New York Times Primal Scream Project - discuss...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think that the current level of animus would be directed at teachers if most teachers were men.

This. People still expect women to watch the kids, just “other” women...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you all need a palate cleanser after the typical unending DCUM "but here's why it's really your fault lady" conversation (I do!), it is refreshing to read a take from a non-cis woman (Roxane Gay) and commentators who don't feel the need to tie themselves into knots to defend and normalize this behavior:

https://twitter.com/rgay/status/1358890790781521922

I don’t understand the incentive for heterosexuality. In this article, the husband comes home, sees his wife working and helping their daughter with autism attend school. She is harried. He points out that his wife needs to help the daughter respond to her teacher.

He DOESNT JUMP IN TO HELP. He just gets his snack. That is grounds for divorce. The women in this piece are working and parenting while their husbands work and shirk parenting.

Ditch these men. There is absolutely no incentive to stay with them.

I’m confused—are the women who don’t ditch these men (for whatever reason) at fault or no? Because there are mixed messages happening here. On the one hand you have people saying they’re suffering and on the other I’m hearing people tell them it’s ultimately their own fault if they are suffering because they should “fix their household” or leave the husband or whatever.

Suffering because of long-term personally consequences of rushing into marriage or choosing selfish mates. One does not cancel out the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think that the current level of animus would be directed at teachers if most teachers were men.

HS teachers are about half and half these days and male teachers whine about having to actually go back to school just as much as female teachers. That whiny viral post this summer about 300 kids dying from Covid or whatever was written by a man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have children at home, think of ways to help those who do.

I take birth control so I don't have to do this. Why am I being asked to help parents (for free) but parents aren't being asked to help me? Do my laundry and pay my electricity bill, then I'll watch your kids. Every time someone says "but community" they're expecting help without giving anything back. Paint my living room if community is so important to you.

Those of us without kids are already picking up the slack in many offices. I've been doing the work of 1.75 FTE since last April. My coworkers know and say thank you, but I don't have a choice.

Yeah. But it's kind of interesting to see that some women have higher standards for childless women than they do for their own husbands. You need help? Start asking your DH for help. It's really sort of sexist that they expect other women to work for free just so their DH can maintain his lifestyle of doing nothing. I'm just not interested in doing additional work because a woman bred with a loser and she doesn't care to fix her household.

NP. +100 "Where is my village?" is always code for "I expect other women to chip in with my domestic labor for free."

This!

I don't think that's always true. Our group of friends is a village. If someone needs their kid picked up from school, they text and one of us will do it. When one family gets sick, the others chip in and help out in whatever way possible. When someone has a baby, we plan a meal train. When someone has surgery, we take turns keeping their kids. And so on and so forth. Yes, some people give more than others and some take more than others. But I figure in the end it'll either even out or I'll be grateful that I was able to give more than I got or that I had friends who were willing to give when I couldn't. We've been through deaths, divorces, affairs, deployments, etc. We will help each other out at the drop of a hat and we each have our strengths. The one with the minivan ends up picking kids up more often. We have a huge kitchen and love to cook so we end up making meals more. Another family has more kids so they're always willing to add another to the mix. Both moms and dads step up. I honestly didn't think this existed until I moved to this neighborhood, but it can.

In other words - you live in a military community where the women are de facto single moms because the men are deployed months at a time.

That's a choice. Its also basically a requirement that you ban together because you're parenting alone. For spouses outside of that community - we're saying the first person to pick up the slack in a mom's life should in fact be the husband not the sister, friend, neighbor you smiled at once.

We're not free labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think that's always true. Our group of friends is a village. If someone needs their kid picked up from school, they text and one of us will do it. When one family gets sick, the others chip in and help out in whatever way possible. When someone has a baby, we plan a meal train. When someone has surgery, we take turns keeping their kids. And so on and so forth. Yes, some people give more than others and some take more than others. But I figure in the end it'll either even out or I'll be grateful that I was able to give more than I got or that I had friends who were willing to give when I couldn't. We've been through deaths, divorces, affairs, deployments, etc. We will help each other out at the drop of a hat and we each have our strengths. The one with the minivan ends up picking kids up more often. We have a huge kitchen and love to cook so we end up making meals more. Another family has more kids so they're always willing to add another to the mix. Both moms and dads step up. I honestly didn't think this existed until I moved to this neighborhood, but it can.

I'm the "+100" PP you're responding to (don't know who these other people responding are...). I'll admit, your situation sounds great. Also sounds kind of rare? But maybe it's not. It sounds like it's also a military situation? I think when you're all in the same special situation, it's easier to come to arrangements like this, maybe?
I will say, more often when I hear people asking for a village, it's always working moms stretched to their limit who would never be able to reciprocate for all the domestic help they're requesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have children at home, think of ways to help those who do.

I take birth control so I don't have to do this. Why am I being asked to help parents (for free) but parents aren't being asked to help me? Do my laundry and pay my electricity bill, then I'll watch your kids. Every time someone says "but community" they're expecting help without giving anything back. Paint my living room if community is so important to you.

Those of us without kids are already picking up the slack in many offices. I've been doing the work of 1.75 FTE since last April. My coworkers know and say thank you, but I don't have a choice.

Yeah. But it's kind of interesting to see that some women have higher standards for childless women than they do for their own husbands. You need help? Start asking your DH for help. It's really sort of sexist that they expect other women to work for free just so their DH can maintain his lifestyle of doing nothing. I'm just not interested in doing additional work because a woman bred with a loser and she doesn't care to fix her household.

NP. +100 "Where is my village?" is always code for "I expect other women to chip in with my domestic labor for free."

This!

I don't think that's always true. Our group of friends is a village. If someone needs their kid picked up from school, they text and one of us will do it. When one family gets sick, the others chip in and help out in whatever way possible. When someone has a baby, we plan a meal train. When someone has surgery, we take turns keeping their kids. And so on and so forth. Yes, some people give more than others and some take more than others. But I figure in the end it'll either even out or I'll be grateful that I was able to give more than I got or that I had friends who were willing to give when I couldn't. We've been through deaths, divorces, affairs, deployments, etc. We will help each other out at the drop of a hat and we each have our strengths. The one with the minivan ends up picking kids up more often. We have a huge kitchen and love to cook so we end up making meals more. Another family has more kids so they're always willing to add another to the mix. Both moms and dads step up. I honestly didn't think this existed until I moved to this neighborhood, but it can.

In other words - you live in a military community where the women are de facto single moms because the men are deployed months at a time.

That's a choice. Its also basically a requirement that you ban together because you're parenting alone. For spouses outside of that community - we're saying the first person to pick up the slack in a mom's life should in fact be the husband not the sister, friend, neighbor you smiled at once.

We're not free labor.

Nope. I live in a normal neighborhood where two out of 20 families have military spouses. And we're happy to help them because of the "choice" they and their spouses made to serve our country.

All of the families in our group have involved husbands. All have dual working spouses (only one is part-time, the rest is all full-time). Most have nannies, maids, etc. So no one is looking for a handout. But when someone has a baby, gets sick, etc., we all step up to help.

You sound so bitter, I feel really sorry for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think that's always true. Our group of friends is a village. If someone needs their kid picked up from school, they text and one of us will do it. When one family gets sick, the others chip in and help out in whatever way possible. When someone has a baby, we plan a meal train. When someone has surgery, we take turns keeping their kids. And so on and so forth. Yes, some people give more than others and some take more than others. But I figure in the end it'll either even out or I'll be grateful that I was able to give more than I got or that I had friends who were willing to give when I couldn't. We've been through deaths, divorces, affairs, deployments, etc. We will help each other out at the drop of a hat and we each have our strengths. The one with the minivan ends up picking kids up more often. We have a huge kitchen and love to cook so we end up making meals more. Another family has more kids so they're always willing to add another to the mix. Both moms and dads step up. I honestly didn't think this existed until I moved to this neighborhood, but it can.

I'm the "+100" PP you're responding to (don't know who these other people responding are...). I'll admit, your situation sounds great. Also sounds kind of rare? But maybe it's not. It sounds like it's also a military situation? I think when you're all in the same special situation, it's easier to come to arrangements like this, maybe?
I will say, more often when I hear people asking for a village, it's always working moms stretched to their limit who would never be able to reciprocate for all the domestic help they're requesting.

It is great. We're very lucky to have found this neighborhood. It's not military, but we have two Captains in our group who get deployed on their ships. Everyone else is a civilian, so we are not military.

My best friend lives 200 miles away in a smaller city and she has the same kind of village. All dual working families, and a real team in terms of helping out.

I guess to me a village is a group of people who ALL participate. What you're saying sounds like a rude mom who tries to take advantage of other people's kindness. I don't doubt that those people exist, I guess I'm just lucky/grateful that all my mom friends (most of whom work), are responsible and pay for their own childcare, etc.

[Anonymous]

Well I suppose with all that paid help you have, you would have the time to develop friendships and help each other out. Most people can’t afford nannies and maids and all the other privileges I’m sure you have living in a wealthy, likely white upper class neighborhood that enable you to spend time developing close friendships with other families. I bet community spread is also low where you live. Must be nice to be part of the privileged one percent and judge others who make different choices based on their own options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have children at home, think of ways to help those who do.

I take birth control so I don't have to do this. Why am I being asked to help parents (for free) but parents aren't being asked to help me? Do my laundry and pay my electricity bill, then I'll watch your kids. Every time someone says "but community" they're expecting help without giving anything back. Paint my living room if community is so important to you.

Those of us without kids are already picking up the slack in many offices. I've been doing the work of 1.75 FTE since last April. My coworkers know and say thank you, but I don't have a choice.

Yeah. But it's kind of interesting to see that some women have higher standards for childless women than they do for their own husbands. You need help? Start asking your DH for help. It's really sort of sexist that they expect other women to work for free just so their DH can maintain his lifestyle of doing nothing. I'm just not interested in doing additional work because a woman bred with a loser and she doesn't care to fix her household.

NP. +100 "Where is my village?" is always code for "I expect other women to chip in with my domestic labor for free."

This!

I don't think that's always true. Our group of friends is a village. If someone needs their kid picked up from school, they text and one of us will do it. When one family gets sick, the others chip in and help out in whatever way possible. When someone has a baby, we plan a meal train. When someone has surgery, we take turns keeping their kids. And so on and so forth. Yes, some people give more than others and some take more than others. But I figure in the end it'll either even out or I'll be grateful that I was able to give more than I got or that I had friends who were willing to give when I couldn't. We've been through deaths, divorces, affairs, deployments, etc. We will help each other out at the drop of a hat and we each have our strengths. The one with the minivan ends up picking kids up more often. We have a huge kitchen and love to cook so we end up making meals more. Another family has more kids so they're always willing to add another to the mix. Both moms and dads step up. I honestly didn't think this existed until I moved to this neighborhood, but it can.

In other words - you live in a military community where the women are de facto single moms because the men are deployed months at a time.

That's a choice. Its also basically a requirement that you ban together because you're parenting alone. For spouses outside of that community - we're saying the first person to pick up the slack in a mom's life should in fact be the husband not the sister, friend, neighbor you smiled at once.

We're not free labor.

Nope. I live in a normal neighborhood where two out of 20 families have military spouses. And we're happy to help them because of the "choice" they and their spouses made to serve our country.

All of the families in our group have involved husbands. All have dual working spouses (only one is part-time, the rest is all full-time). Most have nannies, maids, etc. So no one is looking for a handout. But when someone has a baby, gets sick, etc., we all step up to help.

You sound so bitter, I feel really sorry for you.

Not bitter, just realistic and aware of a long history in this country of using other women - whether they are destitute, single/married, housewives or otherwise considered undesirable - as free labor in order for 'certain' families to continue the charade of a middle to upper class lifestyle.

Anything that hints of that smacks of selfishness to me. Passive or outright demands for unpaid childcare aid included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In other words - you live in a military community where the women are de facto single moms because the men are deployed months at a time.

That's a choice. Its also basically a requirement that you ban together because you're parenting alone. For spouses outside of that community - we're saying the first person to pick up the slack in a mom's life should in fact be the husband not the sister, friend, neighbor you smiled at once.

We're not free labor.

I don't think there's a need to be this nasty to the PP, though I agree she does sound privileged. It is definitely easier for people to be available to each other when their own lives are well sorted out - affluent, has help (nannies, maids), etc. Also, bringing a meal for a special circumstance - babies, surgery - etc. is different than someone basing their normal life and relying for help from others. The 3 people in the NYTimes article just have crazy unmanageable lives, pandemic or not. One is a single mom who works full time and is going back to school, another is a family where the dad works 3 jobs to pay for their mortgage. Some people don't HAVE to have such crazy lives, yet they take them on and then wonder why it's so hard and "Where is the village?" that they were promised. I would definitely bring a meal to a friend who had a new baby. I don't really want to help out a couple whose lives are busy because they both want to work for personal fulfillment, or they work so they can have money for a bigger house than they can afford on one or two normal jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you all need a palate cleanser after the typical unending DCUM "but here's why it's really your fault lady" conversation (I do!), it is refreshing to read a take from a non-cis woman (Roxane Gay) and commentators who don't feel the need to tie themselves into knots to defend and normalize this behavior:

https://twitter.com/rgay/status/1358890790781521922

I don’t understand the incentive for heterosexuality. In this article, the husband comes home, sees his wife working and helping their daughter with autism attend school. She is harried. He points out that his wife needs to help the daughter respond to her teacher.

He DOESNT JUMP IN TO HELP. He just gets his snack. That is grounds for divorce. The women in this piece are working and parenting while their husbands work and shirk parenting.

Ditch these men. There is absolutely no incentive to stay with them.

I’m confused—are the women who don’t ditch these men (for whatever reason) at fault or no? Because there are mixed messages happening here. On the one hand you have people saying they’re suffering and on the other I’m hearing people tell them it’s ultimately their own fault if they are suffering because they should “fix their household” or leave the husband or whatever.

Suffering because of long-term personally consequences of rushing into marriage or choosing selfish mates. One does not cancel out the other.

Huh. Still confused. What you seem to be saying, though it's not clear, is that you have no empathy for the current pandemic-related struggles of women who "rushed into marriage" or "chose selfish mates." It's THEIR fault (not the selfish mate's)? If so, I got it. No matter what, it's always the women's fault. AWESOME.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you all need a palate cleanser after the typical unending DCUM "but here's why it's really your fault lady" conversation (I do!), it is refreshing to read a take from a non-cis woman (Roxane Gay) and commentators who don't feel the need to tie themselves into knots to defend and normalize this behavior:

https://twitter.com/rgay/status/1358890790781521922

I don’t understand the incentive for heterosexuality. In this article, the husband comes home, sees his wife working and helping their daughter with autism attend school. She is harried. He points out that his wife needs to help the daughter respond to her teacher.

He DOESNT JUMP IN TO HELP. He just gets his snack. That is grounds for divorce. The women in this piece are working and parenting while their husbands work and shirk parenting.

Ditch these men. There is absolutely no incentive to stay with them.

I’m confused—are the women who don’t ditch these men (for whatever reason) at fault or no? Because there are mixed messages happening here. On the one hand you have people saying they’re suffering and on the other I’m hearing people tell them it’s ultimately their own fault if they are suffering because they should “fix their household” or leave the husband or whatever.

Suffering because of long-term personally consequences of rushing into marriage or choosing selfish mates. One does not cancel out the other.

Huh. Still confused. What you seem to be saying, though it's not clear, is that you have no empathy for the current pandemic-related struggles of women who "rushed into marriage" or "chose selfish mates." It's THEIR fault (not the selfish mate's)? If so, I got it. No matter what, it's always the women's fault. AWESOME.

Yes it’s the woman’s fault that they’re not shouting, screaming or twisting the arm of their spouses. You know...the person they married.

I’m tired of these articles harassing everyone else for ‘help’ including the government and your neighbors but not the sperm donor you decided to have kids with.

It’s your fault. It’s his fault (or hers if your partner is female). Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes it’s the woman’s fault that they’re not shouting, screaming or twisting the arm of their spouses. You know...the person they married.

I’m tired of these articles harassing everyone else for ‘help’ including the government and your neighbors but not the sperm donor you decided to have kids with.

It’s your fault. It’s his fault (or hers if your partner is female). Deal with it.

DP, but what if neither spouse has a particularly flexible employer? And neither earns much money? Then what? Or what if the women do shout, scream, and/or arm-twist to no effect? Are you going to dump on them when they end up divorced? Is no one worthy of praise but #bootstraps?

The pandemic has underscored how poorly our society supports anyone who's not wealthy. I guess that's our fault inasmuch as we vote for people, but I think you know it's a lot more complicated than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes it’s the woman’s fault that they’re not shouting, screaming or twisting the arm of their spouses. You know...the person they married.

I’m tired of these articles harassing everyone else for ‘help’ including the government and your neighbors but not the sperm donor you decided to have kids with.

It’s your fault. It’s his fault (or hers if your partner is female). Deal with it.

DP, but what if neither spouse has a particularly flexible employer? And neither earns much money? Then what? Or what if the women do shout, scream, and/or arm-twist to no effect? Are you going to dump on them when they end up divorced? Is no one worthy of praise but #bootstraps?

The pandemic has underscored how poorly our society supports anyone who's not wealthy. I guess that's our fault inasmuch as we vote for people, but I think you know it's a lot more complicated than that.

I'd say when two people get married they need to make decisions based on life circumstances. Both of you going hard in inflexible careers - then you need to be damned certain that those careers are financially lucrative enough to pay for care for one or more of your kids.

As for the money, there's a whole ecosystem of people who have multiple kids and can't afford them. That's also a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes it’s the woman’s fault that they’re not shouting, screaming or twisting the arm of their spouses. You know...the person they married.

I’m tired of these articles harassing everyone else for ‘help’ including the government and your neighbors but not the sperm donor you decided to have kids with.

It’s your fault. It’s his fault (or hers if your partner is female). Deal with it.

DP, but what if neither spouse has a particularly flexible employer? And neither earns much money? Then what? Or what if the women do shout, scream, and/or arm-twist to no effect? Are you going to dump on them when they end up divorced? Is no one worthy of praise but #bootstraps?

The pandemic has underscored how poorly our society supports anyone who's not wealthy. I guess that's our fault inasmuch as we vote for people, but I think you know it's a lot more complicated than that.

I'd say when two people get married they need to make decisions based on life circumstances. Both of you going hard in inflexible careers - then you need to be damned certain that those careers are financially lucrative enough to pay for care for one or more of your kids.

As for the money, there's a whole ecosystem of people who have multiple kids and can't afford them. That's also a choice.

What happens if you get laid off, your hours are reduced, your spouse becomes abusive, or you have a catastrophic medical event that bankrupts you? Can you give the kid back? In your scenario only the affluent would have be able to have kids, because everyday life would intervene for us regular folks. Lost that job and blew through your savings because of a worldwide pandemic? Should have known that would happen when you conceived that kid 11 years ago! No fair expecting any sort of social safety net--that wouldn't be taking responsibility for yourself and your choices!

Give me a *&^%ing break.