of it.
Stat #2: Women who are financially dependent on their husbands are the happier and more faithful than those who are not.
Iāve provided links to these stats a couple of times on these boards already.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
But, you know, why the hell should the guy have to pay alimony just so she can live a comfortable life? After all. HE was the one who sacrificed time with family to earn that money. It is HIS. [/quote]
I and I think most men would be perfectly fine paying alimony in the event of divorce IF we didnāt have to also give equal work opportunities as well. The backlash from men relating to alimony only exists because women now get both.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
This disparity is where Feminism was born. Its not fighting to keep one group down. It is just wanting to be given the chance to follow your dreams; whether that be raise a family or become a chemist. [/quote]
No. Feminism is nothing more than revenge of the ugly/fat chicks. Women who have little to no desirability to men are pushing their shitty lifestyles (wanting to be men since they suck at being women) on the majority of females. Go look at pictures of women who write feminist blogs, youāll never find a young hot feminist. Hot chicks donāt need feminism, their lives are just peachy.
Since happiness has been measured by researchers, womenās happiness has been twice that of a manās up until the 1970ās. Since then itās been in steady decline overall and with respect to men. Two major changes both pushed by feminists happened during this period: the sexual liberation of women and women entering the work place. Google āthe decline of female happinessā if you want to find the comprehensive study.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
The world has changed. Women are not getting married at a young age. What are they supposed to do with their time until their knight in shining armor comes along? Sit and look pretty? The ironic thing is that there ARE women who do this. They get dressed up and hit the clubs looking for rich, older men to take care of them. But these women are gold digging whores, right? Are you suggesting that the woman sits on her couch knitting until her father brings home potential suitors? Would YOU be satisfied with this life? [/quote]
I agree, feminists have ruined it for the majority of women. Chivalry is dead and the number of sexual partners a woman has before marriage has skyrocketed.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
Yes. Just as in any movement, there are extremes and there are those who fight against it. Some women want to kill all of the men and others think feminists are a bunch of whiny bitches who are fighting against men having nudie calendars on their desks at work.
Just as with politics, the extremes are so busy shouting at each other that the ones in the middle lose sight of the fact that, for the most part, they want the same things. [/quote]
American feminism is pretty much all extreme.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
My definition of Feminism is the ability for a woman to have control of her own life; whether that be fiscally or through the very basic right to have control over her own reproductive system. Are there other factors? Sure. But in the end, my central question remains, āDoes this impede my ability to do what I wantā? [/quote]
First of all where did you get the idea birth control is a right? Sandra Fluke?
Secondly, the combination of birth control + abortion + female financial independence has lead to women having numerous partners. This has had two effects:
Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free and then some?
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
And no, I am not referring to glass ceilings or alimony payments. That is the āfringeā stuff that grabs the headlines. Iām talking about the right to get out of a bad marriage. I am talking about the right to birth control. Iām talking about the right to education and free speech. Give me this and I will take it the rest of the way (as will MANY women).[/quote]
Yes, in the old way there were definitely people who were stuck in bad marriages. No system is perfect, anything you can construct will have some people getting the short end of the stick.
However in our current system the incentive to stay married has become severely weakened. Why would a woman try hard to fix her current relationship when she can earn her own money? Go look at stats, women initiate 2/3 of divorce proceedings.
Additionally, womenās standards have gone through the roof due to things such as romantic comedies, Sex and the City, positive body image (unwarranted) and female financial independence. With respect to female financial independence, blue collar men are no longer desirable because their lack of status and generally lower wages.
Just look at this study by OKCupid: Women now rate 80% of guys as below average
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
Thatās a fair point and very similar to a question many women ask themselves, āWhy is a man who has many sexual partners a stud and women are slutsā.
[/quote]
Itās the nature of the reproductive dynamic. Weāre designed to spread our seed, itās congruent with out nature.
Women are only going around sleeping with multiple men as a result of societal engineering (birth control, abortion)
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
It depends on what world you live in, Push. If you are talking middle/upper class America than you are probably right. But that second income can mean the difference between living a block away from a crack house and in a neighborhood where you can walk to you car safely at night.
Being able to live in a better school district, pay for your child to play sports (guess what, it aināt included anymore), take music lessons, travel, have access to healthy food, being able to afford health insurance. All of this is a very real consideration for a lot families when it comes to mom staying home. I know it was for me.
[/quote]
I understand and agree to a degree. However, in the big scheme of things at any economic level a latchkey kid even if he gets music lessons and travel will not get what the kid gets whose mama is waiting for him everyday when he gets off the bus. Or better yet the kid who gets homeschooled.[/quote]
So you are saying that a kid who grows up in the inner city but has a stay at home mother is better off than a kid who grows up in a suburb and has a mother who works?[/quote]
I would say a stable 2 parent household where the mother is a SAHM in the inner city is advantageous over single mom raising a child in the suburbs yes.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Question: how would the obesity epidemic be affected if there were more stay at home moms cooking meals for their kids as opposed to buying them McDonalds ?[/quote]
Probably about the same way it would be affected if there were more stay-at-home dads?[/quote]
Yeah, which would also effect the divorce rates.
We might as well abandon marriage as a whole and start carving clubs. [/quote]
I know right?
Seems obvious but it shows up in statistics too. Stay-at-home dads have a high infidelity rates while stay at home moms have low infidelity rates ā¦ gee I wonder why.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Question: how would the obesity epidemic be affected if there were more stay at home moms cooking meals for their kids as opposed to buying them McDonalds ?[/quote]
Probably about the same way it would be affected if there were more stay-at-home dads?[/quote]
Yeah, which would also effect the divorce rates.
We might as well abandon marriage as a whole and start carving clubs. [/quote]
Your point is what? That women are suitable to stay at home, but men arenāt?[/quote]
Exactly.
If you turn it around just a little bit to see it from another angle, men have no problems if their wife is a homemaker, women do.
If that was any different, you would see a lot of high powered āstrong independent women ā¢ā who would have a loving sweet caring man at home who works part time at the next truckstop or something.
Now there is a setup for a gay porn flick if I ever saw oneā¦
Moving on, those women dont do that, in fact they despise such men for their lack of ambition.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
ā¦In fact, nearly all of the women I know who also work, regret that they donāt get to spend more time with their children, but being able to provide a better life for your child by having two incomesā¦
[/quote]
Itās a huge misconception that the second income is more valuable than Momās time.
A better life for a child would ALWAYS include Momās presence over more money (outliers notwithstanding).[/quote]
There are socio-economic factors at play here that make a second income more valuable in certain cases. They arenāt outliers either.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
We are dancing dangerously close to PWI territory, but did you see a completely different election than I did? Closing Planned Parenthood centers or cutting funding which limits womenās access to preventative care. Todd ālegitimate rapeā Akin. Allowing companies to use religion as a loop hole in denying coverage for birth control. Romney flat out saying he would repeal Roe v Wade.[/quote]
I think people can pay for their own damn birth control.
You donāt want kids? Donāt have sex.
You donāt want kids but youāre willing to take a 0.3-7% chance on it (based on the birth control you use)? Use birth control, and pay for it yourself.
Iām all for freedom of choice, but thereās a limit.
Legitimate rape and overturning RvW though, thatās the best thing that could have happened. How people donāt see this I will never know.
If these idiots had kept what they really thought to themselves, they would have been elected into power and six months from now youād see medical books with large chapters dedicated to the legitimacy of rape. By saying it publicly, they scuttled their own ship.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Question: how would the obesity epidemic be affected if there were more stay at home moms cooking meals for their kids as opposed to buying them McDonalds ?[/quote]
Probably about the same way it would be affected if there were more stay-at-home dads?[/quote]
Yeah, which would also effect the divorce rates.
We might as well abandon marriage as a whole and start carving clubs. [/quote]
Your point is what? That women are suitable to stay at home, but men arenāt?[/quote]
Exactly.
If you turn it around just a little bit to see it from another angle, men have no problems if their wife is a homemaker, women do.
If that was any different, you would see a lot of high powered āstrong independent women ā¢ā who would have a loving sweet caring man at home who works part time at the next truckstop or something.
Now there is a setup for a gay porn flick if I ever saw oneā¦
Moving on, those women dont do that, in fact they despise such men for their lack of ambition. [/quote]
Easy there! My brother is in that kind of situation. And both of them are actually quite happy.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
ā¦In fact, nearly all of the women I know who also work, regret that they donāt get to spend more time with their children, but being able to provide a better life for your child by having two incomesā¦
[/quote]
Itās a huge misconception that the second income is more valuable than Momās time.
A better life for a child would ALWAYS include Momās presence over more money (outliers notwithstanding).[/quote]
Absolutely agree. In fact, I cannot think of any job that is more valuable to society on the whole than that of a mother raising her own kids.
I also can appreciate the fact that it is NOT easy. In my family, we are blessed with the ability to be able to have my wife stay at home and take care of our boys most of the time. I work (constantly), she stays home and takes care of our three year old and three month old. There have been a couple of times when we switched it up, and my experience doing so has certainly served to shape my ideas about there being a VAST gulf between the woman as a feminine creature and the man as a masculine one, generally speaking. As much as I work, I have NO desire to take a day off and trade places with her. There is just NO WAY I could do what she does day in and day out without having a nervous breakdown or becoming a shake-a-baby parent (only half kiddingā¦). It is constant work that is usually rewarded by whining, crying and a hurricane wreck of a house. The Bodyguard and I, among a couple of others, had a terrific conversation about this, masculine and feminine traits and differences in the sexes, about a year back in SAMA (and so that thread is probably long gone now, unfortunately). There is a certain type of personality that is needed to handle kids at that age. The masculine side provides a necessary discipline, but you canāt discipline all the time. There has to be an understanding, nurturing, forgiving counterbalance to the discipline, and I think that kids at that age need more of the latter in order to grow into happy, well adjusted adults.
After they mature a bit more, and learn to better control themselves and think more logically than emotionally, they need less of the feminine, and more of the masculine for guidance and self-improvement. Both parts are equally as important. Both.
I certainly do not intend to offend any of the single mothers or divorced parents whoāre reading this. Please bear in mind that I am talking about what is best for society as a whole. You may be the best single mom in the world, but Iām sure youād agree that kids in general are better off in intact families with two available, engaged parents. Even more so a childās real mom over a nanny or a day care. Trust me, it would make things a LOT easier for us if my wife were to continue doing her job at our school. We could hire one less employee, which would translate to a TON more money directly in our pockets every month. Thatās not even considering the fact that my wife, as the other owner and āfaceā of our school, does a much better job than we could ever expect of the girl weāve hired to cover her position, so who knows how much more indirectly successful we might be, if she were here. Our kids come before all money, though.
I think if most people who could would adopt this practice, theyād find that their actual quality of life vastly outshot its blue book value in a very short time.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Question: how would the obesity epidemic be affected if there were more stay at home moms cooking meals for their kids as opposed to buying them McDonalds ?[/quote]
Probably about the same way it would be affected if there were more stay-at-home dads?[/quote]
Yeah, which would also effect the divorce rates.
We might as well abandon marriage as a whole and start carving clubs. [/quote]
Your point is what? That women are suitable to stay at home, but men arenāt?[/quote]
Exactly.
If you turn it around just a little bit to see it from another angle, men have no problems if their wife is a homemaker, women do.
If that was any different, you would see a lot of high powered āstrong independent women ā¢ā who would have a loving sweet caring man at home who works part time at the next truckstop or something.
Now there is a setup for a gay porn flick if I ever saw oneā¦
Moving on, those women dont do that, in fact they despise such men for their lack of ambition. [/quote]
Easy there! My brother is in that kind of situation. And both of them are actually quite happy. [/quote]
Yeah, I gotta agree.
IN GENERAL what he describes seems to basically be true, but I donāt buy it as a ārule.ā
Not to mention that heās discounting all sorts of historical, societal and cultural factors.[/quote]
I see it as general enough to call it a rule.
Can any married man on this site say the following with a straight face: I believe my wife would be cool with her being the sole breadwinner while I stayed at home cleaning, cooking, and raising the kids?
Not a temporary change. A permanent role reversal. I sure as hell canāt.
Iām reading along without time to post at any length, but the question that keeps worrying at me is that the pro-SAHM (male) posters seem to be the same ones who tend to believe that things are fucked when someone can contribute very little to a marriage and still walk away with alimony and half your shit.
I have not noticed scorn toward SAHMs. Possibly jealousy on the part of working moms. I think the SAHM needs to be careful around a working mom not to complain about ātoo much to get done,ā āendless chores,ā etc. But thatās just being a sensitive human being. I was offered a year-round job in a school and declined it because I donāt think I could handle the teachersā endless talk come May about how badly they NEED it to be summer because theyāre EXHAUSTED and canāt possibly walk one more step. Iād be cool with that if I were off summers, too, but if I had to work straight through Iād wind up resenting my friends.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Iām reading along without time to post at any length, but the question that keeps worrying at me is that the pro-SAHM (male) posters seem to be the same ones who tend to believe that things are fucked when someone can contribute very little to a marriage and still walk away with alimony and half your shit.
I have not noticed scorn toward SAHMs. Possibly jealousy on the part of working moms. I think the SAHM needs to be careful around a working mom not to complain about ātoo much to get done,ā āendless chores,ā etc. But thatās just being a sensitive human being. I was offered a year-round job in a school and declined it because I donāt think I could handle the teachersā endless talk come May about how badly they NEED it to be summer because theyāre EXHAUSTED and canāt possibly walk one more step. Iād be cool with that if I were off summers, too, but if I had to work straight through Iād wind up resenting my friends. [/quote]
Iām probably reading you wrong, but are you suggesting that SAHMs have it easier than those who work full time and put their kids in day care or a similar arrangement?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Iām reading along without time to post at any length, but the question that keeps worrying at me is that the pro-SAHM (male) posters seem to be the same ones who tend to believe that things are fucked when someone can contribute very little to a marriage and still walk away with alimony and half your shit.
I have not noticed scorn toward SAHMs. Possibly jealousy on the part of working moms. I think the SAHM needs to be careful around a working mom not to complain about ātoo much to get done,ā āendless chores,ā etc. But thatās just being a sensitive human being. I was offered a year-round job in a school and declined it because I donāt think I could handle the teachersā endless talk come May about how badly they NEED it to be summer because theyāre EXHAUSTED and canāt possibly walk one more step. Iād be cool with that if I were off summers, too, but if I had to work straight through Iād wind up resenting my friends. [/quote]
Iām probably reading you wrong, but are you suggesting that SAHMs have it easier than those who work full time and put their kids in day care or a similar arrangement?[/quote]
As far as being sensitive to working moms? No, Iām simply offering that a working mom may feel envious of a SAHM (not arguing that the working mom doesnāt have options in many cases) and may make a frowny face (inviting the assumption on the part of the SAHM that there is scorn) if the SAHM notes that there āarenāt enough hours in the day,ā which is in my experience a fairly standard complaint of moms. The working mom probably has similar food prep, laundry, nail clipping, school cupcake-baking, form-filling, doctorās appointment making and attending responsibilities to the SAHM, but with 45-50 hours a week less in which to do it. Sensitivity. Thatās all I suggest. By the same token, the SAHM probably does not want to hear about working moms taking a sick day and still utilizing day care to get Christmas prep done, which the SAHM is struggling to do with kids in tow. Sensitivity.
Life with kids is tough whichever path you take.
Thinkingā¦the school year analogy was a poor one. Because I would resent the whiners getting an 8 week vacation. But not for the vacation, just for the whining.
The SAHM vs WM thing I see more as everyone having insecurity, which seems to be built into mothers, and others accidentally triggering feelings of inadequacy.
Iām rushed, so I need to stop opining on things, both because I donāt have time and because my thoughts are scattered.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Absolutely agree. In fact, I cannot think of any job that is more valuable to society on the whole than that of a mother raising her own kids.
I also can appreciate the fact that it is NOT easy. In my family, we are blessed with the ability to be able to have my wife stay at home and take care of our boys most of the time. I work (constantly), she stays home and takes care of our three year old and three month old. [/quote]
I would argue that a father raising his kids is equally as important. I would also argue that you working constantly is taking away an important part of the equation. My mom stayed at home and my father was constantly deployed and both he and I missed out on a lot because of that. Itās something that he regrets to this day.
My wife and I are lucky in that we both work but I have enough flexibility in my job to be able to devote a lot of time with my son (I do often do work at night after heās gone to bed though). Heās in preschool during the day (itās a small Christian school) which is great because he gets to play with his peers and learn all of the socialization skills that he needs.
TL:DR - Both parents are necessary and itās not enough to simply have one stay at home and the other be absent.
james