[Godstud]

as revolutionary as you believe yourself to be, you do precisely what they do. Tell others how to live, how they should think, what they should aspire to. You do so without the slightest hint that you would be open to what people want for themselves, because you honestly believe you know best.

yiwahikanak just nailed your modus operandi down with that statement, QatzelOk. That IS exactly what you do.

Times are chancing and what worked 50 years ago can't now because of economy, society, culture, etc. There are options though for people who want to raise their children with the total hands-on approach. It's certainly more difficult to do now, but it's worth it.

note: My significant other stayed at home(her choice and mine) to raise our kids because I was able to provide sufficient capital so that daycare and such was unnecessary. Not everyone is so fortunate.

[QatzelOk]

Times are chancing and what worked 50 years ago can't now because of economy, society, culture, etc.

So progress has made it so that parents can't raise their own children?

But this is the tradeoff we have to make if we want cellphones with interesting skins?

[Pants-of-dog]

So progress has made it so that parents can't raise their own children?

But this is the tradeoff we have to make if we want cellphones with interesting skins?

Progress has made it so that I, as a father, can spend a substantial amount of time rasing my kids instead of having to work all the time. It has also made it so that my ex-spouse and current spouse can also have careers that fulfill them. We (that includes the children) are all happier for it.

[yiwahikanak]

So progress has made it so that parents can't raise their own children?

But this is the tradeoff we have to make if we want cellphones with interesting skins?

I'm sorry that you haven't found a way to resist rampant consumerism, but the rest of us are not so unimaginative.

Are children being raised by their teachers in school? That is the only time I am not with my girls.

You have a very bitter, misogynist outlook. Luckily your perception does not a reality create.

[QatzelOk]

I'm sorry that you haven't found a way to resist rampant consumerism, but the rest of us are not so unimaginative.

Actually, it's the "rest of us" that I am talking about.

Rampant consumerism lead to "the rest of us" having our life philosophies dictated to us by commercial media.

A feminism that is obsessed with "the workforce" came out of this.

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually, it's the "rest of us" that I am talking about.

Rampant consumerism lead to "the rest of us" having our life philosophies dictated to us by commercial media.

A feminism that is obsessed with "the workforce" came out of this.

Please provide evidence that consumerism caused women to be integrated into the work-force.

Also, you have not responded to my comment onhow feminism has also helped men spend more time with their kids.

[QatzelOk]

Also, you have not responded to my comment onhow feminism has also helped men spend more time with their kids.

Yes, after the divorce, they can hope to get a day or two of custody each week all to themselves.

Thank you, commercial feminism for that.

[Pants-of-dog]

No. I get to take time off work whenever I need to attend to my children. I have this right because feminists struggeld hard to get me this right. This right has nothing to do with divorce.

[QatzelOk]

I get to take time off work whenever I need to attend to my children.

Most parents can't afford to take any time off for their children. Women in the workplace has meant that kids have less contact with a parent, and the contact they do have is often half-hearted because both parents are tired.

Upper middle class people have always had more leisure time than other classes. Chaining women to cubicles has meant that the non-rich don't have parents anymore.

"I must work hard to collect status symbols" has replaced "mothering" as a social slogan for young women. Sadly, their own kids (aborted foetuses and neglected latchkey kids) have been made to pay the ultimate price for this new ungendered hunt-for-conspicuous consumption.

[Pants-of-dog]

Most parents can't afford to take any time off for their children. Women in the workplace has meant that kids have less contact with a parent, and the contact they do have is often half-hearted because both parents are tired.

Upper middle class people have always had more leisure time than other classes. Chaining women to cubicles has meant that the non-rich don't have parents anymore.

"I must work hard to collect status symbols" has replaced "mothering" as a social slogan for young women. Sadly, their own kids (aborted foetuses and neglected latchkey kids) have been made to pay the ultimate price for this new ungendered hunt-for-conspicuous consumption.

This is simply wrong. I have more contact with my kids than my father did with specifically because changes were made to the work environment as result of feminism. These changes include more flexible work schedules for parents, parental leave days that do not discriminate according to gender, and equal pay for women.

[Godstud]

40 years ago, you could live very comfortably on $8/hour wage. You could take several of your friends to a movie and even have popcorn and drinks. Your wife can stay at home since you have enough to provide for the whole family. Now, that same amount of money will let you live very comfortably below the poverty line, and you can't even afford a movie ticket for yourself. Your wife is forced to work in order for you to pay your bills for shelter, food and clothing.

Inflation and rising costs, have forced the parents out of the home and into the workforce. It's not that parents don't want to raise their kids and be around them. It's just that if they want to be able to provide for them, it takes both parents, to do so. It doesn't have to do with status symbols, and your other made-up crap like that.

Tell us some realistic and viable solutions, to the problem, QuatzelOk, instead of ranting on about how bad it is. We know that it's a problem, but crying and whining about how bad it is, does nothing to address the problem.

[yiwahikanak]

Why on earth would the 'woman' want to stay home? Forever?

I mean, I see the point up until the kids are all in school, but I would bloody go insane in an empty house, 'housekeeping' (the fuck?) while everyone else is gone.

Parental leaves allowed me to stay home full time with my kids for one year (with the youngest) and two (with the eldest). I also had every summer off (four months while in University), and my hours only kept me away from the kids (for school, and then work) for 6 hours a day, at the most. That is hardly an awful thing that must be somehow eradicated for the sake of our children. I was able to get my second degree, maintain my career, and ensure that I could be self-sufficient and support my children if anything were to happen (it did).

As a result, when their father fucked off, we were not dropped head first into abject poverty. And I wasn't going insane, cooped up in the house 24/7 like some helicopter parent, endlessly worrying about little Timmy's every sniffle.

This ridiculously outdated notion that women stayed in the home and had nothing more important to do than their nails might have applied to some upper class women who had nannies anyway, but the reality for most women is that even in the 'good old days' when one income was enough, the wife was working her ass off and contributing in other ways to the family unit. Unpaid farmwork. Unpaid housework. Unpaid help with the family business, gardening, what have you. How much attention do you think the kids were getting then? Do any of you really remember your mom spending every waking second with you?

[Godstud]

I don't mean for the woman to stay home forever. I was using "traditional method" as an example.

No one is suggesting that the "traditional method" where the woman stays at home, has to be something where the they can't improve themselves. It's just that when children are younger, it's advantageous to have a parent always around. The formative years are very important, especially before they go to school. Once they are in school it opens up time for the parent at home to do things like home correspondence courses, part-time job, etc.

Unpaid farmwork. Unpaid housework. Unpaid help with the family business, gardening, what have you.

Look yiwa, no one is suggesting that a woman who stays at home and raises the kids while the father works, is contributing any less. Whichever parent stays at home and takes care of the kids is fulfilling an important role. You could argue that they're being paid in other ways(food, rent, etc.)

I was able to get my second degree, maintain my career, and ensure that I could be self-sufficient and support my children if anything were to happen (it did).

My mother didn't spend every waking moment with me and my brother, but when we were young(preteen), she was always around. My father worked til 6 or 7 PM every day. I saw my mom before school, at lunch, and after school. When we became teenagers, mom got a job(for vacation money and extra $$), and updated her nursing degree. She then worked until she was 60 because she wanted to. Being a stay-at-home mom or dad doesn't mean they have to veg out and forget about the future.

re: Housework- I've done that(2 kids). You need not spend more than 2 hours a day to get everything done. Chores lighten up once kids get old enough to vacuum, do dishes, mow the lawn, etc.

[yiwahikanak]

I don't mean for the woman to stay home forever. I was using "traditional method" as an example.

Yeah, I know, I just thought about the 'traditional method' for a bit and realised it would have driven me to drink.

Which apparently is also part of the 'traditional method'. At least if Mad Men is to be believed.

No one is suggesting that the "traditional method" where the woman stays at home, has to be something where the they can't improve themselves.

I wouldn't assume that no one is suggesting it. Nonetheless I'm not suggesting you were.

It's just that when children are younger, it's advantageous to have a parent always around. The formative years are very important, especially before they go to school. Once they are in school it opens up time for the parent at home to do things like home correspondence courses, part-time job, etc.

I agree that it's best if parents are around full time until the kids are in school. In some cases, this can span many years, if there are multiple children born a few years apart. However, when these discussions are brought up where the ideal is that one parents (almost always the woman mind you) stays at home, it's sort of left at this 'forever' level which makes me shudder. The context is often (as it is here) one in which women are being discouraged from working because it is 'harmful'. Does that 'harm' stop once the kids are in school? I would say yes (and also suggest that men should have a more active parenting role in those formative years) AND I would expect that many people advocating against 'women working outside the home' will find other reasons that women should STAY in the home, even when the kids are at school most of the day. Which is utter shite.

Oh, but apparently I'm brainwashed by Gloria Steinem for being bored to death with the idea of staying home forever.

Look yiwa, no one is suggesting that a woman who stays at home and raises the kids while the father works, is contributing any less

Really, Godstud? Actually, I think the entire narrative of 'women taking half of YOUR assets/money' is all about the widespread belief that a woman who stays at home contributes nothing. That it all belongs to the husband who works outside of the home, and therefore any division of assets is inherently theft. Not to mention that this narrative relies on outdated ideas about women in the workforce (ie, they aren't there, or they aren't really contributing financially to the family assets).

You may not believe that, but it is a powerful and prevalent foundational belief. Anyway, again, I'm talking bigger social attitudes, not pointing the finger at specific posters. At this point.

Whichever parent stays at home and takes care of the kids is fulfilling an important role. You could argue that they're being paid in other ways(food, rent, etc.)

I agree. However, there are serious problems with staying home that are difficult to overcome. Many women lack any sort of credit rating because they are unable to cultivate one, which leaves them particularly vulnerable in the event of a divorce, or the death of their spouse. The parent who stays home will also lose career development time which is reflected in lower wages. This is recognised, and almost always treated as a 'choice', despite the fact that overwhelmingly, the people suffering these detrimental effects are women.

Now, rather than suggest that I want men to suffer equally, I would suggest that some way of mitigating these losses be found, in order to encourage parents to spend more of those 'formative' years with their children.

My mother didn't spend every waking moment with me and my brother, but when we were young(preteen), she was always around. My father worked til 6 or 7 PM every day. I saw my mom before school, at lunch, and after school. When we became teenagers, mom got a job(for vacation money and extra $$), and updated her nursing degree. She then worked until she was 60 because she wanted to. Being a stay-at-home mom or dad doesn't mean they have to veg out and forget about the future.

re: Housework- I've done that(2 kids). You need not spend more than 2 hours a day to get everything done. Chores lighten up once kids get old enough to vacuum, do dishes, mow the lawn, etc.

The best is when they're at the stage where they think such things are fun!

My point was, there are weird ideas about parenting and I'd like to know which ones are being ascribed to when we discuss these narratives. My mom was around too, but that doesn't mean she was constantly entertaining us. We didn't zone out in front of video games or the tv because we had neither, but my mother wasn't tutoring us in French and German either. There is this weird pressure now to spend all this 'quality time' with your kids in some sort of unexamined attempt to make up for absences, as though this would turn back time and make it like it 'used to be'. Except we were often left to our own devices pre-internet and pre-video games.

Anyway. Thinking aloud.

[Godstud]

Really, Godstud? Actually, I think the entire narrative of 'women taking half of YOUR assets/money' is all about the widespread belief that a woman who stays at home contributes nothing.

If my dad had ever suggested such a thing, my mother would have kicked his ass. Still, it's very easy to fall back on the idea that if you aren't bringing in money, you aren't contributing. This can happen to males, as well.

It's still largely believed in our society, that a woman in the best nurturer. For some this means that the woman is the ideal person to stay at home and raise the children. Suggesting women stay at home forever, is just old-style conservative nonsense. Common sense usually contradicts this.

The best is when they're at the stage where they think such things are fun!

That is, unfortunately, short-lived!

I think many people are still thinking of the traditional nucular family from the 1950s when they think of "family". Times ARE changing though, and this old fashioned belief is being replaced with a bit of common sense, although sometimes it seems like it's taking a bit too long...

[yiwahikanak]

Who the hell wants a radioactive family anyway?