[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
Jackie, I have a question for you…
Are you planning on being a stay at home mother until your child/children graduate from high school or are you planning on going back to work when they are all in school full time?
I think a lot of times, those who are “anti-SAHM” are imagining a middle aged woman sitting on the couch watching Oprah while her kids are in high school. In the same respect, just as many pro-SAHM’s are thinking about a woman popping out a kid and heading back to work before the cord can even be cut. Of course, this also raises the larger issue of family leave policies in this country (for both sexes).[/quote]
Hi there. Of course I would return to work or volunteer or do something with my time after my children are older. Who knows, maybe even return to school and attempt a career change?
Yes, I absolutely agree with that and although there are those kinds of people, I would think that the majority would fall somewhere in between those two extremes. What I can is this - after I had my son, I had to return to work fairly early and hated it. My daughter, I get to stay home with and I love it. Doing either/or is not an easy task.
[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. It’s 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 he’s gone to bed though). He’s in preschool during the day (it’s 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 it’s not enough to simply have one stay at home and the other be absent.
james
[/quote]
Agree with you James on this, it takes two to raise a child. In my eyes better for both parents work jobs that are conducive for support and time with child rearing, rather than the 1950’s old school, Mom does everything and dad is never home cause he is supporting the family.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I’m 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.
[/quote]
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I’m 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.
[/quote]
Weird, isn’t it?
[/quote]
No, it’s consistent with the mentality that is often displayed here. It’s the same folks who don’t like the idea of birth control and abortion but are all about cutting the social programs that help underprivileged children. You just can’t have it both ways.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I’m 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.
[/quote]
Weird, isn’t it?
[/quote]
No, it’s consistent with the mentality that is often displayed here. It’s the same folks who don’t like the idea of birth control and abortion but are all about cutting the social programs that help underprivileged children. You just can’t have it both ways.[/quote]
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
folks who don’t like the idea of birth control and abortion but are all about cutting the social programs that help underprivileged children.[/quote]
Who is against birth control and helping kids in bad situations?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I mentioned this on the last page: how many men would have a problem with alimony if women didnt have equal opportunities in the workforce?
Isn’t the problem that women now get both? [/quote]
What do you think your earnings potential looks like when you leave the workforce voluntarily for 20 or so years and return without experience? Do you think the potential going forward is “equal” to that of person who was in the workforce gaining relevant experience for 20 years? This problem is gender neutral and applies whether you are a stay-at-home mom or a stay-at-home dad.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
folks who don’t like the idea of birth control and abortion but are all about cutting the social programs that help underprivileged children.[/quote]
Who is against birth control and helping kids in bad situations?[/quote]
I am totally against social programs that help underpriviliged children.
Not against helping them, but helping them via a government bureaucracy where the craziest of the craziest hide out from the rest of the world paid for with my money that was extorted from me…
Totally against that.
But, that tactic is so old, it is not even worth a yawn:
â??Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.â??
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I mentioned this on the last page: how many men would have a problem with alimony if women didnt have equal opportunities in the workforce?
Isn’t the problem that women now get both? [/quote]
What do you think your earnings potential looks like when you leave the workforce voluntarily for 20 or so years and return without experience? Do you think the potential going forward is “equal” to that of person who was in the workforce gaining relevant experience for 20 years? This problem is gender neutral and applies whether you are a stay-at-home mom or a stay-at-home dad. [/quote]
But you see, before women entered the workforce divorce rates were low.
When traditional roles are respected people are overall happier. Most women will not have to worry about entering the workforce because most stay married
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I mentioned this on the last page: how many men would have a problem with alimony if women didnt have equal opportunities in the workforce?
Isn’t the problem that women now get both? [/quote]
What do you think your earnings potential looks like when you leave the workforce voluntarily for 20 or so years and return without experience? Do you think the potential going forward is “equal” to that of person who was in the workforce gaining relevant experience for 20 years? This problem is gender neutral and applies whether you are a stay-at-home mom or a stay-at-home dad. [/quote]
I agree with this. Have seen it in practice many times.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
folks who don’t like the idea of birth control and abortion but are all about cutting the social programs that help underprivileged children.[/quote]
Who is against birth control and helping kids in bad situations?[/quote]
I made a statement I shouldn’t have. Probably very few people are against birth control. But I would like to see it widely accessible in an effort to reduce unwanted pregnancies since I’m not a believer that preaching abstinence is effective.
I make my statement about underpriviledged kids in that the same people who want to overturn RvW also tend to be the ones who want to cut aid to dependent children, food stamps, headstart, etc. It’s like they love the fetus but hate the child.
I’m hijacking. Wasn’t what this thread was about at all. And for that I apologize.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I mentioned this on the last page: how many men would have a problem with alimony if women didnt have equal opportunities in the workforce?
Isn’t the problem that women now get both? [/quote]
What do you think your earnings potential looks like when you leave the workforce voluntarily for 20 or so years and return without experience? Do you think the potential going forward is “equal” to that of person who was in the workforce gaining relevant experience for 20 years? This problem is gender neutral and applies whether you are a stay-at-home mom or a stay-at-home dad. [/quote]
But you see, before women entered the workforce divorce rates were low.
When traditional roles are respected people are overall happier. Most women will not have to worry about entering the workforce because most stay married [/quote]
My now-deceased, very conservative grand-dad commented on this to me once, and he observed that divorce rates used to be lower in the “old days” because women used to have very little chance of survival outside of marriage and they had to stay married even if their husband was beating the shit out of them. He didn’t believe that people were overall happier. I suspect he had at least-as-good-evidence for this observation as you do for yours.
When traditional roles are respected people are overall happier. Most women will not have to worry about entering the workforce because most stay married [/quote]
But society has evolved and the “traditional” roles have changed so much. I guess it depends on how far back in history you want to go, but earning money wasn’t the traditional role of men; manual labor was. Chopping wood to heat their homes, shooting animals to put meat on the table, farming their fields to have grain to barter for other wares. Interestingly, the “traditional” role of women today is much more labor-intensive than men since most men sit behind desks today.
Working today is much more about brains than brawn.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I mentioned this on the last page: how many men would have a problem with alimony if women didnt have equal opportunities in the workforce?
Isn’t the problem that women now get both? [/quote]
What do you think your earnings potential looks like when you leave the workforce voluntarily for 20 or so years and return without experience? Do you think the potential going forward is “equal” to that of person who was in the workforce gaining relevant experience for 20 years? This problem is gender neutral and applies whether you are a stay-at-home mom or a stay-at-home dad. [/quote]
But you see, before women entered the workforce divorce rates were low.
When traditional roles are respected people are overall happier. Most women will not have to worry about entering the workforce because most stay married [/quote]
My now-deceased, very conservative grand-dad commented on this to me once, and he observed that divorce rates used to be lower in the “old days” because women used to have very little chance of survival outside of marriage and they had to stay married even if their husband was beating the shit out of them. He didn’t believe that people were overall happier. I suspect he had at least-as-good-evidence for this observation as you do for yours.
[/quote]
I’m typing this from my phone so I can’t provide it right now but statistically women who are financially dependent on men are happier and more faithful. In fact, households where roles aren’t clearly defined have high divorce rates. The opposite is true of men financially dependent on women.
Also think about what your grandfather is saying by extension: most people are in unhappy marriages as the current divorce rate is 50%+
On top of that you’re fucking with an organization of labour that has lead to mankind successfully huge leaps in the advancement of society. Are you trying to say this 100,000 year+ form of organization which has helped society so much is inferior to the last 50 years of “equality” ?
When traditional roles are respected people are overall happier. Most women will not have to worry about entering the workforce because most stay married [/quote]
But society has evolved and the “traditional” roles have changed so much. I guess it depends on how far back in history you want to go, but earning money wasn’t the traditional role of men; manual labor was. Chopping wood to heat their homes, shooting animals to put meat on the table, farming their fields to have grain to barter for other wares. Interestingly, the “traditional” role of women today is much more labor-intensive than men since most men sit behind desks today.
Working today is much more about brains than brawn. [/quote]
The nature of the work has changed but the division of labour hasn’t at least until we had "equality.
Working today is much more about brains than brawn. [/quote]
The above reminds me of this that I read yesterday:
“The manosphere rightly criticises women for their diminishing femininity, but what the manosphere does not do so well is criticise the increasing infantisation of men. When Roosh and his followers point out that quality women are only to be found outside the U.S. he is giving the masculine version of the modern feminist lament that there are no good men at home. What many manosphere commentators fail to recognise is that the nice computer nerd is the male equivalent of the nice fat chick. The manosphere demands thinness but criticises women for wanting its feminine equivalent.”
“the infantisation of men”. I have never heard this expression before.
Makes you wonder how it goes with the feminist movement.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Maybe this needs to be said. Low divorce rates doesn’t mean more happy marriages.[/quote]
Go read what I wrote on the last page. Women’s expectations and standards of men have gone through the roof.
If they’re unhappy, its largely because expectations have been warped.[/quote]
I think men’s expectations and standards for women have gone through the roof too. And especially in the bedroom.
Really, both sides are causing problems.
Without being too facetious, I think the internet is in part to blame. Marriage has become more and more about “choice” over time, rather than necessity, and people are making choices based on information that’s subject to very heavy selection biases.
But because of that, I wouldn’t be surprised if the happy marriages today are actually much happier than the happy marriages of yesteryear.