Free Allegiance Forums

Dorj already made the point, girly, but basically a woman has an equal opportunity to have a man stay home and raise the kids, so it really isn't a form of unfair discrimination (unless they discriminate based on her taking time for the pregnancy, which is against the law and frankly doesn't usually happen). Just because most women choose to stay at home doesn't make it unfair discrimination, it makes it a cultural phenomenon. I think we both agree that it's a cultural issue more than a workplace discrimination issue, if I read your post correctly.

That said I know a few female attorneys at my office who have said they wouldn't mind working and letting their husbands stay home with the kids. There was also a Massachusetts governor who had her husband stay at home with the kids while she governed the state. So I think the culture is evolving.

I do fully agree that it sucks that employers have little to no regard for work-life balance. Blame our current consumerist, commercialized culture for that.

notjarvis wrote:QUOTE (notjarvis @ Jun 15 2011, 12:59 PM) Nah - cultural upbringing is not purely to do with the people you are in contact with as an adult. It will go all the way back to birth practically.

It goes all the way back to being given a dolly to play with when young rather than a toy car, or watching my little pony and the cabbage pach kids rather than transformers.

it's very difficult to disassociate cultural influences and how it influences who you are now.

Anyway - I'm a bit dubious of the whole "women have a special bond that men don't get claims" as I am of any claim for mystical specialness. Fathers can be as close to kids as the mothers in practically every way (except the obvious physical limitations), and it's that sort of thinking that leads to the court system preferring mothers in nearly all cases (to bring this discussion almost back to the start....)


That's not to say anything bad about your wife's decision - I believe kids benefit from as much time with 1 or both parents as possible - frankly, I would love to give up my job and bring up the kids, while my wife goes to work, or to both go part time in some way and divide the kids time between us.
This would be impossible for us though, personally, without putting the family into poverty.

I'm the same notjarvis but I still feel there is something extra. The baby grew INSIDE them. That means something. I wish I could do something like that. I'm not saying its mystical by any means and I don't think it's even chemically. I think it feels, to most woman, like they carried it for 9months, it grew inside of them and during that time they bond with it more than we can.

Now I'm not saying the love of a mother is more or less than that of a father. Ofc the person will make a huge difference (and the situation) but there is that extra bit, like something you create, even if it's the as everyone elses.. it's yours and that means something.

I feel that's the extra bond, nothing else and not every cares about that either so it's not 100% true. But in some cases (like my wife for example) it is.

So yeah bard and girly, it is anecdotal, but it isn't closed minded nor "just because it happened to me means it happens everywhere". I am talking about a % who do get this, which I think it quite large and significant.

Welcome to the New World Order. Both parents must work. The next generation is raised by the schools and the media's.

See above

Dorjan wrote:QUOTE (Dorjan @ Jun 15 2011, 05:55 PM) I wish I could do something like that.

If you drink enough beer you can start to simulate the experience

@TA: ^ We do agree that it's a cultural issue. I just think it's a cultural problem that should change. It's not unfair in the sense that an evil boss discriminating against their employees is unfair, but it is still a form of culturally ingrained inequality that tends to pressure people into different life paths depending on their gender, leading to power imbalances and other unequal outcomes in society as a whole, not to mention, I think, less personal freedom for self-expression and self-determination.

I wouldn't say a woman has "an equal opportunity" to have a man stay at home, since most men probably wouldn't be as enthusiastic about that; men who do choose to stay at home, for example, often report being criticized for this by male relatives and friends, and naturally we have few unambiguously positive images of stay-at-home dads in our culture. On the flip side, a man who does want to stay home with kids anyway wouldn't have an equal opportunity to do so because it'll be harder for him to find a partner willing to be the primary breadwinner, since women are taught from a young age that they're expected to be the primary care-givers, and many wouldn't be willing to give that up. As the attorneys in your office demonstrate, there are exceptions, but the cultural trends are still there.

I think actually more regard for work-life balance in society in general would go a long way towards fixing this, since such a shift would give both men and women more opportunity to balance work and family life, hopefully leading to more sharing of roles and less rigid gender stereotypes.

Dorjan: I think notjarvis replied to you pretty well, but I'd also reiterate that I'm not sure why you think your one example is proof; it's a single data point. There's a tendency on these forums (or maybe it's general to the internet?) to look at personal stories as iron-bound proof for some reason. I look forward to the next politics debate where I can simply say "I spent my childhood in Soviet Russia!" and win the argument right there. In your case it seems (based on what you've said) your wife wanted to stay home with kids much more than you did; you say this has nothing to do with culture but, as notjarvis argued, that's not necessarily true. If you want to argue that men just can't care about their kids or be as close to them as women, I think you'll find quite a few people willing to disagree with you based on their personal life experiences. Your case may also well be atypical, if only because in most cases, men tend to earn more than their female partners (as the average income numbers I brought up earlier suggest), making it even more likely the woman will be the one to stay home, and leading to a sort of a cycle where we continue to see women as the "natural" primary care-givers.

I think the main issue, really, is that most people say "free choice" and I see "cultural bias." Most people would argue that if you choose to go along with a biased culture it's still your decision, in the end, so there's no real problem to be fixed, but I'd argue that cultural pressure constrains our choices, makes it harder to go against the grain, and in the end, harms us all, both male and female.

Edit: I've been ninja'd by... a bunch of people. I wrote this after reading TA's last post.

Dorjan, if you feel that your one example isn't proof after all, why do you feel it means that I am wrong? ("I have to argue here. You're not in the position to speak about this with personal experience I guess? I'll give you a real example..." You're clearly offering your example as a counter-argument, not to mention saying I'm wrong because I haven't had a comparable experience).

girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Jun 15 2011, 05:02 PM) Dorjan, if you feel that your one example isn't proof after all, why do you feel it means that I am wrong? ("I have to argue here. You're not in the position to speak about this with personal experience I guess? I'll give you a real example..." You're clearly offering your example as a counter-argument, not to mention saying I'm wrong because I haven't had a comparable experience).

I didn't say your wrong because you've not had experience I said you don't know about it first hand.

I feel you're wrong because my one example shows that the way you're saying IS "right" is in fact proven (in one example) wrong. So I don't know I'm right, but I know you're wrong at least in the sense that there is a blanket cover for everyone.

I also take offense that you're pretty much saying that we're too stupid to know what we want or feel and that culture has made the decisions but you're smart enough to know the difference.

Let me put this so even you can understand.

I am perfectly aware of how the culture can affect myself and my partner + my children. I also know my wifes past and how she was treated as a youth / the toys she had and what she liked to do (as most people call it, a "tom boy").

I am also aware that there are a large amount of mothers who feel it's "their role" from culture but I'm also stressing that there are others who just want to for other reasons. Like the "bond" which I have also shown using more personal experiences situations.

I also reject the idea that personal experiences are worthless and not able to use that as a starting point for at least one case. I have many cases not just my partners but I don't have all the information like I do with that one so I don't bring it to light.

To throw out everything you know in favour of what you're told by someone else is laughable and I feel sorry for you, I truly do, one of the reasons I also debate with you girly is to at least expose you to the real world which you also seem to be ignorant of. Whenever I show you an example which is true, you just throw it out and claim your "facts" are true. Which aren't personal experience. Which aren't based on anything but a few "studies" and we all know they can't be flawed.

Get your head out of the books and what you're told and look around. Add personal experience with what you read and make your own mind up. That is the only way you can keep an informed decision.

Just an FYI. My partner is what you could call a "hippie" with her ideals. So far from our "culture" than you could be. I find that insane because I'm largely with my culture with a lot of things but I allow her to be herself. She even home-educates my children which is very much against the culture we live in. So there another "personal experience" which you can ignore.

TL:DR? I'll leave you both with this (notj and Girly); The "bond" I talk about is the value you add to something when you create it, having something grow inside you means something. If you disagree, I question your humanity. This ofc is not EVERYONE. My experiences aren't the proof that all things are this way, but proof that sometimes it is. To say that they're never this way is proven wrong by my experience.

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jun 15 2011, 11:58 AM) If you drink enough beer you can start to simulate the experience

Hrm... Let's see...

....I think you might be onto something here Rav...

Taking my years of working and living with them in my band days, let's do a comparison.

Does a raging alcoholic have...

An ungainly waddle? Check.
A bigger belly and boobs? Check.
Constipation? Well, alcohol *is* an opiate, so Check, as long as you consume enough.
A dire need to pee every 30 minutes? Check.
Morning Sickness? Check, again if you consume enough.
An Inability to eat as much as you used to in one go? Check, if your belly is full of booze instead.
Mood Swings? Check, until you get that next drink.
A constant need to shop for furniture? Che...Nope. Just more booze as far as I can tell.
An uncontrollable urge to clean the house? ...Not a single fscking one that I've ever met...

Well, you were almost there...

SgtMajor wrote:QUOTE (SgtMajor @ Jun 14 2011, 02:39 PM) ...Anyways I love how far from the original post this threat has traveled.

Ah ha, this thread has been very entertaining.

avirst wrote:QUOTE (avirst @ Jun 15 2011, 12:43 PM) Ah ha, this thread has been very entertaining.

Indeed