Did our grandparents get it right re marriage and dating?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah man, you don't think disconnecting from the young people is a problem? That's a problem at a societal level. How can you teach them what you know if you can't understand each other?

El_D... words are important. You change the words used by a poster, and you change the meaning/context. Which I suspect you already know you're doing.

I'm not going to bother responding anymore to you while you continue to do this. Three responses. Each time you have sought to change what I've written, so that you can talk about something else. Each time, I've pointed out that you're doing it, and each time, you ignore it, and do it again.

So. No. Absolutely no point discussing this further with you because you're incapable of dealing with my posts in the context of how they were written.

One eyed Jack

lozenges wrote: »

It's a bad thing for the lower paid parent (usually the woman) if they would like to go back to work and cannot afford to because the cost of childcare is prohibitive.

That’s a fair point, and I know a few couples who have made that decision to compromise one thing for something else - namely as you point out, her career instead of paying for childcare. Childcare is simply someone else who is on an even lower wage providing care for children. Most childcare workers are women on just about the minimum wage working an average of 20 hours a week.

When this is pointed out to people who advocate for women’s equality, that they’re just displacing, rather than addressing the issue of women in low paying jobs, they respond by suggesting that childcare workers should be paid more, but that would mean charging parents more, which would put the option of childcare beyond even more parents, meaning far more likelihood that childcare would not be a viable option for many parents who want to work.

lozenges wrote: »

As for paternity leave - I don't understand why someone of either gender would have children if they don't want to spend (substantial amounts of) time with them. If that's the case, don't have kids.

It’s really not that difficult to understand - people want to have children, but they also want to be able to provide for their children, or they want to continue working even though from a financial perspective it costs more to pay for childcare than they earn on their own. Plenty of people choose this option because their mental health is also important to them, or they feel that it’s better for their children to be socialised in a group setting as early as possible to prepare them for school, a whole multitude of different reasons. There’s nothing to suggest anyone shouldn’t have children if they’re not prepared to raise them according to someone else’s values (yours in this case, that you believe people shouldn’t have children unless they want to spend substantial amounts of time with them).

The point I’m making is that individuals and couples make these sorts of decisions for themselves that suit their circumstances and align with their values. Those values are often in direct conflict with notions of gender equality, which is an issue for people who firmly believe in gender equality. It’s far less of an issue for people whom it appears are prepared to sacrifice their ideas of gender equality when it suits them.

lozenges

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s a fair point, and I know a few couples who have made that decision to compromise one thing for something else - namely as you point out, her career instead of paying for childcare. Childcare is simply someone else who is on an even lower wage providing care for children. Most childcare workers are women on just about the minimum wage working an average of 20 hours a week.

When this is pointed out to people who advocate for women’s equality, that they’re just displacing, rather than addressing the issue of women in low paying jobs, they respond by suggesting that childcare workers should be paid more, but that would mean charging parents more, which would put the option of childcare beyond even more parents, meaning far more likelihood that childcare would not be a viable option for many parents who want to work.

True enough. You give a very balanced point of view. I did read some ideas proposed around election time regarding government subsidised childcare and thought it seemed like something worth trying. Obviously won't happen now but I like the idea in principle.


It’s really not that difficult to understand - people want to have children, but they also want to be able to provide for their children, or they want to continue working even though from a financial perspective it costs more to pay for childcare than they earn on their own. Plenty of people choose this option because their mental health is also important to them, or they feel that it’s better for their children to be socialised in a group setting as early as possible to prepare them for school, a whole multitude of different reasons. There’s nothing to suggest anyone shouldn’t have children if they’re not prepared to raise them according to someone else’s values (yours in this case, that you believe people shouldn’t have children unless they want to spend substantial amounts of time with them).

The point I’m making is that individuals and couples make these sorts of decisions for themselves that suit their circumstances and align with their values. Those values are often in direct conflict with notions of gender equality, which is an issue for people who firmly believe in gender equality. It’s far less of an issue for people whom it appears are prepared to sacrifice their ideas of gender equality when it suits them.

Ha, no, absolutely. I don't mean home schooling or even 1 stay at home parent or anything like that, I was just referring to the 4 weeks of mandatory paternity leave you mentioned earlier! Doesn't seem like a huge amount of time so I was surprised that people seemingly object to it.

One eyed Jack

lozenges wrote: »

Ha, no, absolutely. I don't mean home schooling or even 1 stay at home parent or anything like that, I was just referring to the 4 weeks of mandatory paternity leave you mentioned earlier! Doesn't seem like a huge amount of time so I was surprised that people seemingly object to it.

Well if people don’t believe that something such as paternity leave is necessary in the first place, they’re naturally more inclined to object to it if attempts are made to force it on them against their will. That seems to be the case in Sweden where mandatory paternity leave is forced on fathers that they don’t want.

Parental leave is only beneficial for children if their parents want to avail of it. I think we can all agree a resentful parent is not good for children’s welfare. It’s why it’s a difficult sell to convince men who want to work, of the perceived benefits of stay at home fatherhood, while at the same time trying to convince women who want to stay at home, of the benefits to them of employment, all in the name of ‘gender equality’, a notion which appears to want to break tradition just for the sake of it, as opposed to offering people and their families any real benefit - it comes with considerable disadvantages.

lozenges

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well if people don’t believe that something such as paternity leave is necessary in the first place, they’re naturally more inclined to object to it if attempts are made to force it on them against their will. That seems to be the case in Sweden where mandatory paternity leave is forced on fathers that they don’t want.

Parental leave is only beneficial for children if their parents want to avail of it. I think we can all agree a resentful parent is not good for children’s welfare. It’s why it’s a difficult sell to convince men who want to work, of the perceived benefits of stay at home fatherhood, while at the same time trying to convince women who want to stay at home, of the benefits to them of employment, all in the name of ‘gender equality’, a notion which appears to want to break tradition just for the sake of it, as opposed to offering people and their families any real benefit.

Sure, but 4 weeks does not make someone a stay at home father. This is the point I was making earlier - if someone doesn't want to spend 4 weeks (not necessarily consecutive even) with their children, that suggests to me that they actually aren't that interested in being parents in the first place.

lozenges

lozenges wrote: »

Sure, but 4 weeks does not make someone a stay at home father. This is the point I was making earlier - if someone doesn't want to spend 4 weeks (not necessarily consecutive even) with their children, that suggests to me that they actually aren't that interested in being parents in the first place.

The problem is that with a variety of career types, being out of your position for even four weeks can be quite significant. This is especially true in highly competitive areas such as sales or account management, where the stealing of clients is commonplace. If you're not watching your clients, there's a decent chance someone in your own company, or a competitor may steal them from you. (your replacement during the period is also a risk, since it gives them a chance to showcase their abilities... for your position) Same with periods when management/partner positions are up for grabs, and being out of the office, is a sign that you're not committed enough to the business.

The problem with these initiatives is that they fail to take into account that reaching higher levels of career development is a long process, and takes constant attention. Sure, it might work for someone who wants to be a teacher, but it won't be as suitable for someone working up the corporate ladder. (which is one of the reasons I despise the quota demands for management positions by gender). It ignores the reality with regards to the competitive nature of many industries or departments.

One eyed Jack

lozenges wrote: »

Sure, but 4 weeks does not make someone a stay at home father. This is the point I was making earlier - if someone doesn't want to spend 4 weeks (not necessarily consecutive even) with their children, that suggests to me that they actually aren't that interested in being parents in the first place.

It’s not just the spending four weeks with their children though, it’s the taking four weeks off work, and sure while it might look to you like they’re not all that interested in being parents in the first place, what it suggests to me is that they simply don’t wish to be the kind of parents you want them to be, to their own children.

That’s only one suggested answer from my own perspective though. I’m just not into the whole “bonding” thing, our son has a great relationship with his mam and that’s good enough for me. Myself and himself just have a different relationship from the relationship he has with his mam, that’s all. His parents fulfil different roles in his life, as opposed to both of us trying to do 50/50 and neither of us feeling fulfilled, while our child’s welfare is compromised, as a result of us trying to adhere to someone else’s ideology.

lozenges

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The problem is that with a variety of career types, being out of your position for even four weeks can be quite significant. This is especially true in highly competitive areas such as sales or account management, where the stealing of clients is commonplace. If you're not watching your clients, there's a decent chance someone in your own company, or a competitor may steal them from you. (your replacement during the period is also a risk, since it gives them a chance to showcase their abilities... for your position) Same with periods when management/partner positions are up for grabs, and being out of the office, is a sign that you're not committed enough to the business.

The problem with these initiatives is that they fail to take into account that reaching higher levels of career development is a long process, and takes constant attention. Sure, it might work for someone who wants to be a teacher, but it won't be as suitable for someone working up the corporate ladder. (which is one of the reasons I despise the quota demands for management positions by gender). It ignores the reality with regards to the competitive nature of many industries or departments.

Sure, but if two parents make a decision to have a child, why should one parent be able to proceed with minimal disruption to their career while the other suffers maximal disruption (2-4 weeks of paternity leave, optional, versus 12 weeks-6 months of maternity leave, only some of it optional). All the issues you describe also apply to maternity leave.

Obviously the ideal situation is one where one parent wants to work and one wants to stay at home, at least for a while. But in situations where both parents have careers and decide to have a child, should they not both have to accept some of the downsides that go with that, rather than one parent being disproportionately affected?

lozenges

lozenges wrote: »

Sure, but if two parents make a decision to have a child, why should one parent be able to proceed with minimal disruption to their career while the other suffers maximal disruption (2-4 weeks of paternity leave, optional, versus 12 weeks-6 months of maternity leave, only some of it optional). All the issues you describe also apply to maternity leave.

Obviously the ideal situation is one where one parent wants to work and one wants to stay at home, at least for a while. But in situations where both parents have careers and decide to have a child, should they not both have to accept some of the downsides that go with that, rather than one parent being disproportionately affected?

I'd say it comes down to financial and logistical reasons. A choice is made. Society is already geared towards women being in the home (while also holding down a job), and I don't see any movement by feminists to remove the benefits available to them. Just as there are numerous back-to-work schemes in place for women returning after having a child, and nothing for men. The point being is that there are established reasons that make it more sense for the man to focus on his career. Many of the benefits from the State or from workplaces (legally enforced, or selective) are established as being necessary for women... doing the same for men, is going to take a lot of time)

And I wouldn't be considering the sacrifice of the woman's career to be so strong a factor simply because the main employment sectors that women engage in, are already very pro-motherhood while also working. My mother was a teacher and managed to raise us, just as my sister is dong the same with three children while managing her teaching career. I can point to a wide range of employment where women make up the majority, where parenting can be done while also working. As they'e been doing for decades.

Whereas in the areas where men have traditionally dominated in numbers (there are exceptions, of course), these roles have a greater demand for long hours in order to reach the higher well-paid positions, which are paid accordingly. It's one of the reasons for the supposed Gender wage gap. Women who seek to compete in these roles tend to drop out or transfer once they reach their 30s because the diving ambition isn't the same for men/women.

It's also worth considering that in these more competitive roles, relationships/marriages are often formed with others in similar roles, with those same ambitions. So, the woman is finding a partner who is focused on their career development, as she would be... however, studies (e.g the Canadian female lawyers study) have shown a rising number of women who lose interest in such positions once they reach a certain salary mark, and don't see the value of more work for a marginal salary gain. They've little interest in the benefits of status/reputation that tick the boxes for men. So, the woman might be willing to change the pace of her career, while having children. It's not really a sacrifice since she's found a different direction to follow... Since few men really have those kind of biological impulses, pushing for men to do the same, wouldn't really make sense.

lozenges

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'd say it comes down to financial and logistical reasons. A choice is made. Society is already geared towards women being in the home (while also holding down a job), and I don't see any movement by feminists to remove the benefits available to them. Just as there are numerous back-to-work schemes in place for women returning after having a child, and nothing for men. The point being is that there are established reasons that make it more sense for the man to focus on his career. Many of the benefits from the State or from workplaces (legally enforced, or selective) are established as being necessary for women... doing the same for men, is going to take a lot of time)

And I wouldn't be considering the sacrifice of the woman's career to be so strong a factor simply because the main employment sectors that women engage in, are already very pro-motherhood while also working. My mother was a teacher and managed to raise us, just as my sister is dong the same with three children while managing her teaching career. I can point to a wide range of employment where women make up the majority, where parenting can be done while also working. As they'e been doing for decades.

Whereas in the areas where men have traditionally dominated in numbers (there are exceptions, of course), these roles have a greater demand for long hours in order to reach the higher well-paid positions, which are paid accordingly. It's one of the reasons for the supposed Gender wage gap. Women who seek to compete in these roles tend to drop out or transfer once they reach their 30s because the diving ambition isn't the same for men/women.

It's also worth considering that in these more competitive roles, relationships/marriages are often formed with others in similar roles, with those same ambitions. So, the woman is finding a partner who is focused on their career development, as she would be... however, studies (e.g the Canadian female lawyers study) have shown a rising number of women who lose interest in such positions once they reach a certain salary mark, and don't see the value of more work for a marginal salary gain. They've little interest in the benefits of status/reputation that tick the boxes for men. So, the woman might be willing to change the pace of her career, while having children. It's not really a sacrifice since she's found a different direction to follow... Since few men really have those kind of biological impulses, pushing for men to do the same, wouldn't really make sense.

Sure, but I'm specifically referring here to couples where the woman has a career and wants to maintain her career. You mention teaching and women who choose or are happy to change the pace of their career after having kids, but you're excluding the women who don't want to make that sacrifice. Doctors (a predominantly female career choice now which also entails long hours), lawyers, businesspeople etc.

And just because society currently is set up in such a way that it favours the current system doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be changed, or any attempt even made to change it. You could use that as an argument against any sort of societal change ever.

I'm not in favour of mandatory paternity leave - but I am in favour of a system that exists where new parents have a certain amount of parental leave allocated that they can choose to divide amongst themselves in whatever way works best for them, as a couple. Particularly given that more and more industries such as IT, which are classically male dominated, also have the facility to work from home, it may well make more sense in the future to have such arrangements. E.g. if you have a father working in IT and a mother working in nursing, where neither want to stop working.

One eyed Jack

lozenges wrote: »

I'm not in favour of mandatory paternity leave - but I am in favour of a system that exists where new parents have a certain amount of parental leave allocated that they can choose to divide amongst themselves in whatever way works best for them, as a couple.

That’s the system they already have in Sweden, with the aim of achieving gender equality, but the expected outcome still isn’t happening, precisely because couples are choosing what works best for them (as opposed to gender equality ideologues) as a family. It turns out most fathers don’t want to avail of paternity leave.

It’s as though you’re missing the point that fathers who choose not to become stay at home fathers are willing to accept the responsibility of now providing for three (or however many children the couple has) people, on one income, and that becomes the household income, and either they as a couple accept the drop in household income, or he has to pick up the slack if they want to maintain their current lifestyle and as a couple they decide they also want children. Men for the most part are happy to take on that responsibility. Women it appears, are not. There are compromises being made and downsides to everything no matter which way a couple decides to apportion responsibility within their relationship, and gender equality advocates for some reason are absolutely blinkered to that reality because it seems they see motherhood as a disadvantage in the pursuit of women’s equality with men.

The aim seems to be - force women out of home and into the workplace, force men out of the workplace and into the home, and then when nobody is happy and everyone is in an equally shìtty situation, gender equality advocates will pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

lozenges

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s the system they already have in Sweden, with the aim of achieving gender equality, but the expected outcome still isn’t happening, precisely because couples are choosing what works best for them (as opposed to gender equality ideologues) as a family. It turns out most fathers don’t want to avail of paternity leave.

It’s as though you’re missing the point that fathers who choose not to become stay at home fathers are willing to accept the responsibility of now providing for three (or however many children the couple has) people, on one income, and that becomes the household income, and either they as a couple accept the drop in household income, or he has to pick up the slack if they want to maintain their current lifestyle and as a couple they decide they also want children. Men for the most part are happy to take on that responsibility. Women it appears, are not. There are compromises being made and downsides to everything no matter which way a couple decides to apportion responsibility within their relationship, and gender equality advocates for some reason are absolutely blinkered to that reality because it seems they see motherhood as a disadvantage in the pursuit of women’s equality with men.

The aim seems to be - force women out of home and into the workplace, force men out of the workplace and into the home, and then when nobody is happy and everyone is in an equally shìtty situation, gender equality advocates will pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

I feel like you're attributing an opinion to me that I don't hold. I haven't advocated that fathers should be stay at home parents. I haven't advocated that mothers should go back to work either.

What I have advocated for, and what you seem to think you're also advocating for, is that families should be given the freedom to make the arrangements that suit them best. So I still think the Swedish model you mention above is ideal, because I'm not measuring its success by the metric of whether it gets more women back to work. I don't care about that. If a woman want to stay at home and raise their children that is exactly what they should do. But at present, there are no impediments to that.

There ARE impediments though if a family decides that it would suit them better for the mother to go back to work sooner and the father to take parental leave to look after the children. It is not possible under the current system.

So if you really believe that people should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding what works best for their own families, then the Swedish model provides that. The mother can still take all the leave and the father take none, if they desire.

The current system does not provide that freedom.

One eyed Jack

lozenges wrote: »

I feel like you're attributing an opinion to me that I don't hold.

Rest assured that’s not what I’m doing. I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from but you’re jumping all over the place from suggesting that if parents don’t want to spend time with their children, you don’t understand why they would have children, to pointing out the downsides of maternity leave and suggesting that it’s only fair that the same downsides should be experienced by men in the form of paternity leave, to now suggesting as I have throughout this thread that people are free to make these decisions for themselves. That doesn’t require any adjustment to current policies - people just work within the current framework and there are advantages and disadvantages to that framework, same as there is in any framework.

lozenges wrote: »

So if you really believe that people should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding what works best for their own families, then the Swedish model provides that. The mother can still take all the leave and the father take none, if they desire.

The current system does not provide that freedom.

That’s not what the Swedish model provides though. The Swedish model mandates a certain amount of equal leave for mothers and fathers, and the rest they can divide up between them as they see fit. How that works out in reality is fathers are forced to take leave they don’t want, or they lose it, and then mothers avail of the rest of it. You’re painting this as a downside for mothers because there’s no question it has a negative impact on their career aspirations, but you’re ignoring the fact that another way to look at it is that this way works for them as a family unit.

It also has a downside for fathers in that they then have to take on primary responsibility for providing the household income, but the mother takes on primary responsibility for childcare. If neither of them want to take on those responsibilities, then there is the option of exploring their options for childcare, which is as I suggested earlier simply perpetuating a system where it’s primarily women in even lower paid jobs provide care for their children.

If there are men who wish to become stay at home fathers, then there is ample opportunity for them to make their wishes known early on in the relationship so that women can decide if they want to take on the responsibility of having children and then going back to work and having sole responsibility for providing the household income, while their husband becomes the primary carer with responsibility for their children. As I suggested earlier - I suspect there aren’t many women who want to take on that responsibility as they see themselves losing out on an awful lot, while their potential husband appears to have all the advantages of stay at home fatherhood and none of the responsibility of providing for their family.

The opportunities exist for people that want them, but the reason they don’t take the opportunities is because the disadvantages still outweigh any potential benefits, and that’s why nobody really wants a system based upon ‘gender equality’ when in the current one they assume roles which work to their advantage and they are more willing and capable of excelling in the role they choose to take on themselves. It is of course the complete opposite of ‘gender equality’, but ‘gender equality’ in itself is a silly notion based upon the premise that all things are equal in the first place. In reality men and women generally fulfill different but complementary roles in society and most people are capable of working together to achieve a common goal. Gender equality advocates (not you, as I’m speaking specifically about gender equality advocates) appear to want to drive a wedge between people simply for the hell of it, because it’s different, because tradition is an affront to their ideals, I don’t know, but whatever it is, clearly not enough people share their opinions, or societies would already have evolved that way from the beginning.

lozenges

lozenges wrote: »

Sure, but I'm specifically referring here to couples where the woman has a career and wants to maintain her career. You mention teaching and women who choose or are happy to change the pace of their career after having kids, but you're excluding the women who don't want to make that sacrifice. Doctors (a predominantly female career choice now which also entails long hours), lawyers, businesspeople etc.

I think the problem is the shift in expectations. Many women want a successful career in addition to having a family. They feel that they're entitled to both. However, in any family where one person is aiming at the top, the second partner will need to take a supporting role. They may still aim to be successful but that success depends on their industry/career.

The basic fact of success in most industries is that it requires a commitment to that position in order to become successful. Which means long hours where they're unavailable to be a primary parent. Which means that they'll have less holidays and won't be able to skip an afternoon to attend childrens activities.

I'm excluding the women who don't want to make the sacrifice, because these women are being unrealistic. Employment which pays well is competitive. They're competing against other employees. Companies need to compete with others to remain profitable, so it stands to reason that they would want employees who are committed to their careers. Someone who is ducking work to take their child to the hospital or missing months out of the year to have children, is not going to be a competitive option for them. It simply reality. To change that reality would require changing society and basic economics.

And just because society currently is set up in such a way that it favours the current system doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be changed, or any attempt even made to change it. You could use that as an argument against any sort of societal change ever.

Sure you could, but I don't see the economics changing. If anything considering the rising costs in society, the state of national economies, etc.. I believe such a division will get worse. All I see is people putting pressure on the system to change, without consideration as to why it is that way, in the first place.

I'm not in favour of mandatory paternity leave - but I am in favour of a system that exists where new parents have a certain amount of parental leave allocated that they can choose to divide amongst themselves in whatever way works best for them, as a couple. Particularly given that more and more industries such as IT, which are classically male dominated, also have the facility to work from home, it may well make more sense in the future to have such arrangements. E.g. if you have a father working in IT and a mother working in nursing, where neither want to stop working.

haha.. IT is only male dominated because women have little interest in working at the industry. That can be seen when there was a massive surge of women working in the industry, and then, how most of them transferred into parallel industries which suited them better. The type of work related to IT especially with regards to the deadlines didn't appeal to most women.

In any case, I feel that a couple needs to make a choice as to whom will be the primary income maker, and who will be the main parent. It doesn't have to be based on gender, since I don't believe that women automatically make better parents than men. It will come down to simple economics. These days, women are often better educated than men, so it's likely she will have a greater chance towards promotions especially once the quota system (and subsequent changes) take effect. I suspect we'll be seeing far more men becoming the stay at home parent, simply because of the push for unbalanced 'equality'.

lozenges

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rest assured that’s not what I’m doing. I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from but you’re jumping all over the place from suggesting that if parents don’t want to spend time with their children, you don’t understand why they would have children, to pointing out the downsides of maternity leave and suggesting that it’s only fair that the same downsides should be experienced by men in the form of paternity leave, to now suggesting as I have throughout this thread that people are free to make these decisions for themselves. That doesn’t require any adjustment to current policies - people just work within the current framework and there are advantages and disadvantages to that framework, same as there is in any framework.





That’s not what the Swedish model provides though. The Swedish model mandates a certain amount of equal leave for mothers and fathers, and the rest they can divide up between them as they see fit. How that works out in reality is fathers are forced to take leave they don’t want, or they lose it, and then mothers avail of the rest of it. You’re painting this as a downside for mothers because there’s no question it has a negative impact on their career aspirations, but you’re ignoring the fact that another way to look at it is that this way works for them as a family unit.

It also has a downside for fathers in that they then have to take on primary responsibility for providing the household income, but the mother takes on primary responsibility for childcare. If neither of them want to take on those responsibilities, then there is the option of exploring their options for childcare, which is as I suggested earlier simply perpetuating a system where it’s primarily women in even lower paid jobs provide care for their children.

If there are men who wish to become stay at home fathers, then there is ample opportunity for them to make their wishes known early on in the relationship so that women can decide if they want to take on the responsibility of having children and then going back to work and having sole responsibility for providing the household income, while their husband becomes the primary carer with responsibility for their children. As I suggested earlier - I suspect there aren’t many women who want to take on that responsibility as they see themselves losing out on an awful lot, while their potential husband appears to have all the advantages of stay at home fatherhood and none of the responsibility of providing for their family.

The opportunities exist for people that want them, but the reason they don’t take the opportunities is because the disadvantages still outweigh any potential benefits, and that’s why nobody really wants a system based upon ‘gender equality’ when in the current one they assume roles which work to their advantage and they are more willing and capable of excelling in the role they choose to take on themselves. It is of course the complete opposite of ‘gender equality’, but ‘gender equality’ in itself is a silly notion based upon the premise that all things are equal in the first place. In reality men and women generally fulfill different but complementary roles in society and most people are capable of working together to achieve a common goal. Gender equality advocates (not you, as I’m speaking specifically about gender equality advocates) appear to want to drive a wedge between people simply for the hell of it, because it’s different, because tradition is an affront to their ideals, I don’t know, but whatever it is, clearly not enough people share their opinions, or societies would already have evolved that way from the beginning.

I agree with you in some respects I think. Certainly I am not a fan of quotas, positive discrimination or some aspects of 'gender equality' which simply see increased numbers of women in certain industries as desirable. What I think is important is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. People are then free to make their own decisions. I disagree with your assertion though that men and women can't be equal. Equal does not mean identical, it means that both have equivalent value.

I don't think I'm jumping all over the place. Essentially I think as you do that families should be allowed to determine the setup that works best for themselves. While I personally would have a strong preference for one option, that doesn't mean that I think that what works for me should or can work for everyone else.

You also mention that taking leave has a negative impact on women's career aspirations but that it's ok because it works for them as a family unit. It does in many cases but by no means all, and I think you're not addressing the instances where this is the case.

E.g. do you think the current system provides adequately for situations where:

1. The female parent is the higher earner and financially the family is better served by her returning to work

2. Both parents want to continue their careers after having children and wish to split the leave equally after the child is born

I agree actually that in many cases if one person wants to have a career it works out better if the other person has less intense role. That doesn't take away from the fact that the way the current system is set up assumes that the person with the career is the male, and disadvantages couples where the opposite is the case.

lozenges

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think the problem is the shift in expectations. Many women want a successful career in addition to having a family. They feel that they're entitled to both. However, in any family where one person is aiming at the top, the second partner will need to take a supporting role. They may still aim to be successful but that success depends on their industry/career.

The basic fact of success in most industries is that it requires a commitment to that position in order to become successful. Which means long hours where they're unavailable to be a primary parent. Which means that they'll have less holidays and won't be able to skip an afternoon to attend childrens activities.

I'm excluding the women who don't want to make the sacrifice, because these women are being unrealistic. Employment which pays well is competitive. They're competing against other employees. Companies need to compete with others to remain profitable, so it stands to reason that they would want employees who are committed to their careers. Someone who is ducking work to take their child to the hospital or missing months out of the year to have children, is not going to be a competitive option for them. It simply reality. To change that reality would require changing society and basic economics.



Sure you could, but I don't see the economics changing. If anything considering the rising costs in society, the state of national economies, etc.. I believe such a division will get worse. All I see is people putting pressure on the system to change, without consideration as to why it is that way, in the first place.



haha.. IT is only male dominated because women have little interest in working at the industry. That can be seen when there was a massive surge of women working in the industry, and then, how most of them transferred into parallel industries which suited them better. The type of work related to IT especially with regards to the deadlines didn't appeal to most women.

In any case, I feel that a couple needs to make a choice as to whom will be the primary income maker, and who will be the main parent. It doesn't have to be based on gender, since I don't believe that women automatically make better parents than men. It will come down to simple economics. These days, women are often better educated than men, so it's likely she will have a greater chance towards promotions especially once the quota system (and subsequent changes) take effect. I suspect we'll be seeing far more men becoming the stay at home parent, simply because of the push for unbalanced 'equality'.

Yes, but it takes two people to have a child. Not one. Yet you say that women who don't want to give up their careers are being unrealistic, but for some reason there's no mention of it being unrealistic for the male parent to have children and a successful career.

I have no issue with IT being male dominated. As I said to one eyed jack ( and apologies if some of my replies are to things he said and vice versa, you have similar viewpoints and am posting from a phone) what is important to me is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If women want to go into IT there are no obstacles to them doing so, the opposite in fact.

My point when I mentioned IT was more that if one parent is working from home and the other not, often the parent working from home will be the one to take on more of the childcare for obvious reasons. Given that IT is particularly suited to WFH and also so male dominated it may cause a shift towards greater involvement of the father in childcare.

I agree with you that it probably works best if one person in a couple has a career and the other a less intense role, and that the primary driver for decisions around childcare etc is economic. I would like to see efforts made to reduce the cost of childcare though. It's so prohibitive at present that parents who would like to rejoin the workforce simply cannot afford to do so. I also think that being a stay at home mother (or father) would be more respected as a choice if no-one was under pressure to do it for financial reasons.

Antares35

Sweet spot was probably somewhere in between. I do think a lot of people these days rely on their "OH" to essentially complete them, validate them and be perfect in every way while putting up with the other person's shortcomings.

lozenges

lozenges wrote: »

Yes, but it takes two people to have a child. Not one.

Depends on who you're talking to. Did you know that possession of sperm outside of the male body doesn't belong to the male? Women can (and have) taken male sperm through various methods to have children without the consent or actual involvement of the male.... Women's body rights are protected, but male rights are dismissed.. so, you'll find that it doesn't take two people to have a child, because women's rights are greater..

Yet you say that women who don't want to give up their careers are being unrealistic, but for some reason there's no mention of it being unrealistic for the male parent to have children and a successful career.

Actually I didn't. I said that they want a successful career in addition to having children. If they just want a career, that's easily done by taking the low end positions which don't require much in the way of time commitment. The problem is that women often include the nursing/raising of a child as being part of having a child. Which means a distraction from having a career where they can compete against others to gain higher positions.

Take breastfeeding for an example. In the States a huge percentage of women who have children are finding that they don't produce enough milk to feed their babies. This has been tied to the stress that women have through their jobs. Now, there is the belief that women should be able to work and feed their kids, in spite of that biological problem. Which is why there is a major push to decrease the stress in positions for women, but there is still the problem of being competitive against others to gain positions.... and so, we get quotas and other initiatives to decrease those problems. Which is unrealistic, simply because the company still needs to compete with external threats, but they're forced to accommodate women who want a successful career along with having children..... That's why the economics are so important and there is a sense of unreality to the whole thing.

I have no issue with IT being male dominated. As I said to one eyed jack ( and apologies if some of my replies are to things he said and vice versa, you have similar viewpoints and am posting from a phone) what is important to me is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If women want to go into IT there are no obstacles to them doing so, the opposite in fact.

We're in agreement then.

My point when I mentioned IT was more that if one parent is working from home and the other not, often the parent working from home will be the one to take on more of the childcare for obvious reasons. Given that IT is particularly suited to WFH and also so male dominated it may cause a shift towards greater involvement of the father in childcare.

Depends on the role TBH. Considering the deadline nature of IT, and especially the project orientation, many aspects of IT don't do well from a WFH application. It requires all workers to be supremely disciplined about their work, which in a modern world, is becoming rare. Sure, the people at the top of their game are extremely well disciplined, but most others aren't. Which is why WFH isn't likely to become the norm.

I agree with you that it probably works best if one person in a couple has a career and the other a less intense role, and that the primary driver for decisions around childcare etc is economic. I would like to see efforts made to reduce the cost of childcare though. It's so prohibitive at present that parents who would like to rejoin the workforce simply cannot afford to do so. I also think that being a stay at home mother (or father) would be more respected as a choice if no-one was under pressure to do it for financial reasons.

I'd like to see efforts to reduce the living costs across the board. IMHO living in a western nation doesn't have to be so damn expensive. At the same time though, competition between companies is only going to increase, which will result, in greater competition from an employment perspective.

If someone just wants to work, while having a child, they can already do that. The problem is the expectation of holding a prominent position, while also playing the role of a mother. Men traditionally know that it's next to impossible to do both. The lives of those in upper management, is littered with divorces, custody battles, children with "daddy issues", etc... because the men chose their careers over spending enough time with their family. The difference now is that women/feminists expect to hold those positions without those problems, and are expecting reality to shift to accommodate them.

That's why I find it unrealistic. I'm not finding your posts unrealistic btw.

JoChervil

pgj2015 wrote: »

I'm not sure if it was the same in the past but the majority of people who were dating away with different people in their 20's then suddenly settle down and get married around the 30 mark is huge. it is hard to know who will be happier in the end, these people or the ones who use tinder for years and never settle down because they have an impossible list of traits they want in a partner. maybe the tinder crowd who never settle down, deep down are happier single and that is why they want the perfect partner who doesn't exist.

A lot of the people who settle down around 30 are obviously doing it because they see their friends doing it and they think that's the done thing, these same people are the type that think every milestone must be done by certain ages.

Those, who want perfect partner usually can't accept that they are human, that they are imperfect. Perfect partner would prove their perfection. Such people usually run at the slightest threat which would expose their humanity meaning imperfection.

Partners are our mirrors. We can see ourselves through them and their acceptance is healing us. So maybe after dating few times and being accepted few times, people come to the point that they can accept themselves, so they can settle. It doesn't have to be a result of peer pressure. It may come from inner fulfilment and self-acceptence and no need to have a trophy partner then. Normal human being will be enough.

seenitall

People who earn well, will always have it good, man or woman. They will be able to afford childcare or have the option of one parent staying at home altogether. A friend of mine, for example, works in pharma registration, she is on good money. Her husband looks after their four kids at home. He is very suited to being a stay at home parent as he's never really been interested in higher education or a career. It all works for them beautifully.

It's tougher for people who don't earn a lot. They have to both work, pretty much.

I don't see these issues as gendered, as long as they are not gendered in law. Where they are, there is a problem, obviously.

JoChervil

Gynoid wrote: »

A lot of happy marriage is good luck. One haplessly hit upon the person out of all the many thousands who is funny, sexy and kind and willing to tolerate ones imperfections and eccentricities and vice versa for them. Damn lucky is all. It is not skill.

I believe it is a skill more than a luck.

The most important is how you make people feel around you, while people more care about their looks or their achievements. What often puts others down...

JoChervil

Fred Cryton wrote: »

There's a lot to be said for arranged marriage. I know the trendys in Western culture laugh at it and look down at it, but the more you think about it and examine it as a route to finding a mate, the more it makes sense. Who better to find an appropriate match for you than your parents and wider aunts/uncles? They share your genes, know how you were brought up, know your likes and dislikes inside out, and have the wisdom of experience. They will be far more likely to recognise a chancer than you will. So at a minimum, the parents would choose your dates, and you would then decide whether you want to continue seeing them or not. Best of both worlds.

As I remember Erich Fromm made a research on this subject and found no proof that arranged marriages were different as far as people satisfaction and happiness were concerned.

JoChervil

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

LOL. Relax.

It's a story he tells. I've no idea if it's true or not because I wasn't there. But I'm amused that you see the story as insulting to women. The story implied that both men and women were having affairs.

The story is also as relevant to this discussion because of all the rose tinted shyte talk that everyone was pure and chaste until very recently.

Well, the woman was Mrs in your story, so was not keeping her promise, hence suggesting she was not honourable, while you didn't say, if man were in the same situation.

One eyed Jack

lozenges wrote: »

You also mention that taking leave has a negative impact on women's career aspirations but that it's ok because it works for them as a family unit. It does in many cases but by no means all, and I think you're not addressing the instances where this is the case.

E.g. do you think the current system provides adequately for situations where:

1. The female parent is the higher earner and financially the family is better served by her returning to work

2. Both parents want to continue their careers after having children and wish to split the leave equally after the child is born

I agree actually that in many cases if one person wants to have a career it works out better if the other person has less intense role. That doesn't take away from the fact that the way the current system is set up assumes that the person with the career is the male, and disadvantages couples where the opposite is the case.

No, I don’t think the current system provides adequately for every single circumstance. In every system you can think of, no matter what way you try to force an outcome, there are advantages and disadvantages in every system. The closest system I can think of where we might agree is the system in the US of family leave, but again, there’s the question of who ultimately pays for it, employers, or Government, and it also comes with its own set of who qualifies for it -


Millions of Americans Could Finally Get Paid Family Leave—If Lawmakers Can Agree On Who Pays


The current system in Ireland doesn’t assume the person with the career is male btw, it’s based upon the assumption that the only persons who can become pregnant and give birth are women (but watch this space ), and that assumption has all sorts of consequences in family law and employment law. Whether that’s a good or a bad thing will depend upon the individual’s circumstances (I reeeeally don’t want to go down that rabbit hole, but think legal guardianship, surrogacy, adoption, custody, etc).

In short, I find it difficult to understand where you’re coming from in a system where there are advantages and disadvantages for both sexes when there is an obvious justification for extended maternity leave for mothers in employment law, but there’s no obvious justification for fathers apart from the idea of handicapping them by forcing them to take paternity leave they don’t want, in the pursuit of women’s equality in employment.

Yes of course you could argue that fathers are supposed to use that time to bond with their children and take a load off the mother, but most couples are able to delegate among themselves already in ways where they are strongest, and that usually means mothers being the primary caregivers, and fathers being the primary providers - they each have different, but equal responsibilities.

It’s not the system which disadvantages couples where the opposite is the case, that’s simply down to people within the relationship who are unhappy that the other person (or persons!) in the relationship are unwilling to compromise. In order to avoid those circumstances, women again have the option of going Danish, but again, there are advantages and disadvantages in that system too -


The motherhood penalty is still deeply entrenched ... even in Denmark

Antares35

JoChervil wrote: »

Those, who want perfect partner usually can't accept that they are human, that they are imperfect. Perfect partner would prove their perfection. Such people usually run at the slightest threat which would expose their humanity meaning imperfection.

Partners are our mirrors. We can see ourselves through them and their acceptance is healing us. So maybe after dating few times and being accepted few times, people come to the point that they can accept themselves, so they can settle. It doesn't have to be a result of peer pressure. It may come from inner fulfilment and self-acceptence and no need to have a trophy partner then. Normal human being will be enough.

Yes I agree with this. Who marries because of peer pressure? What a stupid thing to do. I'd hate to think someone was marrying me just to tick a box. I think people will always find a way to justify their position whether that is single or attached. My b*tch of an aunt had a right passive aggressive dig at me when she found out I was expecting a child. Her daughter is several years older than me and is not attached. When the aunt found out I was pregnant she actually said, "Oh my daughter was just saying how everyone her age is panicking and settling down and having babies with the first guy they meet"

He is anything but the first guy I have met, and our baby (though wanted) was unplanned :pac: That's none of her business though! I know he isn't perfect, nobody is. But he is perfect for me, and accepts my imperfections as I accept his. But, it's been a long road with plenty of Mr "Wrongs" and finding out about myself along the way. :eek:

8kczg9v0swrydm

Going to rattle the cage a bit here.

I think a lot of where you stand in this debate will depend on whether you hold a subjective or objective view of humanity. Let me explain:

An objective view of humanity would be holding that we all have a certain nature, which we have in common as human beings, the way we are hard wired so to say. This nature, if discerned and prudently followed (avoiding any distortions of said nature) would lead us to happiness. This is because we would be doing exactly what we are supposed to be doing.

A subjective view would hold that each human being is his own island and therefore each human being determines his own happiness. There is no common human nature, or even if there is, it is completely irrelevant to how we shape our lives. In short, my will determines what makes me happy and this is what I will follow.

(btw most of the above is me messing around with Aristotle and Aquinas's thoughts)

All in all, I would argue for the first option. I believe that (for the most part) we are hard wired to find our happiness in a stable, safe and lifelong monogamous relationship (marriage). This was accepted wisdom for much of our history. Polygamy existed, that is true, but it led to massive problems and was for the most part abandoned - even a child would see that there is something not quite right with this arrangement. Therefore it is natural for us to pursue marriage and delight in our spouse and equally natural to find our joy in children, the fruit of married love.

People of course are not perfect. Many a marriage turned sour and produced misery for the individuals involved, whether because of alcohol, adultery, abuse or neglect etc. However, these cases were by far the minority. The schema still stands. Our human nature and its inclinations tell us that marriage, if done properly, will be where we will find our happiness.

I think the 1960s turned this on its head. In a way, the world grew more subjectivist. People thought that their happiness would be found in extracting the perceived "fun" things in marriage and rejecting what they perceived as "not so fun". So we took out sex, going on dates, the whole carefree courting period but left behind all the responsibilities (the "till death do us part", religious and community responsibilities, staying together through thick and thin as finally, children).

But here is the crux of the issue. Sex, courting, fun and all the other little pleasures were the icing on the cake. The real happiness and peace was to be found in lifelong commitment, learning to love as a human being (in a total and sacrificial way), the security of having another person to rely on no matter what and of course, progeny.

As an addendum, I think no-consequence sex has really obscured all of this for us. Sex is one of the most powerful pleasures known to man and it is capable of completely skewing our thinking. I think it also left many people feeling used, jaded, addicted and finally, unable to bond.

the purple tin

Old married couples always have great stories about how they met and started courting.
In a few years the stock answer will be 'we met online'.

Holly Square Sympathizer

Holly Square Sympathizer wrote: »

All in all, I would argue for the first option. I believe that (for the most part) we are hard wired to find our happiness in a stable, safe and lifelong monogamous relationship (marriage). This was accepted wisdom for much of our history. Polygamy existed, that is true, but it led to massive problems and was for the most part abandoned - even a child would see that there is something not quite right with this arrangement. Therefore it is natural for us to pursue marriage and delight in our spouse and equally natural to find our joy in children, the fruit of married love.

Except that culture is important and provides the background for what's acceptable and even desirable. China for thousands of years had Polygamy, without the serious negatives associated to it from a western perspective. The problem being that western perspective is founded in the religion, of Christianity, and it's foundation of Judaism. Both religions place great importance on the value of a single wife, and that can be seen throughout the development of western culture. Just because western culture has decided and reinforced that cultural belief, doesn't mean that the institution of polygamy is flawed. In fact, even within western nations, the pursuit of polygamy is actually on the rise, not in formal marriages, but through the creation of more informal relationships with three or more partners, along with children. In many instances such a relationship is easily as stable as other relationships. The problem though is that culture tends to be projected to show a sense of superiority, and therefore a monogamous must be held supreme. To do otherwise would be to invite chaos and a decline of morals/values.

People of course are not perfect. Many a marriage turned sour and produced misery for the individuals involved, whether because of alcohol, adultery, abuse or neglect etc. However, these cases were by far the minority. The schema still stands. Our human nature and its inclinations tell us that marriage, if done properly, will be where we will find our happiness.

It's difficult to confirm any of that because of the lack of honest reporting about marriage and what went on behind closed doors. As I said above, there is a desire to show a particular culture as being supreme, and this is represented mostly by religion which shut down any investigations that countered their worldview of the value of marriage.

I think the 1960s turned this on its head. In a way, the world grew more subjectivist. People thought that their happiness would be found in extracting the perceived "fun" things in marriage and rejecting what they perceived as "not so fun". So we took out sex, going on dates, the whole carefree courting period but left behind all the responsibilities (the "till death do us part", religious and community responsibilities, staying together through thick and thin as finally, children).

Yup. I've heard the birth control argument before, and it has merit. Although it's worth considering that this is all a relatively short social experiment. People tend to look back to the 60s and consider all the changes, from the perspective that a lot has happened... and it has, but in the theme of cultural development, we are stll only talking about 60 years. A drop in the bucket.

But here is the crux of the issue. Sex, courting, fun and all the other little pleasures were the icing on the cake. The real happiness and peace was to be found in lifelong commitment, learning to love as a human being (in a total and sacrificial way), the security of having another person to rely on no matter what and of course, progeny.

As an addendum, I think no-consequence sex has really obscured all of this for us. Sex is one of the most powerful pleasures known to man and it is capable of completely skewing our thinking. I think it also left many people feeling used, jaded, addicted and finally, unable to bond.

Except that more modern research has shown a decline in open sexual encounters where people are holding out for experiences that have actual value. The people who talk about casual sex are simply louder. Most people don't talk about their sexual behavior, because to them, it's a personal topic. In many cases, oddly enough with men in particular, studies have shown than people become less interested in casual sex as their experiences grow. The problem with social media and the internet is that people can make all sorts of claims about their successes, but actual statistics collated about people using hookup apps, or even those surfing the pickup bars, is that casual sex isn't as common as expected by most people. Instead, there is the culture of going out, attempting, failing, and then, lying about it to their friends. No longer just the behavior of men, but women too, lying to their friends about who they've slept with.

There is a massive sense of insecurity about sex sweeping across western society. There are consequences to casual sex. Simply because there is so much bad sex out there. There's also the dangers of assault, abuse, STDS, etc which are encouraging people to avoid the casual search for sex, and aiming towards relationships instead. Since extensive sexual experience with a single person produces the best experiences overall. There are exceptions, but they're few and far between.

At the same time though, marriage is not the automatic alternative... because as an institution it's become flawed, especially since many people are from divorced parents, have friends who are divorced, etc. At one time divorce, was a rarity. Now it's becoming one of the many norms.

BarryD2

Holly Square Sympathizer wrote: »

All in all, I would argue for the first option. I believe that (for the most part) we are hard wired to find our happiness in a stable, safe and lifelong monogamous relationship (marriage).....

I think the 1960s turned this on its head.

I think you are or were broadly correct. I find it hard to comment on current culture in this area as I'm in the last quarter of the allotted 'three score years and ten'.

Not sure about the 1960s reference though in relation to Irish society, it was pretty traditional here through to the 1990s. We lived together for a few years in the 1980s and whilst not entirely unusual, it wasn't the norm by any means. I always felt that 'living together' was a greater test of relationship because the consequences of splitting up were little other than the emotional hurt. But we married, are still married and I think people still do marry to provide a legal stable structure within which to protect both parties and any children. That shelter that the institution of marriage offers can't be underestimated.

Older Irish people didn't always marry young either, these things change. Not that long ago that a man with land and a farm would be looking for a wife well into his 40s and even 50s. They'd have a rake of children quickly, he'd die and the widow & eldest son would take over, until she died and the cycle repeated. There's even a song about 'Maids when you're young, never wed an old man'!

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

El_D... words are important. You change the words used by a poster, and you change the meaning/context. Which I suspect you already know you're doing.

I'm not going to bother responding anymore to you while you continue to do this. Three responses. Each time you have sought to change what I've written, so that you can talk about something else. Each time, I've pointed out that you're doing it, and each time, you ignore it, and do it again.

So. No. Absolutely no point discussing this further with you because you're incapable of dealing with my posts in the context of how they were written.

Ah FFS. You're far too sensitive about this. If you think the only way to discuss a topic is to use the exact same words back and forth then you're being silly. Disconnected from young people or unable to understand young people. Whatever way you want to phrase it. Being unable to understand young people means you can't really connect with them. That's obvious.

If you don't see the problem then that's a genuine problem - and you know it's a problem and that's why you're avoiding actually responding about it.