Do you think feminism has been a net positive or net negative for relationships?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In some cases men are being asked to earn 80% of the money and do 50% of the chores while in other cases women are being asked to earn 50% of the money and do 80% of the chores. In more balanced ego free situations men and women are flexible and make adjustments per required by jobs, finances and family.

I earned 80% of the money and did 50% of the chores and 80% of the hard parenting decisions. My Beta husband left for a mistress (and her kids) and took lots of our savings meant for our kids. I feel like I now have 95% of all the responsibilities. It sucks.

Warning- feminism and women achievement is awesome, but NEVER accept a man without a similar work ethic, accountability and responsibility. Despite your independence, you still want a protector and family leader, orherwise I’ve learned (from my divorce support groups) too many weak men have self esteem issues and abandon their successful wives and families in a mid life crisis

[Anonymous]

Absolutely negative for relationships. Everyone I know seems to be miserable. Happiest people are the tradwives I know which makes me angry. Other happy women are those who inherited. I don’t know any women who work corporate jobs, have kids and are happy. We also can’t stand our husbands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linked a free copy.

Your premise of “i wont believe a study if it doesn’t already agree with what I think is unsurprising” but I’ll play: children weren’t cared for 100% of the time by parents even if they were the 1950’s ideal housewife. They were left with siblings or in playpens often. Yes by today’s standards it’s irresponsible but my dad says they always had to take their 2-3y/o brother along with them and they were expected to play until dark.

Your link doesn't work for me. I don't understand why you have to be nasty.

Even if kids were left in playpens or with siblings, that still doesn't make sense to me. Your numbers would mean that women on average were spending less than two hours a day with their children, including infants and preschoolers. I'm willing to be educated on this point, but that doesn't seem plausible, even for school aged children, let along those not yet old enough to attend school. This is particularly true because infant childcare and preschool was much less common back then.

Nasty? How first term of you.

Firstly remember it’s an average. Now look up a biography of someone like Dolly Parton or Laura Ingalls Wilder. Young children were cared for primarily by their siblings while their mothers did more specialized work like cooking, sewing and farm work that couldn’t be trusted to a 5 y/o.

Women of greater means had nurses and nannies to do childcare.

I think you are confused or misunderstanding something you’ve read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linked a free copy.

Your premise of “i wont believe a study if it doesn’t already agree with what I think is unsurprising” but I’ll play: children weren’t cared for 100% of the time by parents even if they were the 1950’s ideal housewife. They were left with siblings or in playpens often. Yes by today’s standards it’s irresponsible but my dad says they always had to take their 2-3y/o brother along with them and they were expected to play until dark.

Your link doesn't work for me. I don't understand why you have to be nasty.

Even if kids were left in playpens or with siblings, that still doesn't make sense to me. Your numbers would mean that women on average were spending less than two hours a day with their children, including infants and preschoolers. I'm willing to be educated on this point, but that doesn't seem plausible, even for school aged children, let along those not yet old enough to attend school. This is particularly true because infant childcare and preschool was much less common back then.

Nasty? How first term of you.

Firstly remember it’s an average. Now look up a biography of someone like Dolly Parton or Laura Ingalls Wilder. Young children were cared for primarily by their siblings while their mothers did more specialized work like cooking, sewing and farm work that couldn’t be trusted to a 5 y/o.

Women of greater means had nurses and nannies to do childcare.

Women were still primarily at home. Even in the suburbs families had one car.

In the 60s, half of mothers were stay at home moms.

At home doesn’t mean doing childcare, or even paying particularly close attention to kids. They weren’t in baby and me classes or building Montessori arches— thats a modern thing.

Parenting has been improved by feminism, because men have been forced to participate in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linked a free copy.

Your premise of “i wont believe a study if it doesn’t already agree with what I think is unsurprising” but I’ll play: children weren’t cared for 100% of the time by parents even if they were the 1950’s ideal housewife. They were left with siblings or in playpens often. Yes by today’s standards it’s irresponsible but my dad says they always had to take their 2-3y/o brother along with them and they were expected to play until dark.

Your link doesn't work for me. I don't understand why you have to be nasty.

Even if kids were left in playpens or with siblings, that still doesn't make sense to me. Your numbers would mean that women on average were spending less than two hours a day with their children, including infants and preschoolers. I'm willing to be educated on this point, but that doesn't seem plausible, even for school aged children, let along those not yet old enough to attend school. This is particularly true because infant childcare and preschool was much less common back then.

Nasty? How first term of you.

Firstly remember it’s an average. Now look up a biography of someone like Dolly Parton or Laura Ingalls Wilder. Young children were cared for primarily by their siblings while their mothers did more specialized work like cooking, sewing and farm work that couldn’t be trusted to a 5 y/o.

Women of greater means had nurses and nannies to do childcare.

Women were still primarily at home. Even in the suburbs families had one car.

In the 60s, half of mothers were stay at home moms.

At home doesn’t mean doing childcare, or even paying particularly close attention to kids. They weren’t in baby and me classes or building Montessori arches— thats a modern thing.

Parenting has been improved by feminism, because men have been forced to participate in it.

By what standard or metric? Self-reported hours spent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think there are some positives, but I worry it’s pushed women to prioritize careers over marriage and children.

That's what society is pushing them to do. Companies need workers, men need earning partners and ultra feminist want to party so women are getting pulled in all directions.

It is obvious that the capitalist society benefits from having women in the workforce in greater numbers. It increases the number of workers, which pushes down wages and increases output. It increases household income, which gives both the means and motive to consume more. It disproportionately helps highly educated women from wealthy families. Companies realized that this would be a huge boost to the bottom line during WW2, and the societal changes started shortly thereafter. It is good that women got more agency over their own lives, but nothing was done to make sure that families didn't suffer from less parental involvement in children's lives, fewer people caring for their own elderly relatives, and fewer people involved in local community efforts. We might argue that this is a net good to society, but to ignore the downsides is really dumb.

That’s not true in families where fathers expected to play an equal role in their children’s lives. You’re also forgetting that the era of intense parenting is recent— modern parents spend more time with their children, not less. As a result of feminism, men spent more than twice as much time with their children in 2010 than 1965. Sounds like feminism may have helped fatherhood quite a bit.

I do think it is helped fatherhood in that sense--men (who are present in a family) do spend more time with their children. That's probably a good thing, although somewhat at odds with the increase in divorce, which has meant that some men spend much less time with their children. But it is true that parents overall spend less time with their children from infancy into early childhood. I don't know that all of the driving to travel soccer makes up for that early deficit.

This isn’t true and it’s been studied extensively. WaPo has the graphic if you search, in 1965 women averaged weekly 10.5 hours with their kids, men 2.6. By 2010 women spent on average 13.7 hours with their kids and men 7.2. Feminism has increased parental attention on kids, not eroded it.

I can't find it searching for that. Is it the Pew study? Regardless, that doesn't make sense. How would a woman who is home with a infant or preschool aged child only spend 10.5 hours with the kid? And it is clear that the percentage of stay at home parents (mothers, really) went from about half in the 1960s to about a quarter by the end of the 1990s. So how would the hours spent on childcare by women also go up significantly during that period. I know a lot of those time studies are self-reported, and I would highly question the results. (I also know, for example, that the same Pew study says that men work more hours than women when counting both work in the home and at outside jobs.)

DP. Time use studies are self reported, but they're usually considered reliable because you actually have to account for every hour in the day. I'm not sure why the fact that men report working more hours than women would contradict that.

Anyway the answer to your question is at least partially that the time use data is for your primary activity. A lot of the stay at home mom time is probably spent doing housework as a primary activity with childcare as a secondary activity. Kids are much more closely supervised today so more time is spent with childcare being the primary activity.

I'm not exactly sure how much of the change of "feminism" exactly though. If you look at the numbers women were spending less time on childcare until the late 90s when it spiked upwards again. That shift towards intensive parenting, which I think is at the root of a lot of dissatisfaction with work/life balance, seems independent of feminism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linked a free copy.

Your premise of “i wont believe a study if it doesn’t already agree with what I think is unsurprising” but I’ll play: children weren’t cared for 100% of the time by parents even if they were the 1950’s ideal housewife. They were left with siblings or in playpens often. Yes by today’s standards it’s irresponsible but my dad says they always had to take their 2-3y/o brother along with them and they were expected to play until dark.

Your link doesn't work for me. I don't understand why you have to be nasty.

Even if kids were left in playpens or with siblings, that still doesn't make sense to me. Your numbers would mean that women on average were spending less than two hours a day with their children, including infants and preschoolers. I'm willing to be educated on this point, but that doesn't seem plausible, even for school aged children, let along those not yet old enough to attend school. This is particularly true because infant childcare and preschool was much less common back then.

Nasty? How first term of you.

Firstly remember it’s an average. Now look up a biography of someone like Dolly Parton or Laura Ingalls Wilder. Young children were cared for primarily by their siblings while their mothers did more specialized work like cooking, sewing and farm work that couldn’t be trusted to a 5 y/o.

Women of greater means had nurses and nannies to do childcare.

Women were still primarily at home. Even in the suburbs families had one car.

In the 60s, half of mothers were stay at home moms.

At home doesn’t mean doing childcare, or even paying particularly close attention to kids. They weren’t in baby and me classes or building Montessori arches— thats a modern thing.

Parenting has been improved by feminism, because men have been forced to participate in it.

By what standard or metric? Self-reported hours spent?

The inclusion of men. As a feminist i think it’s beneficial and important that my kids see their father as competent to do household tasks and also play with them and facilitate our family life. A “Wonder Years” style dad isn’t good for kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linked a free copy.

Your premise of “i wont believe a study if it doesn’t already agree with what I think is unsurprising” but I’ll play: children weren’t cared for 100% of the time by parents even if they were the 1950’s ideal housewife. They were left with siblings or in playpens often. Yes by today’s standards it’s irresponsible but my dad says they always had to take their 2-3y/o brother along with them and they were expected to play until dark.

Your link doesn't work for me. I don't understand why you have to be nasty.

Even if kids were left in playpens or with siblings, that still doesn't make sense to me. Your numbers would mean that women on average were spending less than two hours a day with their children, including infants and preschoolers. I'm willing to be educated on this point, but that doesn't seem plausible, even for school aged children, let along those not yet old enough to attend school. This is particularly true because infant childcare and preschool was much less common back then.

Nasty? How first term of you.

Firstly remember it’s an average. Now look up a biography of someone like Dolly Parton or Laura Ingalls Wilder. Young children were cared for primarily by their siblings while their mothers did more specialized work like cooking, sewing and farm work that couldn’t be trusted to a 5 y/o.

Women of greater means had nurses and nannies to do childcare.

Women were still primarily at home. Even in the suburbs families had one car.

In the 60s, half of mothers were stay at home moms.

At home doesn’t mean doing childcare, or even paying particularly close attention to kids. They weren’t in baby and me classes or building Montessori arches— thats a modern thing.

Parenting has been improved by feminism, because men have been forced to participate in it.

By what standard or metric? Self-reported hours spent?

The inclusion of men. As a feminist i think it’s beneficial and important that my kids see their father as competent to do household tasks and also play with them and facilitate our family life. A “Wonder Years” style dad isn’t good for kids.

Why didn't your dad or grandfather help? I know mine did. We didn't all grow up in a "Wonder Years" home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linked a free copy.

Your premise of “i wont believe a study if it doesn’t already agree with what I think is unsurprising” but I’ll play: children weren’t cared for 100% of the time by parents even if they were the 1950’s ideal housewife. They were left with siblings or in playpens often. Yes by today’s standards it’s irresponsible but my dad says they always had to take their 2-3y/o brother along with them and they were expected to play until dark.

Your link doesn't work for me. I don't understand why you have to be nasty.

Even if kids were left in playpens or with siblings, that still doesn't make sense to me. Your numbers would mean that women on average were spending less than two hours a day with their children, including infants and preschoolers. I'm willing to be educated on this point, but that doesn't seem plausible, even for school aged children, let along those not yet old enough to attend school. This is particularly true because infant childcare and preschool was much less common back then.

Nasty? How first term of you.

Firstly remember it’s an average. Now look up a biography of someone like Dolly Parton or Laura Ingalls Wilder. Young children were cared for primarily by their siblings while their mothers did more specialized work like cooking, sewing and farm work that couldn’t be trusted to a 5 y/o.

Women of greater means had nurses and nannies to do childcare.

Women were still primarily at home. Even in the suburbs families had one car.

In the 60s, half of mothers were stay at home moms.

At home doesn’t mean doing childcare, or even paying particularly close attention to kids. They weren’t in baby and me classes or building Montessori arches— thats a modern thing.

Parenting has been improved by feminism, because men have been forced to participate in it.

By what standard or metric? Self-reported hours spent?

The inclusion of men. As a feminist i think it’s beneficial and important that my kids see their father as competent to do household tasks and also play with them and facilitate our family life. A “Wonder Years” style dad isn’t good for kids.

Why didn't your dad or grandfather help? I know mine did. We didn't all grow up in a "Wonder Years" home.

My father (1980’s) did. My Grandfather absolutely did not. My mother worked outside the home, my Grandmother did not. Feminism improved the fathers in our family in one generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linked a free copy.

Your premise of “i wont believe a study if it doesn’t already agree with what I think is unsurprising” but I’ll play: children weren’t cared for 100% of the time by parents even if they were the 1950’s ideal housewife. They were left with siblings or in playpens often. Yes by today’s standards it’s irresponsible but my dad says they always had to take their 2-3y/o brother along with them and they were expected to play until dark.

Your link doesn't work for me. I don't understand why you have to be nasty.

Even if kids were left in playpens or with siblings, that still doesn't make sense to me. Your numbers would mean that women on average were spending less than two hours a day with their children, including infants and preschoolers. I'm willing to be educated on this point, but that doesn't seem plausible, even for school aged children, let along those not yet old enough to attend school. This is particularly true because infant childcare and preschool was much less common back then.

Nasty? How first term of you.

Firstly remember it’s an average. Now look up a biography of someone like Dolly Parton or Laura Ingalls Wilder. Young children were cared for primarily by their siblings while their mothers did more specialized work like cooking, sewing and farm work that couldn’t be trusted to a 5 y/o.

Women of greater means had nurses and nannies to do childcare.

Women were still primarily at home. Even in the suburbs families had one car.

In the 60s, half of mothers were stay at home moms.

At home doesn’t mean doing childcare, or even paying particularly close attention to kids. They weren’t in baby and me classes or building Montessori arches— thats a modern thing.

Parenting has been improved by feminism, because men have been forced to participate in it.

By what standard or metric? Self-reported hours spent?

The inclusion of men. As a feminist i think it’s beneficial and important that my kids see their father as competent to do household tasks and also play with them and facilitate our family life. A “Wonder Years” style dad isn’t good for kids.

Ok, got it. So you are just expressing a value judgment about the optimal amount of inclusion for men in childcare, not making a claim that is to be substantiated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linked a free copy.

Your premise of “i wont believe a study if it doesn’t already agree with what I think is unsurprising” but I’ll play: children weren’t cared for 100% of the time by parents even if they were the 1950’s ideal housewife. They were left with siblings or in playpens often. Yes by today’s standards it’s irresponsible but my dad says they always had to take their 2-3y/o brother along with them and they were expected to play until dark.

Your link doesn't work for me. I don't understand why you have to be nasty.

Even if kids were left in playpens or with siblings, that still doesn't make sense to me. Your numbers would mean that women on average were spending less than two hours a day with their children, including infants and preschoolers. I'm willing to be educated on this point, but that doesn't seem plausible, even for school aged children, let along those not yet old enough to attend school. This is particularly true because infant childcare and preschool was much less common back then.

Nasty? How first term of you.

Firstly remember it’s an average. Now look up a biography of someone like Dolly Parton or Laura Ingalls Wilder. Young children were cared for primarily by their siblings while their mothers did more specialized work like cooking, sewing and farm work that couldn’t be trusted to a 5 y/o.

Women of greater means had nurses and nannies to do childcare.

Women were still primarily at home. Even in the suburbs families had one car.

In the 60s, half of mothers were stay at home moms.

At home doesn’t mean doing childcare, or even paying particularly close attention to kids. They weren’t in baby and me classes or building Montessori arches— thats a modern thing.

Parenting has been improved by feminism, because men have been forced to participate in it.

By what standard or metric? Self-reported hours spent?

The inclusion of men. As a feminist i think it’s beneficial and important that my kids see their father as competent to do household tasks and also play with them and facilitate our family life. A “Wonder Years” style dad isn’t good for kids.

Why didn't your dad or grandfather help? I know mine did. We didn't all grow up in a "Wonder Years" home.

My father (1980’s) did. My Grandfather absolutely did not. My mother worked outside the home, my Grandmother did not. Feminism improved the fathers in our family in one generation.

All of my grandparents worked. Nobody was out playing golf or idling around. They were all working all the time to keep a roof over their heads. There seems to be some fantasy that everyone was rich and idle in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linked a free copy.

Your premise of “i wont believe a study if it doesn’t already agree with what I think is unsurprising” but I’ll play: children weren’t cared for 100% of the time by parents even if they were the 1950’s ideal housewife. They were left with siblings or in playpens often. Yes by today’s standards it’s irresponsible but my dad says they always had to take their 2-3y/o brother along with them and they were expected to play until dark.

Your link doesn't work for me. I don't understand why you have to be nasty.

Even if kids were left in playpens or with siblings, that still doesn't make sense to me. Your numbers would mean that women on average were spending less than two hours a day with their children, including infants and preschoolers. I'm willing to be educated on this point, but that doesn't seem plausible, even for school aged children, let along those not yet old enough to attend school. This is particularly true because infant childcare and preschool was much less common back then.

Nasty? How first term of you.

Firstly remember it’s an average. Now look up a biography of someone like Dolly Parton or Laura Ingalls Wilder. Young children were cared for primarily by their siblings while their mothers did more specialized work like cooking, sewing and farm work that couldn’t be trusted to a 5 y/o.

Women of greater means had nurses and nannies to do childcare.

I get the sense that you have such a hostile tone because you don't really understand what you're arguing and are frustrated. The fact that it is using averages makes your argument worse. And there is a zero support for your argument that "young children were cared for primarily by their siblings." And then you cite Dolly Parton and Laura Ingalls Wilder? Truly a rigorous take. I'm actually laughing. Thank you for that.

I think the other poster below you has the correct hypothesis, that the data only tracks a primary activity, so cooking or running errands with the child isn't childcare as such. I think those activities that aren't directly child care are actually an important part of socialization and education. It's a shame that is largely gone, especially for children whose parents would be good influences intellectually or socially or morally. (Obviously, the calculus is different if the parents are not going to be good influences.)

I'm curious about the actual study in question (assuming there is an actual study).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think there are some positives, but I worry it’s pushed women to prioritize careers over marriage and children.

That's what society is pushing them to do. Companies need workers, men need earning partners and ultra feminist want to party so women are getting pulled in all directions.

It is obvious that the capitalist society benefits from having women in the workforce in greater numbers. It increases the number of workers, which pushes down wages and increases output. It increases household income, which gives both the means and motive to consume more. It disproportionately helps highly educated women from wealthy families. Companies realized that this would be a huge boost to the bottom line during WW2, and the societal changes started shortly thereafter. It is good that women got more agency over their own lives, but nothing was done to make sure that families didn't suffer from less parental involvement in children's lives, fewer people caring for their own elderly relatives, and fewer people involved in local community efforts. We might argue that this is a net good to society, but to ignore the downsides is really dumb.

That’s not true in families where fathers expected to play an equal role in their children’s lives. You’re also forgetting that the era of intense parenting is recent— modern parents spend more time with their children, not less. As a result of feminism, men spent more than twice as much time with their children in 2010 than 1965. Sounds like feminism may have helped fatherhood quite a bit.

I do think it is helped fatherhood in that sense--men (who are present in a family) do spend more time with their children. That's probably a good thing, although somewhat at odds with the increase in divorce, which has meant that some men spend much less time with their children. But it is true that parents overall spend less time with their children from infancy into early childhood. I don't know that all of the driving to travel soccer makes up for that early deficit.

This isn’t true and it’s been studied extensively. WaPo has the graphic if you search, in 1965 women averaged weekly 10.5 hours with their kids, men 2.6. By 2010 women spent on average 13.7 hours with their kids and men 7.2. Feminism has increased parental attention on kids, not eroded it.

I can't find it searching for that. Is it the Pew study? Regardless, that doesn't make sense. How would a woman who is home with a infant or preschool aged child only spend 10.5 hours with the kid? And it is clear that the percentage of stay at home parents (mothers, really) went from about half in the 1960s to about a quarter by the end of the 1990s. So how would the hours spent on childcare by women also go up significantly during that period. I know a lot of those time studies are self-reported, and I would highly question the results. (I also know, for example, that the same Pew study says that men work more hours than women when counting both work in the home and at outside jobs.)

DP. Time use studies are self reported, but they're usually considered reliable because you actually have to account for every hour in the day. I'm not sure why the fact that men report working more hours than women would contradict that.

Anyway the answer to your question is at least partially that the time use data is for your primary activity. A lot of the stay at home mom time is probably spent doing housework as a primary activity with childcare as a secondary activity. Kids are much more closely supervised today so more time is spent with childcare being the primary activity.

I'm not exactly sure how much of the change of "feminism" exactly though. If you look at the numbers women were spending less time on childcare until the late 90s when it spiked upwards again. That shift towards intensive parenting, which I think is at the root of a lot of dissatisfaction with work/life balance, seems independent of feminism.

I'm not sure the change is feminism either, but it seems like a lot of the change would be the steep decline in the number of households with a stay at home parent. I'm not sure feminism as such is the cause of that, and I think it is obviously a very good thing that women have equal access to employment outside of the house. I just don't think the decline of stay at home parenting (of whatever gender) is a net good for society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think there are some positives, but I worry it’s pushed women to prioritize careers over marriage and children.

That's what society is pushing them to do. Companies need workers, men need earning partners and ultra feminist want to party so women are getting pulled in all directions.

It is obvious that the capitalist society benefits from having women in the workforce in greater numbers. It increases the number of workers, which pushes down wages and increases output. It increases household income, which gives both the means and motive to consume more. It disproportionately helps highly educated women from wealthy families. Companies realized that this would be a huge boost to the bottom line during WW2, and the societal changes started shortly thereafter. It is good that women got more agency over their own lives, but nothing was done to make sure that families didn't suffer from less parental involvement in children's lives, fewer people caring for their own elderly relatives, and fewer people involved in local community efforts. We might argue that this is a net good to society, but to ignore the downsides is really dumb.

That’s not true in families where fathers expected to play an equal role in their children’s lives. You’re also forgetting that the era of intense parenting is recent— modern parents spend more time with their children, not less. As a result of feminism, men spent more than twice as much time with their children in 2010 than 1965. Sounds like feminism may have helped fatherhood quite a bit.

I do think it is helped fatherhood in that sense--men (who are present in a family) do spend more time with their children. That's probably a good thing, although somewhat at odds with the increase in divorce, which has meant that some men spend much less time with their children. But it is true that parents overall spend less time with their children from infancy into early childhood. I don't know that all of the driving to travel soccer makes up for that early deficit.

This isn’t true and it’s been studied extensively. WaPo has the graphic if you search, in 1965 women averaged weekly 10.5 hours with their kids, men 2.6. By 2010 women spent on average 13.7 hours with their kids and men 7.2. Feminism has increased parental attention on kids, not eroded it.

I can't find it searching for that. Is it the Pew study? Regardless, that doesn't make sense. How would a woman who is home with a infant or preschool aged child only spend 10.5 hours with the kid? And it is clear that the percentage of stay at home parents (mothers, really) went from about half in the 1960s to about a quarter by the end of the 1990s. So how would the hours spent on childcare by women also go up significantly during that period. I know a lot of those time studies are self-reported, and I would highly question the results. (I also know, for example, that the same Pew study says that men work more hours than women when counting both work in the home and at outside jobs.)

DP. Time use studies are self reported, but they're usually considered reliable because you actually have to account for every hour in the day. I'm not sure why the fact that men report working more hours than women would contradict that.

Anyway the answer to your question is at least partially that the time use data is for your primary activity. A lot of the stay at home mom time is probably spent doing housework as a primary activity with childcare as a secondary activity. Kids are much more closely supervised today so more time is spent with childcare being the primary activity.

I'm not exactly sure how much of the change of "feminism" exactly though. If you look at the numbers women were spending less time on childcare until the late 90s when it spiked upwards again. That shift towards intensive parenting, which I think is at the root of a lot of dissatisfaction with work/life balance, seems independent of feminism.

I'm not sure the change is feminism either, but it seems like a lot of the change would be the steep decline in the number of households with a stay at home parent. I'm not sure feminism as such is the cause of that, and I think it is obviously a very good thing that women have equal access to employment outside of the house. I just don't think the decline of stay at home parenting (of whatever gender) is a net good for society.

If we reimbursed SAHP’s to prevent their abuse I’d agree. But since they’re dependents, I consider SAHP’s (of either gender) a net negative for society. If we started a federal program to support them, and/or when SAHP’s have wealth independent of the marriage, they can play a positive role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linked a free copy.

Your premise of “i wont believe a study if it doesn’t already agree with what I think is unsurprising” but I’ll play: children weren’t cared for 100% of the time by parents even if they were the 1950’s ideal housewife. They were left with siblings or in playpens often. Yes by today’s standards it’s irresponsible but my dad says they always had to take their 2-3y/o brother along with them and they were expected to play until dark.

Your link doesn't work for me. I don't understand why you have to be nasty.

Even if kids were left in playpens or with siblings, that still doesn't make sense to me. Your numbers would mean that women on average were spending less than two hours a day with their children, including infants and preschoolers. I'm willing to be educated on this point, but that doesn't seem plausible, even for school aged children, let along those not yet old enough to attend school. This is particularly true because infant childcare and preschool was much less common back then.

Nasty? How first term of you.

Firstly remember it’s an average. Now look up a biography of someone like Dolly Parton or Laura Ingalls Wilder. Young children were cared for primarily by their siblings while their mothers did more specialized work like cooking, sewing and farm work that couldn’t be trusted to a 5 y/o.

Women of greater means had nurses and nannies to do childcare.

I get the sense that you have such a hostile tone because you don't really understand what you're arguing and are frustrated. The fact that it is using averages makes your argument worse. And there is a zero support for your argument that "young children were cared for primarily by their siblings." And then you cite Dolly Parton and Laura Ingalls Wilder? Truly a rigorous take. I'm actually laughing. Thank you for that.

I think the other poster below you has the correct hypothesis, that the data only tracks a primary activity, so cooking or running errands with the child isn't childcare as such. I think those activities that aren't directly child care are actually an important part of socialization and education. It's a shame that is largely gone, especially for children whose parents would be good influences intellectually or socially or morally. (Obviously, the calculus is different if the parents are not going to be good influences.)

I'm curious about the actual study in question (assuming there is an actual study).

Tone policing? You really are trying to fill the misogyny bingo card on this thread. You should ask someone to smile.