Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone on here will think I’m crazy but the US.

Every middle to upper middle class woman has an easier life than their counterparts I know in European countries. It’s all anecdotal but it comes down to money. More disposable income and the ability to buy comfort in the US.

My European friends have less space, more debt, lower salaries and more physically tiring lives.

How does UMC woman not have disposable income in Europe? UMC women don't even work for salaries in the old country unless they want to. Women have so much free time to travel, chill with friends, read, 'run their own business', go to concerts, go skiing, go to the beach, ride horses, renovate second home, go holistic. They are doing so many things because it's all nearby, available, and fairly cheap.
The best part is that nobody ever knows where their kids are, and teachers are top notch in every public school. The amount of activities available to all kids can't me matched.
I studied 5 foreign languages from K-12. All this is available to every kid even though we only have one language in the country.
People are doing more things instead of owning things, I give you that. They could build one of these big American 'comfort houses', but most choose not to.
My ex's kids have horseback riding as a hobby and their own horses. Something I can't afford here easily even though I'm UMC. Not to mention, I'd have to drive fairly far. They don't, everything is within 20 km. These kids have traveled more and speak more languages than mine ever will. Education is also better and we know it from every Pisa test ever taken.
Different priorities came about because all this is available to them while I have to put in a lot of effort to find a good school education, fly far for new culture, hire several different teachers as few schools offer 5 foreign languages. I have to be rich here to get all this done.

Anonymous wrote:Where would people recommend black families move to?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Canada because it’s the most similar yet better with gun violence and parental leave.

People always mention moving to Canada but nobody ever takes their own suggestion and moves there. Maybe it's not that great afterall.

I think it’s actually quite difficult to emigrate there. People I know who can get their kids dual citizenships have already done so in case Trump wins this election.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Canada because it’s the most similar yet better with gun violence and parental leave.

People always mention moving to Canada but nobody ever takes their own suggestion and moves there. Maybe it's not that great afterall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would raise them in the USA first because, having lived abroad in many different countries, I think we have by far the best quality of life.
However, outside the US, my top personal choices would be:
Italy, France, Malaysia, England

LOL where exactly did you live? We’re not even CLOSE to having the best quality of life…

Actually we do. This is such nonsense. You spiked Americans have absolutely no idea how good you have it. If the UK was a state it would be #51 in every single metric.

WTF is a “spiked” American?

And you’ve obviously never lived in a Nordic country. Most places in the US are an absolute embarrassment in comparison. We’re still better than Canada, though, and I’ll die on that hill.

Don’t even get me started on Nordic countries.

Incredibly high COL with low salaries
Terrible weather
Lack of innovation and diversity of jobs
Rules/laws about everything
High taxes
*Insane mortgage debt* for income levels
Inflexible labor market due to laws
Everyone making roughly the same amount of money. A cleaner making not much less than an engineer.

Forced gender equality that in reality has just made life more difficult for women and easier for men. For example, women being pushed to take long parental leaves that are low paid with unavailable childcare. Women expected to have completely separate finances even if married and completely provide for themselves. Hence the parental leave since men are now not supporting women after they have children

Group think where everyone is the same and it you’re not, you’re a problem, which is why there is a lack of innovation and growth

As I suspected, a list of complaints made by a person who has obviously never *lived* in one of these Nordic hellholes.

The quality of life is AMAZING and they’re extremely kid/family friendly societies. But they do expect their citizens to be educated and responsible members of the community, so I can see why a person such as yourself would be fearful of that.

I don’t think the QOL is high for working moms with kids. I think it’s the same grind with less flexibility and ability to outsource.

How do you know I’ve never lived there?

Do you disagree with things like the insanely high levels of mortgage debt or inflexible labor market?

Your list of grievances boils down to “I don’t know want to live in a society that isn’t completely divided into the haves and have-nots”. Your complaints about the quality of life of working mothers is patently absurd, given the long parental leaves and easy access to high quality daycare and schooling. (Newsflash: as a society, we don’t have that here.)

Just so you know, you’re still allowed to be a “kept woman” in the Nordics, which seems to be what you’re ultimately concerned about.

NP, but you dismissing her very genuine concerns about how the labor of motherhood is distributed unequally among the genders as a byproduct of the so called egalitarianism of the nordic countries makes YOU come off misogynistic and extremely self centered. It's not a good look, and certainly not emblematic of the progressive mindset you claim to embody. Actually it seems very backwoods, regressive, which is maybe where you're from originally

Did you have ChatGPT produce this word salad for you? Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense. What point are you trying to make? Do you think fathers should take on more of the “labor of motherhood”? Do you know what mothers are and what fathers are?

Seriously, I’m embarrassed for you.

Sure, of course fathers should be taking on some of the labor of motherhood, and trying to make the stress and level of work for their female partner go down. The fact that this is so baffling for you makes it obvious why youve never noticed the issue in your years of living in Nordic nations. What selfish, unempathetic, stupid person.

Should mothers take in the labor of fatherhood? You are incredibly unintelligent, BTW.

LOL of course you would say that. The "what aboutism" whenever someone points out how much more labor mothers do is really not a good look. And if you were trying to genuinely convince people that the Nordic countries (and its fans) are truly all about egalitarianism and equality for women, you just blew up your argument.

LOL. Because I know that mothers are women and fathers are men? Female parents are called mothers and male parents are called fathers? That the labor of *parenthood* is what you probably think you were talking about?

I also don’t give a single sh!t about “egalitarianism and equality for women”. I just know that Nordic countries produce happier, more competent people than the US (which includes men, women, and children).

Maybe Laura Ingraham can read you a bedtime story tonight while you rage cry.

Oh right, the whole "mothers and fathers are different, so who cares if the mother does all the work?" argument. It's okay, you dont have to keep arguing. You already proved the PP's point about how regressive the "egalitarianism" of Nordic countries are, and how said egalitarianism is often used as a smoke screen to dump all the labor on women. Actually, you proved her point quite beautifully, better than she could have herself. What a backwards, regressive person you are.

I honestly have no idea what you’re even talking about.

Please, explain to me like I’m 5:
1). In what specific way(s) are the Nodric countries are “regressive” when it comes to gender egalitarianism
2). How said alleged regressiveness “dumps all the labor on women”
And 3) how I personally have proved “that point quite beautifully”

Please show your work.

Honestly, just click "open thread" and scroll back to the first PP who gave a really well reasoned explanation of her problem with Nordic countries, particularly how the burden of parenting labor is actually unduly placed on women under the guise of egalitarianism. You may literally be 5, it kind of seems that way, but I'm not about to explain it you like you are when you simply could have read the thread before engaging/arguing.
Your misogyny, rude mocking of concerns about women's parening/motherhood labor as "Go cry and listen to Laura Ingraham" has exposed you as nothing more than your run of the mill, regressive, backwoods misogynist. You can move to Norway all you want, you're still a dyed in the wool troglodyte with a third world view of women's labor. But thank you for making that so clear and again, proving women's point about the hidden misogyny in the Nordic culture

Got it. You can’t back up any of your bizarre claims. (FTR PP didn’t have a well reasoned explanation either. She just stated that Nordic countries are regressive. You do know that anyone can say literally anything, right? Doesn’t mean it’s remotely true. Idiot.)

You’re overly defensive. I’m the one who wrote the list about Nordic countries. That’s a personality trait I’ve noticed about Scandinavians. Extreme hostility if anything negative is mentioned about their country. Everyone seems to drink the koolaid and thinks everything is perfect.

You claimed that Nordic countries are repressive to women because the cultural expectation (NB there are no laws mandating this) is that women be financially independent and capable of supporting themselves. You claimed that it is somehow more difficult to raise children there because women are provided with extended maternity leaves and expected to take them (while conveniently not mentioning the fact that men are provided with extended paternity leaves and expected to take them). You also make the case that it is a worse place to raise children because even a *gasp* cleaner can make a living wage. And who would ever want to live in a place where the engineers became engineers primarily because they are passionate about their fields rather than a motivation for money? And the Nordic countries punch way above their weight (based on size alone) when it comes to technological innovation. Educate yourself.

You mention a higher cost of living in everyday life while failing to note the freedom from the need to save for (and stress about): university, healthcare, and retirement.

Your argument (and I am being extremely generous labeling it as such) boils down to “but muh taxes!”

This is one of those things that sounds great but makes it more difficult for an educated working mom.

My friend works for google and is working PT because she was working five days and found out that it was the same amount of money if she worked PT and got rid of her cleaners.

Because she has kids she’s in this second class status at work since her company is required to allowed her to work PT. She’s an engineer that can’t hire a house cleaners and that strikes me as odd. She explains it is because they make almost the same amount of money as she does.

Her husband doesn’t do much at home so she’s essentially working PT to take care of domestic duties.

I know that the government benefits in these countries are generous but when I see them in practice, it doesn’t seem as great as it sounds.

How is this second class status? Her company might be required to offer her a part time option but she’s not required to take it. The fact her husband doesn’t do much is possibly just a problem in her relationship.

Many countries do not have an endless supply of cheap labour like here so, yes, cleaners are more expensive. But they may work shorter hours, have quicker commutes, or live in smaller places so, overall, it may not be a terrible imposition. I’m sure most Americans can’t afford to hire cleaners even though two people work.

I love that the person you replied to basically admits that they love living in the US because they can employ marginalized people to do their domestic chores for them for ridiculously low wages, without considering that these “servants” have to live in this expensive country too. In other words, that poster is a “have” and resents the idea of living in a society without an ample supply of “have nots” for her to take advantage of.

My nanny earns around $50k a year and owns her own house.

Our cleaners own their own company and appear to be doing perfectly fine.

One interesting fact is that our nanny earns approximately what my friend earns in a Scandinavian country. Oh, but her employer must allow her to work PT and she gets a year of lowly paid maternity leave!

LOL. If you live in the DC area then the 50K you’re paying your nanny *is peanuts*. She either owns a house due to her husband or family help, because she is old and bought a house many decades ago, and/or she owns a house you would NEVER consider acceptable for yourself.

And her 50k does not go as far here in the US as it would in a Scandinavian country (assuming one was a Scandinavian citizen) because your poor nanny has to pay for her own healthcare, retirement, and college for her own kids (if she can even afford to have them).

Strongly disagree with this. Scandinavia is extremely expensive and housing costs are very high. Someone earning even only 50k will pay a lot in taxes. Nanny received healthcare subsidy from the government here to purchase insurance. She is eligible for social security and does not have kids but if so they could attend a low cost community college.

Do you know what other area is extremely expensive and has very high housing costs? I’ll give you a hint: you’re on a message board catering to residents of that area.

Also, I hope you’re a troll because otherwise your elitism and lack of self awareness is truly astonishing.

Housing costs in Oslo and Stockholm are way higher than Washington, DC. You can easily find this out from google.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The United Kingdom 🇬🇧 .

I have all daughters. There there isn’t a second amendment that codifies bad peoples “ right” to own a gun to possibly kill them in schools, the mall or domestic abuse.

They also provide universal free access to contraceptives, maternal care and abortion.

Childbirth in the UK sounds rough. Air and gas instead of an epidural.

Much lower wages and a dying economy. The future of the UK is bleak. If it were a state, England would be as poor as Mississippi.

Sure, your child has contraceptives and maternal care, but so will your daughter here if she has a job or is married to someone with a job. In terms of abortion, she can have one in most states or travel if necessary. Most women aren’t frequently receiving an abortion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would raise them in the USA first because, having lived abroad in many different countries, I think we have by far the best quality of life.
However, outside the US, my top personal choices would be:
Italy, France, Malaysia, England

LOL where exactly did you live? We’re not even CLOSE to having the best quality of life…

Actually we do. This is such nonsense. You spiked Americans have absolutely no idea how good you have it. If the UK was a state it would be #51 in every single metric.

WTF is a “spiked” American?

And you’ve obviously never lived in a Nordic country. Most places in the US are an absolute embarrassment in comparison. We’re still better than Canada, though, and I’ll die on that hill.

Don’t even get me started on Nordic countries.

Incredibly high COL with low salaries
Terrible weather
Lack of innovation and diversity of jobs
Rules/laws about everything
High taxes
*Insane mortgage debt* for income levels
Inflexible labor market due to laws
Everyone making roughly the same amount of money. A cleaner making not much less than an engineer.

Forced gender equality that in reality has just made life more difficult for women and easier for men. For example, women being pushed to take long parental leaves that are low paid with unavailable childcare. Women expected to have completely separate finances even if married and completely provide for themselves. Hence the parental leave since men are now not supporting women after they have children

Group think where everyone is the same and it you’re not, you’re a problem, which is why there is a lack of innovation and growth

As I suspected, a list of complaints made by a person who has obviously never *lived* in one of these Nordic hellholes.

The quality of life is AMAZING and they’re extremely kid/family friendly societies. But they do expect their citizens to be educated and responsible members of the community, so I can see why a person such as yourself would be fearful of that.

I don’t think the QOL is high for working moms with kids. I think it’s the same grind with less flexibility and ability to outsource.

How do you know I’ve never lived there?

Do you disagree with things like the insanely high levels of mortgage debt or inflexible labor market?

Your list of grievances boils down to “I don’t know want to live in a society that isn’t completely divided into the haves and have-nots”. Your complaints about the quality of life of working mothers is patently absurd, given the long parental leaves and easy access to high quality daycare and schooling. (Newsflash: as a society, we don’t have that here.)

Just so you know, you’re still allowed to be a “kept woman” in the Nordics, which seems to be what you’re ultimately concerned about.

NP, but you dismissing her very genuine concerns about how the labor of motherhood is distributed unequally among the genders as a byproduct of the so called egalitarianism of the nordic countries makes YOU come off misogynistic and extremely self centered. It's not a good look, and certainly not emblematic of the progressive mindset you claim to embody. Actually it seems very backwoods, regressive, which is maybe where you're from originally

Did you have ChatGPT produce this word salad for you? Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense. What point are you trying to make? Do you think fathers should take on more of the “labor of motherhood”? Do you know what mothers are and what fathers are?

Seriously, I’m embarrassed for you.

Sure, of course fathers should be taking on some of the labor of motherhood, and trying to make the stress and level of work for their female partner go down. The fact that this is so baffling for you makes it obvious why youve never noticed the issue in your years of living in Nordic nations. What selfish, unempathetic, stupid person.

Should mothers take in the labor of fatherhood? You are incredibly unintelligent, BTW.

LOL of course you would say that. The "what aboutism" whenever someone points out how much more labor mothers do is really not a good look. And if you were trying to genuinely convince people that the Nordic countries (and its fans) are truly all about egalitarianism and equality for women, you just blew up your argument.

LOL. Because I know that mothers are women and fathers are men? Female parents are called mothers and male parents are called fathers? That the labor of *parenthood* is what you probably think you were talking about?

I also don’t give a single sh!t about “egalitarianism and equality for women”. I just know that Nordic countries produce happier, more competent people than the US (which includes men, women, and children).

Maybe Laura Ingraham can read you a bedtime story tonight while you rage cry.

Oh right, the whole "mothers and fathers are different, so who cares if the mother does all the work?" argument. It's okay, you dont have to keep arguing. You already proved the PP's point about how regressive the "egalitarianism" of Nordic countries are, and how said egalitarianism is often used as a smoke screen to dump all the labor on women. Actually, you proved her point quite beautifully, better than she could have herself. What a backwards, regressive person you are.

I honestly have no idea what you’re even talking about.

Please, explain to me like I’m 5:
1). In what specific way(s) are the Nodric countries are “regressive” when it comes to gender egalitarianism
2). How said alleged regressiveness “dumps all the labor on women”
And 3) how I personally have proved “that point quite beautifully”

Please show your work.

Honestly, just click "open thread" and scroll back to the first PP who gave a really well reasoned explanation of her problem with Nordic countries, particularly how the burden of parenting labor is actually unduly placed on women under the guise of egalitarianism. You may literally be 5, it kind of seems that way, but I'm not about to explain it you like you are when you simply could have read the thread before engaging/arguing.
Your misogyny, rude mocking of concerns about women's parening/motherhood labor as "Go cry and listen to Laura Ingraham" has exposed you as nothing more than your run of the mill, regressive, backwoods misogynist. You can move to Norway all you want, you're still a dyed in the wool troglodyte with a third world view of women's labor. But thank you for making that so clear and again, proving women's point about the hidden misogyny in the Nordic culture

Got it. You can’t back up any of your bizarre claims. (FTR PP didn’t have a well reasoned explanation either. She just stated that Nordic countries are regressive. You do know that anyone can say literally anything, right? Doesn’t mean it’s remotely true. Idiot.)

You’re overly defensive. I’m the one who wrote the list about Nordic countries. That’s a personality trait I’ve noticed about Scandinavians. Extreme hostility if anything negative is mentioned about their country. Everyone seems to drink the koolaid and thinks everything is perfect.

You claimed that Nordic countries are repressive to women because the cultural expectation (NB there are no laws mandating this) is that women be financially independent and capable of supporting themselves. You claimed that it is somehow more difficult to raise children there because women are provided with extended maternity leaves and expected to take them (while conveniently not mentioning the fact that men are provided with extended paternity leaves and expected to take them). You also make the case that it is a worse place to raise children because even a *gasp* cleaner can make a living wage. And who would ever want to live in a place where the engineers became engineers primarily because they are passionate about their fields rather than a motivation for money? And the Nordic countries punch way above their weight (based on size alone) when it comes to technological innovation. Educate yourself.

You mention a higher cost of living in everyday life while failing to note the freedom from the need to save for (and stress about): university, healthcare, and retirement.

Your argument (and I am being extremely generous labeling it as such) boils down to “but muh taxes!”

This is one of those things that sounds great but makes it more difficult for an educated working mom.

My friend works for google and is working PT because she was working five days and found out that it was the same amount of money if she worked PT and got rid of her cleaners.

Because she has kids she’s in this second class status at work since her company is required to allowed her to work PT. She’s an engineer that can’t hire a house cleaners and that strikes me as odd. She explains it is because they make almost the same amount of money as she does.

Her husband doesn’t do much at home so she’s essentially working PT to take care of domestic duties.

I know that the government benefits in these countries are generous but when I see them in practice, it doesn’t seem as great as it sounds.

How is this second class status? Her company might be required to offer her a part time option but she’s not required to take it. The fact her husband doesn’t do much is possibly just a problem in her relationship.

Many countries do not have an endless supply of cheap labour like here so, yes, cleaners are more expensive. But they may work shorter hours, have quicker commutes, or live in smaller places so, overall, it may not be a terrible imposition. I’m sure most Americans can’t afford to hire cleaners even though two people work.

I love that the person you replied to basically admits that they love living in the US because they can employ marginalized people to do their domestic chores for them for ridiculously low wages, without considering that these “servants” have to live in this expensive country too. In other words, that poster is a “have” and resents the idea of living in a society without an ample supply of “have nots” for her to take advantage of.

My nanny earns around $50k a year and owns her own house.

Our cleaners own their own company and appear to be doing perfectly fine.

One interesting fact is that our nanny earns approximately what my friend earns in a Scandinavian country. Oh, but her employer must allow her to work PT and she gets a year of lowly paid maternity leave!

LOL. If you live in the DC area then the 50K you’re paying your nanny *is peanuts*. She either owns a house due to her husband or family help, because she is old and bought a house many decades ago, and/or she owns a house you would NEVER consider acceptable for yourself.

And her 50k does not go as far here in the US as it would in a Scandinavian country (assuming one was a Scandinavian citizen) because your poor nanny has to pay for her own healthcare, retirement, and college for her own kids (if she can even afford to have them).

Strongly disagree with this. Scandinavia is extremely expensive and housing costs are very high. Someone earning even only 50k will pay a lot in taxes. Nanny received healthcare subsidy from the government here to purchase insurance. She is eligible for social security and does not have kids but if so they could attend a low cost community college.

Do you know what other area is extremely expensive and has very high housing costs? I’ll give you a hint: you’re on a message board catering to residents of that area.

Also, I hope you’re a troll because otherwise your elitism and lack of self awareness is truly astonishing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would raise them in the USA first because, having lived abroad in many different countries, I think we have by far the best quality of life.
However, outside the US, my top personal choices would be:
Italy, France, Malaysia, England

LOL where exactly did you live? We’re not even CLOSE to having the best quality of life…

Actually we do. This is such nonsense. You spiked Americans have absolutely no idea how good you have it. If the UK was a state it would be #51 in every single metric.

WTF is a “spiked” American?

And you’ve obviously never lived in a Nordic country. Most places in the US are an absolute embarrassment in comparison. We’re still better than Canada, though, and I’ll die on that hill.

Don’t even get me started on Nordic countries.

Incredibly high COL with low salaries
Terrible weather
Lack of innovation and diversity of jobs
Rules/laws about everything
High taxes
*Insane mortgage debt* for income levels
Inflexible labor market due to laws
Everyone making roughly the same amount of money. A cleaner making not much less than an engineer.

Forced gender equality that in reality has just made life more difficult for women and easier for men. For example, women being pushed to take long parental leaves that are low paid with unavailable childcare. Women expected to have completely separate finances even if married and completely provide for themselves. Hence the parental leave since men are now not supporting women after they have children

Group think where everyone is the same and it you’re not, you’re a problem, which is why there is a lack of innovation and growth

As I suspected, a list of complaints made by a person who has obviously never *lived* in one of these Nordic hellholes.

The quality of life is AMAZING and they’re extremely kid/family friendly societies. But they do expect their citizens to be educated and responsible members of the community, so I can see why a person such as yourself would be fearful of that.

I don’t think the QOL is high for working moms with kids. I think it’s the same grind with less flexibility and ability to outsource.

How do you know I’ve never lived there?

Do you disagree with things like the insanely high levels of mortgage debt or inflexible labor market?

Your list of grievances boils down to “I don’t know want to live in a society that isn’t completely divided into the haves and have-nots”. Your complaints about the quality of life of working mothers is patently absurd, given the long parental leaves and easy access to high quality daycare and schooling. (Newsflash: as a society, we don’t have that here.)

Just so you know, you’re still allowed to be a “kept woman” in the Nordics, which seems to be what you’re ultimately concerned about.

NP, but you dismissing her very genuine concerns about how the labor of motherhood is distributed unequally among the genders as a byproduct of the so called egalitarianism of the nordic countries makes YOU come off misogynistic and extremely self centered. It's not a good look, and certainly not emblematic of the progressive mindset you claim to embody. Actually it seems very backwoods, regressive, which is maybe where you're from originally

Did you have ChatGPT produce this word salad for you? Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense. What point are you trying to make? Do you think fathers should take on more of the “labor of motherhood”? Do you know what mothers are and what fathers are?

Seriously, I’m embarrassed for you.

Sure, of course fathers should be taking on some of the labor of motherhood, and trying to make the stress and level of work for their female partner go down. The fact that this is so baffling for you makes it obvious why youve never noticed the issue in your years of living in Nordic nations. What selfish, unempathetic, stupid person.

Should mothers take in the labor of fatherhood? You are incredibly unintelligent, BTW.

LOL of course you would say that. The "what aboutism" whenever someone points out how much more labor mothers do is really not a good look. And if you were trying to genuinely convince people that the Nordic countries (and its fans) are truly all about egalitarianism and equality for women, you just blew up your argument.

LOL. Because I know that mothers are women and fathers are men? Female parents are called mothers and male parents are called fathers? That the labor of *parenthood* is what you probably think you were talking about?

I also don’t give a single sh!t about “egalitarianism and equality for women”. I just know that Nordic countries produce happier, more competent people than the US (which includes men, women, and children).

Maybe Laura Ingraham can read you a bedtime story tonight while you rage cry.

Oh right, the whole "mothers and fathers are different, so who cares if the mother does all the work?" argument. It's okay, you dont have to keep arguing. You already proved the PP's point about how regressive the "egalitarianism" of Nordic countries are, and how said egalitarianism is often used as a smoke screen to dump all the labor on women. Actually, you proved her point quite beautifully, better than she could have herself. What a backwards, regressive person you are.

I honestly have no idea what you’re even talking about.

Please, explain to me like I’m 5:
1). In what specific way(s) are the Nodric countries are “regressive” when it comes to gender egalitarianism
2). How said alleged regressiveness “dumps all the labor on women”
And 3) how I personally have proved “that point quite beautifully”

Please show your work.

Honestly, just click "open thread" and scroll back to the first PP who gave a really well reasoned explanation of her problem with Nordic countries, particularly how the burden of parenting labor is actually unduly placed on women under the guise of egalitarianism. You may literally be 5, it kind of seems that way, but I'm not about to explain it you like you are when you simply could have read the thread before engaging/arguing.
Your misogyny, rude mocking of concerns about women's parening/motherhood labor as "Go cry and listen to Laura Ingraham" has exposed you as nothing more than your run of the mill, regressive, backwoods misogynist. You can move to Norway all you want, you're still a dyed in the wool troglodyte with a third world view of women's labor. But thank you for making that so clear and again, proving women's point about the hidden misogyny in the Nordic culture

Got it. You can’t back up any of your bizarre claims. (FTR PP didn’t have a well reasoned explanation either. She just stated that Nordic countries are regressive. You do know that anyone can say literally anything, right? Doesn’t mean it’s remotely true. Idiot.)

You’re overly defensive. I’m the one who wrote the list about Nordic countries. That’s a personality trait I’ve noticed about Scandinavians. Extreme hostility if anything negative is mentioned about their country. Everyone seems to drink the koolaid and thinks everything is perfect.

You claimed that Nordic countries are repressive to women because the cultural expectation (NB there are no laws mandating this) is that women be financially independent and capable of supporting themselves. You claimed that it is somehow more difficult to raise children there because women are provided with extended maternity leaves and expected to take them (while conveniently not mentioning the fact that men are provided with extended paternity leaves and expected to take them). You also make the case that it is a worse place to raise children because even a *gasp* cleaner can make a living wage. And who would ever want to live in a place where the engineers became engineers primarily because they are passionate about their fields rather than a motivation for money? And the Nordic countries punch way above their weight (based on size alone) when it comes to technological innovation. Educate yourself.

You mention a higher cost of living in everyday life while failing to note the freedom from the need to save for (and stress about): university, healthcare, and retirement.

Your argument (and I am being extremely generous labeling it as such) boils down to “but muh taxes!”

This is one of those things that sounds great but makes it more difficult for an educated working mom.

My friend works for google and is working PT because she was working five days and found out that it was the same amount of money if she worked PT and got rid of her cleaners.

Because she has kids she’s in this second class status at work since her company is required to allowed her to work PT. She’s an engineer that can’t hire a house cleaners and that strikes me as odd. She explains it is because they make almost the same amount of money as she does.

Her husband doesn’t do much at home so she’s essentially working PT to take care of domestic duties.

I know that the government benefits in these countries are generous but when I see them in practice, it doesn’t seem as great as it sounds.

How is this second class status? Her company might be required to offer her a part time option but she’s not required to take it. The fact her husband doesn’t do much is possibly just a problem in her relationship.

Many countries do not have an endless supply of cheap labour like here so, yes, cleaners are more expensive. But they may work shorter hours, have quicker commutes, or live in smaller places so, overall, it may not be a terrible imposition. I’m sure most Americans can’t afford to hire cleaners even though two people work.

I love that the person you replied to basically admits that they love living in the US because they can employ marginalized people to do their domestic chores for them for ridiculously low wages, without considering that these “servants” have to live in this expensive country too. In other words, that poster is a “have” and resents the idea of living in a society without an ample supply of “have nots” for her to take advantage of.

My nanny earns around $50k a year and owns her own house.

Our cleaners own their own company and appear to be doing perfectly fine.

One interesting fact is that our nanny earns approximately what my friend earns in a Scandinavian country. Oh, but her employer must allow her to work PT and she gets a year of lowly paid maternity leave!

LOL. If you live in the DC area then the 50K you’re paying your nanny *is peanuts*. She either owns a house due to her husband or family help, because she is old and bought a house many decades ago, and/or she owns a house you would NEVER consider acceptable for yourself.

And her 50k does not go as far here in the US as it would in a Scandinavian country (assuming one was a Scandinavian citizen) because your poor nanny has to pay for her own healthcare, retirement, and college for her own kids (if she can even afford to have them).

Strongly disagree with this. Scandinavia is extremely expensive and housing costs are very high. Someone earning even only 50k will pay a lot in taxes. Nanny received healthcare subsidy from the government here to purchase insurance. She is eligible for social security and does not have kids but if so they could attend a low cost community college.

Do you know what other area is extremely expensive and has very high housing costs? I’ll give you a hint: you’re on a message board catering to residents of that area.

Also, I hope you’re a troll because otherwise your elitism and lack of self awareness is truly astonishing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would raise them in the USA first because, having lived abroad in many different countries, I think we have by far the best quality of life.
However, outside the US, my top personal choices would be:
Italy, France, Malaysia, England

LOL where exactly did you live? We’re not even CLOSE to having the best quality of life…

Actually we do. This is such nonsense. You spiked Americans have absolutely no idea how good you have it. If the UK was a state it would be #51 in every single metric.

WTF is a “spiked” American?

And you’ve obviously never lived in a Nordic country. Most places in the US are an absolute embarrassment in comparison. We’re still better than Canada, though, and I’ll die on that hill.

Don’t even get me started on Nordic countries.

Incredibly high COL with low salaries
Terrible weather
Lack of innovation and diversity of jobs
Rules/laws about everything
High taxes
*Insane mortgage debt* for income levels
Inflexible labor market due to laws
Everyone making roughly the same amount of money. A cleaner making not much less than an engineer.

Forced gender equality that in reality has just made life more difficult for women and easier for men. For example, women being pushed to take long parental leaves that are low paid with unavailable childcare. Women expected to have completely separate finances even if married and completely provide for themselves. Hence the parental leave since men are now not supporting women after they have children

Group think where everyone is the same and it you’re not, you’re a problem, which is why there is a lack of innovation and growth

As I suspected, a list of complaints made by a person who has obviously never *lived* in one of these Nordic hellholes.

The quality of life is AMAZING and they’re extremely kid/family friendly societies. But they do expect their citizens to be educated and responsible members of the community, so I can see why a person such as yourself would be fearful of that.

I don’t think the QOL is high for working moms with kids. I think it’s the same grind with less flexibility and ability to outsource.

How do you know I’ve never lived there?

Do you disagree with things like the insanely high levels of mortgage debt or inflexible labor market?

Your list of grievances boils down to “I don’t know want to live in a society that isn’t completely divided into the haves and have-nots”. Your complaints about the quality of life of working mothers is patently absurd, given the long parental leaves and easy access to high quality daycare and schooling. (Newsflash: as a society, we don’t have that here.)

Just so you know, you’re still allowed to be a “kept woman” in the Nordics, which seems to be what you’re ultimately concerned about.

NP, but you dismissing her very genuine concerns about how the labor of motherhood is distributed unequally among the genders as a byproduct of the so called egalitarianism of the nordic countries makes YOU come off misogynistic and extremely self centered. It's not a good look, and certainly not emblematic of the progressive mindset you claim to embody. Actually it seems very backwoods, regressive, which is maybe where you're from originally

Did you have ChatGPT produce this word salad for you? Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense. What point are you trying to make? Do you think fathers should take on more of the “labor of motherhood”? Do you know what mothers are and what fathers are?

Seriously, I’m embarrassed for you.

Sure, of course fathers should be taking on some of the labor of motherhood, and trying to make the stress and level of work for their female partner go down. The fact that this is so baffling for you makes it obvious why youve never noticed the issue in your years of living in Nordic nations. What selfish, unempathetic, stupid person.

Should mothers take in the labor of fatherhood? You are incredibly unintelligent, BTW.

LOL of course you would say that. The "what aboutism" whenever someone points out how much more labor mothers do is really not a good look. And if you were trying to genuinely convince people that the Nordic countries (and its fans) are truly all about egalitarianism and equality for women, you just blew up your argument.

LOL. Because I know that mothers are women and fathers are men? Female parents are called mothers and male parents are called fathers? That the labor of *parenthood* is what you probably think you were talking about?

I also don’t give a single sh!t about “egalitarianism and equality for women”. I just know that Nordic countries produce happier, more competent people than the US (which includes men, women, and children).

Maybe Laura Ingraham can read you a bedtime story tonight while you rage cry.

Oh right, the whole "mothers and fathers are different, so who cares if the mother does all the work?" argument. It's okay, you dont have to keep arguing. You already proved the PP's point about how regressive the "egalitarianism" of Nordic countries are, and how said egalitarianism is often used as a smoke screen to dump all the labor on women. Actually, you proved her point quite beautifully, better than she could have herself. What a backwards, regressive person you are.

I honestly have no idea what you’re even talking about.

Please, explain to me like I’m 5:
1). In what specific way(s) are the Nodric countries are “regressive” when it comes to gender egalitarianism
2). How said alleged regressiveness “dumps all the labor on women”
And 3) how I personally have proved “that point quite beautifully”

Please show your work.

Honestly, just click "open thread" and scroll back to the first PP who gave a really well reasoned explanation of her problem with Nordic countries, particularly how the burden of parenting labor is actually unduly placed on women under the guise of egalitarianism. You may literally be 5, it kind of seems that way, but I'm not about to explain it you like you are when you simply could have read the thread before engaging/arguing.
Your misogyny, rude mocking of concerns about women's parening/motherhood labor as "Go cry and listen to Laura Ingraham" has exposed you as nothing more than your run of the mill, regressive, backwoods misogynist. You can move to Norway all you want, you're still a dyed in the wool troglodyte with a third world view of women's labor. But thank you for making that so clear and again, proving women's point about the hidden misogyny in the Nordic culture

Got it. You can’t back up any of your bizarre claims. (FTR PP didn’t have a well reasoned explanation either. She just stated that Nordic countries are regressive. You do know that anyone can say literally anything, right? Doesn’t mean it’s remotely true. Idiot.)

You’re overly defensive. I’m the one who wrote the list about Nordic countries. That’s a personality trait I’ve noticed about Scandinavians. Extreme hostility if anything negative is mentioned about their country. Everyone seems to drink the koolaid and thinks everything is perfect.

You claimed that Nordic countries are repressive to women because the cultural expectation (NB there are no laws mandating this) is that women be financially independent and capable of supporting themselves. You claimed that it is somehow more difficult to raise children there because women are provided with extended maternity leaves and expected to take them (while conveniently not mentioning the fact that men are provided with extended paternity leaves and expected to take them). You also make the case that it is a worse place to raise children because even a *gasp* cleaner can make a living wage. And who would ever want to live in a place where the engineers became engineers primarily because they are passionate about their fields rather than a motivation for money? And the Nordic countries punch way above their weight (based on size alone) when it comes to technological innovation. Educate yourself.

You mention a higher cost of living in everyday life while failing to note the freedom from the need to save for (and stress about): university, healthcare, and retirement.

Your argument (and I am being extremely generous labeling it as such) boils down to “but muh taxes!”

This is one of those things that sounds great but makes it more difficult for an educated working mom.

My friend works for google and is working PT because she was working five days and found out that it was the same amount of money if she worked PT and got rid of her cleaners.

Because she has kids she’s in this second class status at work since her company is required to allowed her to work PT. She’s an engineer that can’t hire a house cleaners and that strikes me as odd. She explains it is because they make almost the same amount of money as she does.

Her husband doesn’t do much at home so she’s essentially working PT to take care of domestic duties.

I know that the government benefits in these countries are generous but when I see them in practice, it doesn’t seem as great as it sounds.

How is this second class status? Her company might be required to offer her a part time option but she’s not required to take it. The fact her husband doesn’t do much is possibly just a problem in her relationship.

Many countries do not have an endless supply of cheap labour like here so, yes, cleaners are more expensive. But they may work shorter hours, have quicker commutes, or live in smaller places so, overall, it may not be a terrible imposition. I’m sure most Americans can’t afford to hire cleaners even though two people work.

I love that the person you replied to basically admits that they love living in the US because they can employ marginalized people to do their domestic chores for them for ridiculously low wages, without considering that these “servants” have to live in this expensive country too. In other words, that poster is a “have” and resents the idea of living in a society without an ample supply of “have nots” for her to take advantage of.

My nanny earns around $50k a year and owns her own house.

Our cleaners own their own company and appear to be doing perfectly fine.

One interesting fact is that our nanny earns approximately what my friend earns in a Scandinavian country. Oh, but her employer must allow her to work PT and she gets a year of lowly paid maternity leave!

LOL. If you live in the DC area then the 50K you’re paying your nanny *is peanuts*. She either owns a house due to her husband or family help, because she is old and bought a house many decades ago, and/or she owns a house you would NEVER consider acceptable for yourself.

And her 50k does not go as far here in the US as it would in a Scandinavian country (assuming one was a Scandinavian citizen) because your poor nanny has to pay for her own healthcare, retirement, and college for her own kids (if she can even afford to have them).

Strongly disagree with this. Scandinavia is extremely expensive and housing costs are very high. Someone earning even only 50k will pay a lot in taxes. Nanny received healthcare subsidy from the government here to purchase insurance. She is eligible for social security and does not have kids but if so they could attend a low cost community college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would raise them in the USA first because, having lived abroad in many different countries, I think we have by far the best quality of life.
However, outside the US, my top personal choices would be:
Italy, France, Malaysia, England

LOL where exactly did you live? We’re not even CLOSE to having the best quality of life…

Actually we do. This is such nonsense. You spiked Americans have absolutely no idea how good you have it. If the UK was a state it would be #51 in every single metric.

WTF is a “spiked” American?

And you’ve obviously never lived in a Nordic country. Most places in the US are an absolute embarrassment in comparison. We’re still better than Canada, though, and I’ll die on that hill.

Don’t even get me started on Nordic countries.

Incredibly high COL with low salaries
Terrible weather
Lack of innovation and diversity of jobs
Rules/laws about everything
High taxes
*Insane mortgage debt* for income levels
Inflexible labor market due to laws
Everyone making roughly the same amount of money. A cleaner making not much less than an engineer.

Forced gender equality that in reality has just made life more difficult for women and easier for men. For example, women being pushed to take long parental leaves that are low paid with unavailable childcare. Women expected to have completely separate finances even if married and completely provide for themselves. Hence the parental leave since men are now not supporting women after they have children

Group think where everyone is the same and it you’re not, you’re a problem, which is why there is a lack of innovation and growth

As I suspected, a list of complaints made by a person who has obviously never *lived* in one of these Nordic hellholes.

The quality of life is AMAZING and they’re extremely kid/family friendly societies. But they do expect their citizens to be educated and responsible members of the community, so I can see why a person such as yourself would be fearful of that.

I don’t think the QOL is high for working moms with kids. I think it’s the same grind with less flexibility and ability to outsource.

How do you know I’ve never lived there?

Do you disagree with things like the insanely high levels of mortgage debt or inflexible labor market?

Your list of grievances boils down to “I don’t know want to live in a society that isn’t completely divided into the haves and have-nots”. Your complaints about the quality of life of working mothers is patently absurd, given the long parental leaves and easy access to high quality daycare and schooling. (Newsflash: as a society, we don’t have that here.)

Just so you know, you’re still allowed to be a “kept woman” in the Nordics, which seems to be what you’re ultimately concerned about.

NP, but you dismissing her very genuine concerns about how the labor of motherhood is distributed unequally among the genders as a byproduct of the so called egalitarianism of the nordic countries makes YOU come off misogynistic and extremely self centered. It's not a good look, and certainly not emblematic of the progressive mindset you claim to embody. Actually it seems very backwoods, regressive, which is maybe where you're from originally

Did you have ChatGPT produce this word salad for you? Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense. What point are you trying to make? Do you think fathers should take on more of the “labor of motherhood”? Do you know what mothers are and what fathers are?

Seriously, I’m embarrassed for you.

Sure, of course fathers should be taking on some of the labor of motherhood, and trying to make the stress and level of work for their female partner go down. The fact that this is so baffling for you makes it obvious why youve never noticed the issue in your years of living in Nordic nations. What selfish, unempathetic, stupid person.

Should mothers take in the labor of fatherhood? You are incredibly unintelligent, BTW.

LOL of course you would say that. The "what aboutism" whenever someone points out how much more labor mothers do is really not a good look. And if you were trying to genuinely convince people that the Nordic countries (and its fans) are truly all about egalitarianism and equality for women, you just blew up your argument.

LOL. Because I know that mothers are women and fathers are men? Female parents are called mothers and male parents are called fathers? That the labor of *parenthood* is what you probably think you were talking about?

I also don’t give a single sh!t about “egalitarianism and equality for women”. I just know that Nordic countries produce happier, more competent people than the US (which includes men, women, and children).

Maybe Laura Ingraham can read you a bedtime story tonight while you rage cry.

Oh right, the whole "mothers and fathers are different, so who cares if the mother does all the work?" argument. It's okay, you dont have to keep arguing. You already proved the PP's point about how regressive the "egalitarianism" of Nordic countries are, and how said egalitarianism is often used as a smoke screen to dump all the labor on women. Actually, you proved her point quite beautifully, better than she could have herself. What a backwards, regressive person you are.

I honestly have no idea what you’re even talking about.

Please, explain to me like I’m 5:
1). In what specific way(s) are the Nodric countries are “regressive” when it comes to gender egalitarianism
2). How said alleged regressiveness “dumps all the labor on women”
And 3) how I personally have proved “that point quite beautifully”

Please show your work.

Honestly, just click "open thread" and scroll back to the first PP who gave a really well reasoned explanation of her problem with Nordic countries, particularly how the burden of parenting labor is actually unduly placed on women under the guise of egalitarianism. You may literally be 5, it kind of seems that way, but I'm not about to explain it you like you are when you simply could have read the thread before engaging/arguing.
Your misogyny, rude mocking of concerns about women's parening/motherhood labor as "Go cry and listen to Laura Ingraham" has exposed you as nothing more than your run of the mill, regressive, backwoods misogynist. You can move to Norway all you want, you're still a dyed in the wool troglodyte with a third world view of women's labor. But thank you for making that so clear and again, proving women's point about the hidden misogyny in the Nordic culture

Got it. You can’t back up any of your bizarre claims. (FTR PP didn’t have a well reasoned explanation either. She just stated that Nordic countries are regressive. You do know that anyone can say literally anything, right? Doesn’t mean it’s remotely true. Idiot.)

You’re overly defensive. I’m the one who wrote the list about Nordic countries. That’s a personality trait I’ve noticed about Scandinavians. Extreme hostility if anything negative is mentioned about their country. Everyone seems to drink the koolaid and thinks everything is perfect.

You claimed that Nordic countries are repressive to women because the cultural expectation (NB there are no laws mandating this) is that women be financially independent and capable of supporting themselves. You claimed that it is somehow more difficult to raise children there because women are provided with extended maternity leaves and expected to take them (while conveniently not mentioning the fact that men are provided with extended paternity leaves and expected to take them). You also make the case that it is a worse place to raise children because even a *gasp* cleaner can make a living wage. And who would ever want to live in a place where the engineers became engineers primarily because they are passionate about their fields rather than a motivation for money? And the Nordic countries punch way above their weight (based on size alone) when it comes to technological innovation. Educate yourself.

You mention a higher cost of living in everyday life while failing to note the freedom from the need to save for (and stress about): university, healthcare, and retirement.

Your argument (and I am being extremely generous labeling it as such) boils down to “but muh taxes!”

This is one of those things that sounds great but makes it more difficult for an educated working mom.

My friend works for google and is working PT because she was working five days and found out that it was the same amount of money if she worked PT and got rid of her cleaners.

Because she has kids she’s in this second class status at work since her company is required to allowed her to work PT. She’s an engineer that can’t hire a house cleaners and that strikes me as odd. She explains it is because they make almost the same amount of money as she does.

Her husband doesn’t do much at home so she’s essentially working PT to take care of domestic duties.

I know that the government benefits in these countries are generous but when I see them in practice, it doesn’t seem as great as it sounds.

How is this second class status? Her company might be required to offer her a part time option but she’s not required to take it. The fact her husband doesn’t do much is possibly just a problem in her relationship.

Many countries do not have an endless supply of cheap labour like here so, yes, cleaners are more expensive. But they may work shorter hours, have quicker commutes, or live in smaller places so, overall, it may not be a terrible imposition. I’m sure most Americans can’t afford to hire cleaners even though two people work.

I love that the person you replied to basically admits that they love living in the US because they can employ marginalized people to do their domestic chores for them for ridiculously low wages, without considering that these “servants” have to live in this expensive country too. In other words, that poster is a “have” and resents the idea of living in a society without an ample supply of “have nots” for her to take advantage of.

My nanny earns around $50k a year and owns her own house.

Our cleaners own their own company and appear to be doing perfectly fine.

One interesting fact is that our nanny earns approximately what my friend earns in a Scandinavian country. Oh, but her employer must allow her to work PT and she gets a year of lowly paid maternity leave!

LOL. If you live in the DC area then the 50K you’re paying your nanny *is peanuts*. She either owns a house due to her husband or family help, because she is old and bought a house many decades ago, and/or she owns a house you would NEVER consider acceptable for yourself.

And her 50k does not go as far here in the US as it would in a Scandinavian country (assuming one was a Scandinavian citizen) because your poor nanny has to pay for her own healthcare, retirement, and college for her own kids (if she can even afford to have them).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would raise them in the USA first because, having lived abroad in many different countries, I think we have by far the best quality of life.
However, outside the US, my top personal choices would be:
Italy, France, Malaysia, England

LOL where exactly did you live? We’re not even CLOSE to having the best quality of life…

Actually we do. This is such nonsense. You spiked Americans have absolutely no idea how good you have it. If the UK was a state it would be #51 in every single metric.

WTF is a “spiked” American?

And you’ve obviously never lived in a Nordic country. Most places in the US are an absolute embarrassment in comparison. We’re still better than Canada, though, and I’ll die on that hill.

Don’t even get me started on Nordic countries.

Incredibly high COL with low salaries
Terrible weather
Lack of innovation and diversity of jobs
Rules/laws about everything
High taxes
*Insane mortgage debt* for income levels
Inflexible labor market due to laws
Everyone making roughly the same amount of money. A cleaner making not much less than an engineer.

Forced gender equality that in reality has just made life more difficult for women and easier for men. For example, women being pushed to take long parental leaves that are low paid with unavailable childcare. Women expected to have completely separate finances even if married and completely provide for themselves. Hence the parental leave since men are now not supporting women after they have children

Group think where everyone is the same and it you’re not, you’re a problem, which is why there is a lack of innovation and growth

As I suspected, a list of complaints made by a person who has obviously never *lived* in one of these Nordic hellholes.

The quality of life is AMAZING and they’re extremely kid/family friendly societies. But they do expect their citizens to be educated and responsible members of the community, so I can see why a person such as yourself would be fearful of that.

I don’t think the QOL is high for working moms with kids. I think it’s the same grind with less flexibility and ability to outsource.

How do you know I’ve never lived there?

Do you disagree with things like the insanely high levels of mortgage debt or inflexible labor market?

Your list of grievances boils down to “I don’t know want to live in a society that isn’t completely divided into the haves and have-nots”. Your complaints about the quality of life of working mothers is patently absurd, given the long parental leaves and easy access to high quality daycare and schooling. (Newsflash: as a society, we don’t have that here.)

Just so you know, you’re still allowed to be a “kept woman” in the Nordics, which seems to be what you’re ultimately concerned about.

NP, but you dismissing her very genuine concerns about how the labor of motherhood is distributed unequally among the genders as a byproduct of the so called egalitarianism of the nordic countries makes YOU come off misogynistic and extremely self centered. It's not a good look, and certainly not emblematic of the progressive mindset you claim to embody. Actually it seems very backwoods, regressive, which is maybe where you're from originally

Did you have ChatGPT produce this word salad for you? Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense. What point are you trying to make? Do you think fathers should take on more of the “labor of motherhood”? Do you know what mothers are and what fathers are?

Seriously, I’m embarrassed for you.

Sure, of course fathers should be taking on some of the labor of motherhood, and trying to make the stress and level of work for their female partner go down. The fact that this is so baffling for you makes it obvious why youve never noticed the issue in your years of living in Nordic nations. What selfish, unempathetic, stupid person.

Should mothers take in the labor of fatherhood? You are incredibly unintelligent, BTW.

LOL of course you would say that. The "what aboutism" whenever someone points out how much more labor mothers do is really not a good look. And if you were trying to genuinely convince people that the Nordic countries (and its fans) are truly all about egalitarianism and equality for women, you just blew up your argument.

LOL. Because I know that mothers are women and fathers are men? Female parents are called mothers and male parents are called fathers? That the labor of *parenthood* is what you probably think you were talking about?

I also don’t give a single sh!t about “egalitarianism and equality for women”. I just know that Nordic countries produce happier, more competent people than the US (which includes men, women, and children).

Maybe Laura Ingraham can read you a bedtime story tonight while you rage cry.

Oh right, the whole "mothers and fathers are different, so who cares if the mother does all the work?" argument. It's okay, you dont have to keep arguing. You already proved the PP's point about how regressive the "egalitarianism" of Nordic countries are, and how said egalitarianism is often used as a smoke screen to dump all the labor on women. Actually, you proved her point quite beautifully, better than she could have herself. What a backwards, regressive person you are.

I honestly have no idea what you’re even talking about.

Please, explain to me like I’m 5:
1). In what specific way(s) are the Nodric countries are “regressive” when it comes to gender egalitarianism
2). How said alleged regressiveness “dumps all the labor on women”
And 3) how I personally have proved “that point quite beautifully”

Please show your work.

Honestly, just click "open thread" and scroll back to the first PP who gave a really well reasoned explanation of her problem with Nordic countries, particularly how the burden of parenting labor is actually unduly placed on women under the guise of egalitarianism. You may literally be 5, it kind of seems that way, but I'm not about to explain it you like you are when you simply could have read the thread before engaging/arguing.
Your misogyny, rude mocking of concerns about women's parening/motherhood labor as "Go cry and listen to Laura Ingraham" has exposed you as nothing more than your run of the mill, regressive, backwoods misogynist. You can move to Norway all you want, you're still a dyed in the wool troglodyte with a third world view of women's labor. But thank you for making that so clear and again, proving women's point about the hidden misogyny in the Nordic culture

Got it. You can’t back up any of your bizarre claims. (FTR PP didn’t have a well reasoned explanation either. She just stated that Nordic countries are regressive. You do know that anyone can say literally anything, right? Doesn’t mean it’s remotely true. Idiot.)

You’re overly defensive. I’m the one who wrote the list about Nordic countries. That’s a personality trait I’ve noticed about Scandinavians. Extreme hostility if anything negative is mentioned about their country. Everyone seems to drink the koolaid and thinks everything is perfect.

You claimed that Nordic countries are repressive to women because the cultural expectation (NB there are no laws mandating this) is that women be financially independent and capable of supporting themselves. You claimed that it is somehow more difficult to raise children there because women are provided with extended maternity leaves and expected to take them (while conveniently not mentioning the fact that men are provided with extended paternity leaves and expected to take them). You also make the case that it is a worse place to raise children because even a *gasp* cleaner can make a living wage. And who would ever want to live in a place where the engineers became engineers primarily because they are passionate about their fields rather than a motivation for money? And the Nordic countries punch way above their weight (based on size alone) when it comes to technological innovation. Educate yourself.

You mention a higher cost of living in everyday life while failing to note the freedom from the need to save for (and stress about): university, healthcare, and retirement.

Your argument (and I am being extremely generous labeling it as such) boils down to “but muh taxes!”

This is one of those things that sounds great but makes it more difficult for an educated working mom.

My friend works for google and is working PT because she was working five days and found out that it was the same amount of money if she worked PT and got rid of her cleaners.

Because she has kids she’s in this second class status at work since her company is required to allowed her to work PT. She’s an engineer that can’t hire a house cleaners and that strikes me as odd. She explains it is because they make almost the same amount of money as she does.

Her husband doesn’t do much at home so she’s essentially working PT to take care of domestic duties.

I know that the government benefits in these countries are generous but when I see them in practice, it doesn’t seem as great as it sounds.

How is this second class status? Her company might be required to offer her a part time option but she’s not required to take it. The fact her husband doesn’t do much is possibly just a problem in her relationship.

Many countries do not have an endless supply of cheap labour like here so, yes, cleaners are more expensive. But they may work shorter hours, have quicker commutes, or live in smaller places so, overall, it may not be a terrible imposition. I’m sure most Americans can’t afford to hire cleaners even though two people work.

I love that the person you replied to basically admits that they love living in the US because they can employ marginalized people to do their domestic chores for them for ridiculously low wages, without considering that these “servants” have to live in this expensive country too. In other words, that poster is a “have” and resents the idea of living in a society without an ample supply of “have nots” for her to take advantage of.

My nanny earns around $50k a year and owns her own house.

Our cleaners own their own company and appear to be doing perfectly fine.

One interesting fact is that our nanny earns approximately what my friend earns in a Scandinavian country. Oh, but her employer must allow her to work PT and she gets a year of lowly paid maternity leave!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would raise them in the USA first because, having lived abroad in many different countries, I think we have by far the best quality of life.
However, outside the US, my top personal choices would be:
Italy, France, Malaysia, England

LOL where exactly did you live? We’re not even CLOSE to having the best quality of life…

Actually we do. This is such nonsense. You spiked Americans have absolutely no idea how good you have it. If the UK was a state it would be #51 in every single metric.

WTF is a “spiked” American?

And you’ve obviously never lived in a Nordic country. Most places in the US are an absolute embarrassment in comparison. We’re still better than Canada, though, and I’ll die on that hill.

Don’t even get me started on Nordic countries.

Incredibly high COL with low salaries
Terrible weather
Lack of innovation and diversity of jobs
Rules/laws about everything
High taxes
*Insane mortgage debt* for income levels
Inflexible labor market due to laws
Everyone making roughly the same amount of money. A cleaner making not much less than an engineer.

Forced gender equality that in reality has just made life more difficult for women and easier for men. For example, women being pushed to take long parental leaves that are low paid with unavailable childcare. Women expected to have completely separate finances even if married and completely provide for themselves. Hence the parental leave since men are now not supporting women after they have children

Group think where everyone is the same and it you’re not, you’re a problem, which is why there is a lack of innovation and growth

As I suspected, a list of complaints made by a person who has obviously never *lived* in one of these Nordic hellholes.

The quality of life is AMAZING and they’re extremely kid/family friendly societies. But they do expect their citizens to be educated and responsible members of the community, so I can see why a person such as yourself would be fearful of that.

I don’t think the QOL is high for working moms with kids. I think it’s the same grind with less flexibility and ability to outsource.

How do you know I’ve never lived there?

Do you disagree with things like the insanely high levels of mortgage debt or inflexible labor market?

Your list of grievances boils down to “I don’t know want to live in a society that isn’t completely divided into the haves and have-nots”. Your complaints about the quality of life of working mothers is patently absurd, given the long parental leaves and easy access to high quality daycare and schooling. (Newsflash: as a society, we don’t have that here.)

Just so you know, you’re still allowed to be a “kept woman” in the Nordics, which seems to be what you’re ultimately concerned about.

NP, but you dismissing her very genuine concerns about how the labor of motherhood is distributed unequally among the genders as a byproduct of the so called egalitarianism of the nordic countries makes YOU come off misogynistic and extremely self centered. It's not a good look, and certainly not emblematic of the progressive mindset you claim to embody. Actually it seems very backwoods, regressive, which is maybe where you're from originally

Did you have ChatGPT produce this word salad for you? Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense. What point are you trying to make? Do you think fathers should take on more of the “labor of motherhood”? Do you know what mothers are and what fathers are?

Seriously, I’m embarrassed for you.

Sure, of course fathers should be taking on some of the labor of motherhood, and trying to make the stress and level of work for their female partner go down. The fact that this is so baffling for you makes it obvious why youve never noticed the issue in your years of living in Nordic nations. What selfish, unempathetic, stupid person.

Should mothers take in the labor of fatherhood? You are incredibly unintelligent, BTW.

LOL of course you would say that. The "what aboutism" whenever someone points out how much more labor mothers do is really not a good look. And if you were trying to genuinely convince people that the Nordic countries (and its fans) are truly all about egalitarianism and equality for women, you just blew up your argument.

LOL. Because I know that mothers are women and fathers are men? Female parents are called mothers and male parents are called fathers? That the labor of *parenthood* is what you probably think you were talking about?

I also don’t give a single sh!t about “egalitarianism and equality for women”. I just know that Nordic countries produce happier, more competent people than the US (which includes men, women, and children).

Maybe Laura Ingraham can read you a bedtime story tonight while you rage cry.

Oh right, the whole "mothers and fathers are different, so who cares if the mother does all the work?" argument. It's okay, you dont have to keep arguing. You already proved the PP's point about how regressive the "egalitarianism" of Nordic countries are, and how said egalitarianism is often used as a smoke screen to dump all the labor on women. Actually, you proved her point quite beautifully, better than she could have herself. What a backwards, regressive person you are.

I honestly have no idea what you’re even talking about.

Please, explain to me like I’m 5:
1). In what specific way(s) are the Nodric countries are “regressive” when it comes to gender egalitarianism
2). How said alleged regressiveness “dumps all the labor on women”
And 3) how I personally have proved “that point quite beautifully”

Please show your work.

Honestly, just click "open thread" and scroll back to the first PP who gave a really well reasoned explanation of her problem with Nordic countries, particularly how the burden of parenting labor is actually unduly placed on women under the guise of egalitarianism. You may literally be 5, it kind of seems that way, but I'm not about to explain it you like you are when you simply could have read the thread before engaging/arguing.
Your misogyny, rude mocking of concerns about women's parening/motherhood labor as "Go cry and listen to Laura Ingraham" has exposed you as nothing more than your run of the mill, regressive, backwoods misogynist. You can move to Norway all you want, you're still a dyed in the wool troglodyte with a third world view of women's labor. But thank you for making that so clear and again, proving women's point about the hidden misogyny in the Nordic culture

Got it. You can’t back up any of your bizarre claims. (FTR PP didn’t have a well reasoned explanation either. She just stated that Nordic countries are regressive. You do know that anyone can say literally anything, right? Doesn’t mean it’s remotely true. Idiot.)

You’re overly defensive. I’m the one who wrote the list about Nordic countries. That’s a personality trait I’ve noticed about Scandinavians. Extreme hostility if anything negative is mentioned about their country. Everyone seems to drink the koolaid and thinks everything is perfect.

You claimed that Nordic countries are repressive to women because the cultural expectation (NB there are no laws mandating this) is that women be financially independent and capable of supporting themselves. You claimed that it is somehow more difficult to raise children there because women are provided with extended maternity leaves and expected to take them (while conveniently not mentioning the fact that men are provided with extended paternity leaves and expected to take them). You also make the case that it is a worse place to raise children because even a *gasp* cleaner can make a living wage. And who would ever want to live in a place where the engineers became engineers primarily because they are passionate about their fields rather than a motivation for money? And the Nordic countries punch way above their weight (based on size alone) when it comes to technological innovation. Educate yourself.

You mention a higher cost of living in everyday life while failing to note the freedom from the need to save for (and stress about): university, healthcare, and retirement.

Your argument (and I am being extremely generous labeling it as such) boils down to “but muh taxes!”

This is one of those things that sounds great but makes it more difficult for an educated working mom.

My friend works for google and is working PT because she was working five days and found out that it was the same amount of money if she worked PT and got rid of her cleaners.

Because she has kids she’s in this second class status at work since her company is required to allowed her to work PT. She’s an engineer that can’t hire a house cleaners and that strikes me as odd. She explains it is because they make almost the same amount of money as she does.

Her husband doesn’t do much at home so she’s essentially working PT to take care of domestic duties.

I know that the government benefits in these countries are generous but when I see them in practice, it doesn’t seem as great as it sounds.

How is this second class status? Her company might be required to offer her a part time option but she’s not required to take it. The fact her husband doesn’t do much is possibly just a problem in her relationship.

Many countries do not have an endless supply of cheap labour like here so, yes, cleaners are more expensive. But they may work shorter hours, have quicker commutes, or live in smaller places so, overall, it may not be a terrible imposition. I’m sure most Americans can’t afford to hire cleaners even though two people work.

I love that the person you replied to basically admits that they love living in the US because they can employ marginalized people to do their domestic chores for them for ridiculously low wages, without considering that these “servants” have to live in this expensive country too. In other words, that poster is a “have” and resents the idea of living in a society without an ample supply of “have nots” for her to take advantage of.

This. And they then claim that a white engineer who must clean her own house because housecleaners there are paid a living wage has "second class" status. Without even considering that house cleaners in the US *really* have second class status because they are paid poverty wages in a country where college, healthcare, and elder care are not guaranteed.

But because the PP is only concerned about the welfare of educated UMC women, the class status of the housecleaners is irrelevant. They only exist to facilitate the well being if the UMC family. It's bizarre to watch in action.