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.
SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.
I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.
The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.
Thats not true— we just want it to be.
A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.
The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.
When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.
So you are saying that because some SAHPs can be abused, then all SAHPs are a "net negative" for society? That makes no sense. I agree with you that it would be great if we, as a society, did more to support SAHPs. But that doesn't mean that SAHPs are not now a positive to society. Your argument quite literally makes no sense.
Yes. Because the current model of SAHP (outside those who have independent income) enables profound abuse, the model is a net negative to society.
Anonymous wrote:"Does treating women with the same respect we give men provide a benefit to society?"
Anyone who says no is lacking *quite* a few brain cells.
I've been saying that for pages and pages. I can't believe this nonsense is still being "discussed."
But the question wasn't about society or in general it was specific to relationships.
"Does treating women with the same respect we give to men benefit relationships?"
How can you say no? How can you actually say that respecting women LESS is better in relationships?
I guess that would hinge on whether the question means "same" in a quantitative sense rather than in a qualitative sense. If respect is just a fixed thing, then you can only be giving more, less, or the same amount of it. If respect can be variable in some qualitative way, where you can give different types of respect, then I think people could make that argument. They might not be right, but you can make arguments that aren't ridiculous.
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.
SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.
I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.
The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.
Thats not true— we just want it to be.
A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.
The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.
When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.
So you are saying that because some SAHPs can be abused, then all SAHPs are a "net negative" for society? That makes no sense. I agree with you that it would be great if we, as a society, did more to support SAHPs. But that doesn't mean that SAHPs are not now a positive to society. Your argument quite literally makes no sense.
Yes. Because the current model of SAHP (outside those who have independent income) enables profound abuse, the model is a net negative to society.
Abuse is abuse and has nothing to do with SAHP. Families should choose what works best for them. Forcing all women to work is just as bad as forcing all women to not work.
Anonymous wrote:"Does treating women with the same respect we give men provide a benefit to society?"
Anyone who says no is lacking *quite* a few brain cells.
I've been saying that for pages and pages. I can't believe this nonsense is still being "discussed."
But the question wasn't about society or in general it was specific to relationships.
"Does treating women with the same respect we give to men benefit relationships?"
How can you say no? How can you actually say that respecting women LESS is better in relationships?
If fewer people engage in relationships such as marriage would we say that's better? Do we want more of them or fewer? How can something be good for relationships if people are rejecting relationships more often?
Anonymous wrote:"Does treating women with the same respect we give men provide a benefit to society?"
Anyone who says no is lacking *quite* a few brain cells.
I've been saying that for pages and pages. I can't believe this nonsense is still being "discussed."
But the question wasn't about society or in general it was specific to relationships.
"Does treating women with the same respect we give to men benefit relationships?"
How can you say no? How can you actually say that respecting women LESS is better in relationships?
If fewer people engage in relationships such as marriage would we say that's better? Do we want more of them or fewer? How can something be good for relationships if people are rejecting relationships more often?
Fewer bad marriages is a net positive.
Is singe parenting resulting from divorce a positive or negative?
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.
SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.
I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.
The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.
Thats not true— we just want it to be.
A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.
The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.
When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.
So you are saying that because some SAHPs can be abused, then all SAHPs are a "net negative" for society? That makes no sense. I agree with you that it would be great if we, as a society, did more to support SAHPs. But that doesn't mean that SAHPs are not now a positive to society. Your argument quite literally makes no sense.
Yes. Because the current model of SAHP (outside those who have independent income) enables profound abuse, the model is a net negative to society.
Abuse is abuse and has nothing to do with SAHP. Families should choose what works best for them. Forcing all women to work is just as bad as forcing all women to not work.
DP
Women are choosing the potential necessity of work when they become pregnant. This is self-inflicted "force", where force is whatever necessary to provide for a child. Same for the other parent (if there is another parent).
A man is not a plan. When you decide to become pregnant, you are responsible even if that means working full time.
Anonymous wrote:"Does treating women with the same respect we give men provide a benefit to society?"
Anyone who says no is lacking *quite* a few brain cells.
I've been saying that for pages and pages. I can't believe this nonsense is still being "discussed."
But the question wasn't about society or in general it was specific to relationships.
"Does treating women with the same respect we give to men benefit relationships?"
How can you say no? How can you actually say that respecting women LESS is better in relationships?
If fewer people engage in relationships such as marriage would we say that's better? Do we want more of them or fewer? How can something be good for relationships if people are rejecting relationships more often?
Fewer bad marriages is a net positive.
Is singe parenting resulting from divorce a positive or negative?
Depends on the underlying marriage. Getting kids away from a bad parent is a good thing. Getting them away from a good parent is a bad thing.
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.
SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.
I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.
The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.
Thats not true— we just want it to be.
A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.
The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.
When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.
So you are saying that because some SAHPs can be abused, then all SAHPs are a "net negative" for society? That makes no sense. I agree with you that it would be great if we, as a society, did more to support SAHPs. But that doesn't mean that SAHPs are not now a positive to society. Your argument quite literally makes no sense.
Yes. Because the current model of SAHP (outside those who have independent income) enables profound abuse, the model is a net negative to society.
Abuse is abuse and has nothing to do with SAHP. Families should choose what works best for them. Forcing all women to work is just as bad as forcing all women to not work.
Agreed, my SAHW was the abuser in our relationship. Initially we agreed that having her time fully invested in creating our home and raising our children would create the life we wanted. Then she resented me for working, started cheating and decided that she could use the system to take everything through 50/50, child support and alimony. If they truly appreciate and are committed to the family they are sacrificing to create, it is a partnership and she gets to reinvent herself when the kids leave. It doesn’t always work out that way unfortunately and living a horror story example isn’t unique to the SAHP.
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.
SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.
I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.
The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.
Thats not true— we just want it to be.
A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.
The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.
When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.
So you are saying that because some SAHPs can be abused, then all SAHPs are a "net negative" for society? That makes no sense. I agree with you that it would be great if we, as a society, did more to support SAHPs. But that doesn't mean that SAHPs are not now a positive to society. Your argument quite literally makes no sense.
Yes. Because the current model of SAHP (outside those who have independent income) enables profound abuse, the model is a net negative to society.
Abuse is abuse and has nothing to do with SAHP. Families should choose what works best for them. Forcing all women to work is just as bad as forcing all women to not work.
Agreed, my SAHW was the abuser in our relationship. Initially we agreed that having her time fully invested in creating our home and raising our children would create the life we wanted. Then she resented me for working, started cheating and decided that she could use the system to take everything through 50/50, child support and alimony. If they truly appreciate and are committed to the family they are sacrificing to create, it is a partnership and she gets to reinvent herself when the kids leave. It doesn’t always work out that way unfortunately and living a horror story example isn’t unique to the SAHP.
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.
SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.
I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.
The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.
Thats not true— we just want it to be.
A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.
The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.
When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.
So you are saying that because some SAHPs can be abused, then all SAHPs are a "net negative" for society? That makes no sense. I agree with you that it would be great if we, as a society, did more to support SAHPs. But that doesn't mean that SAHPs are not now a positive to society. Your argument quite literally makes no sense.
Yes. Because the current model of SAHP (outside those who have independent income) enables profound abuse, the model is a net negative to society.
Abuse is abuse and has nothing to do with SAHP. Families should choose what works best for them. Forcing all women to work is just as bad as forcing all women to not work.
Agreed, my SAHW was the abuser in our relationship. Initially we agreed that having her time fully invested in creating our home and raising our children would create the life we wanted. Then she resented me for working, started cheating and decided that she could use the system to take everything through 50/50, child support and alimony. If they truly appreciate and are committed to the family they are sacrificing to create, it is a partnership and she gets to reinvent herself when the kids leave. It doesn’t always work out that way unfortunately and living a horror story example isn’t unique to the SAHP.
Thanks for the laugh.
How old are you anyway? I doubt you have a life and you’ve certainly never set a child on a path of independence and morality.
Anonymous wrote:"Does treating women with the same respect we give men provide a benefit to society?"
Anyone who says no is lacking *quite* a few brain cells.
I've been saying that for pages and pages. I can't believe this nonsense is still being "discussed."
But the question wasn't about society or in general it was specific to relationships.
"Does treating women with the same respect we give to men benefit relationships?"
How can you say no? How can you actually say that respecting women LESS is better in relationships?
If fewer people engage in relationships such as marriage would we say that's better? Do we want more of them or fewer? How can something be good for relationships if people are rejecting relationships more often?
Fewer bad marriages is a net positive.
Is singe parenting resulting from divorce a positive or negative?
Anonymous wrote:"Does treating women with the same respect we give men provide a benefit to society?"
Anyone who says no is lacking *quite* a few brain cells.
I've been saying that for pages and pages. I can't believe this nonsense is still being "discussed."
But the question wasn't about society or in general it was specific to relationships.
"Does treating women with the same respect we give to men benefit relationships?"
How can you say no? How can you actually say that respecting women LESS is better in relationships?
I guess that would hinge on whether the question means "same" in a quantitative sense rather than in a qualitative sense. If respect is just a fixed thing, then you can only be giving more, less, or the same amount of it. If respect can be variable in some qualitative way, where you can give different types of respect, then I think people could make that argument. They might not be right, but you can make arguments that aren't ridiculous.
“Blah blah blah, I want an excuse to hate women because they won’t f*** me”
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.
SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.
I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.
The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.
Thats not true— we just want it to be.
A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.
The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.
When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.
So you are saying that because some SAHPs can be abused, then all SAHPs are a "net negative" for society? That makes no sense. I agree with you that it would be great if we, as a society, did more to support SAHPs. But that doesn't mean that SAHPs are not now a positive to society. Your argument quite literally makes no sense.
Yes. Because the current model of SAHP (outside those who have independent income) enables profound abuse, the model is a net negative to society.
Abuse is abuse and has nothing to do with SAHP. Families should choose what works best for them. Forcing all women to work is just as bad as forcing all women to not work.
Agreed, my SAHW was the abuser in our relationship. Initially we agreed that having her time fully invested in creating our home and raising our children would create the life we wanted. Then she resented me for working, started cheating and decided that she could use the system to take everything through 50/50, child support and alimony. If they truly appreciate and are committed to the family they are sacrificing to create, it is a partnership and she gets to reinvent herself when the kids leave. It doesn’t always work out that way unfortunately and living a horror story example isn’t unique to the SAHP.
lol f***ing idiot. Your wife took what was hers, 50% is not everything.
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.
SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.
I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.
The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.
Thats not true— we just want it to be.
A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.
The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.
When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.
So you are saying that because some SAHPs can be abused, then all SAHPs are a "net negative" for society? That makes no sense. I agree with you that it would be great if we, as a society, did more to support SAHPs. But that doesn't mean that SAHPs are not now a positive to society. Your argument quite literally makes no sense.
Yes. Because the current model of SAHP (outside those who have independent income) enables profound abuse, the model is a net negative to society.
Abuse is abuse and has nothing to do with SAHP. Families should choose what works best for them. Forcing all women to work is just as bad as forcing all women to not work.
Agreed, my SAHW was the abuser in our relationship. Initially we agreed that having her time fully invested in creating our home and raising our children would create the life we wanted. Then she resented me for working, started cheating and decided that she could use the system to take everything through 50/50, child support and alimony. If they truly appreciate and are committed to the family they are sacrificing to create, it is a partnership and she gets to reinvent herself when the kids leave. It doesn’t always work out that way unfortunately and living a horror story example isn’t unique to the SAHP.
lol f***ing idiot. Your wife took what was hers, 50% is not everything.
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.
SAHPs do important work. Not only do they provide work that would otherwise need to be paid for, but a good SAHP can provide all sorts of other important things for children that is not traditionally paid labor (socialization, moral guidance, love). So bizarre that you'd consider SAHPs a net negative. But yes, agree that some support for SAHPs would be great. And to be clear, I'm not one, but I think society would be better off with more of them.
I agree with you about the potential benefits, but I do not believe those outweigh having adults be dependent, and therefore so vulnerable to abuse. If the US woke up and did some sort of support, socially for SAHP, I would feel differently.
The problem is a class/money issue. In families that are middle class and above, SAHPs are not trapped. Divorce is freely available, and spousal and child support laws are very favorable. It just so happens that it is harder to be middle class with one income. In poorer families, people are trapped whether one or both parents work (although a lot of poor families are single parent households anyway). A lot of MC people feel trapped in marriages because they don't want to take the financial hit of divorce, but they aren't truly trapped; they just want certain material things that won't be available if they take the financial hit.
Thats not true— we just want it to be.
A middle class working spouse can deny access to money, healthcare, gas for cars, even food, with perfect legality. Look up spousal financial abuse cases they will make your hair curl. And the time an abusive spouse is most dangerous is when you try to leave (which needs money). Very very few lawyers will just accept a destitute man or woman walking through their door and help them with a divorce.
The best SAHP I know is a man retired from the Army. His wife has an incredible career but if she didn’t, or if she was abusive, he has an independent income (his pension) to support himself and his child.
When we as a society start giving an income to SAHP, I think their contributions will be net positive. As it is, adults as the financial dependents of their spouses enables abuse which is a net negative.
So you are saying that because some SAHPs can be abused, then all SAHPs are a "net negative" for society? That makes no sense. I agree with you that it would be great if we, as a society, did more to support SAHPs. But that doesn't mean that SAHPs are not now a positive to society. Your argument quite literally makes no sense.
Yes. Because the current model of SAHP (outside those who have independent income) enables profound abuse, the model is a net negative to society.
Abuse is abuse and has nothing to do with SAHP. Families should choose what works best for them. Forcing all women to work is just as bad as forcing all women to not work.
I don’t agree. It’s like saying physics is physics and has nothing to do with car accidents. Sure— but— a car accident at 10mph is different than 100mph which is why society decided it’s not in our collective best interest for people to drive 100mph. It doesn’t mean every driver at 100mph would cause an accident.
And i didn’t say anything about forcing people to work. I think the way to correct the vulnerability is 1. Recognize it and 2. Mitigate it by social support for adults staying home with young kids.
Forum Index
»
Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
