Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is a warped way of thinking IMO. Why does it have to be tit for tat? You're a team working together, not competitors trying to get the top spot. My husband works and I only work a few hours a week. I don't have the "right to spend more time" with our children. Instead, it just makes more sense for him to make the money and carry the health insurance since he has more earning potential. Besides, he's not cut out to be an at-home parent. He'd go crazy. So instead, I stay home because that's what WE feel is best for our family. If you think it's best for you both to work. Great! But don't do it just so your wife doesn't "get" to spend more time with the children. That's twisted logic. It'd be equally twisted if your wife said that of you just to clarify (in case someone thinks this is a woman vs. men issue).
To clarify: I object to the idea that it's a womans "job" or role to be home, taking care of children whilst the man works.
I think both parties in a parenthood (be it man and woman, or same sex parents) have an equal responsibility in the upbringing of a child, I also think they have an equal right to take part in it.
That being said, in some relationships it will make more sense for one parent to be the main source of income and another to spend more time with the child or children, if that's a common decision that both agree with, that's fine. It's the idea that womens role in life is motherhood, whereas the male is a breadwinner more so than a father, that I object to.
In my relationship specifically, neither will be a stay at home parent when time comes (if it comes), but both might work reduced hours is the situation allows it.
I totally get what he is saying. Why should a mother be the default to stay home and take care of the kids. Fathers do get the shaft as far as having equal quality time with their kids. And some fathers want that. Its assumed the one with the higher income works while the lower income stays home. Instead of one working and one staying home why not both work part time leaving both equal time to spend parenting if its financially doable. My father worked a second part time job, and my brother is doing that now. They both missed out on spending time with their children.
Both work part time? You do realize that would slash their current salary as well as future earning potential for LIFE. Plus, no health benefits, retirement benefits, etc. That's ridiculous. You're not going to get promotions when you're working 25 hours a week. It's not going to happen. Those lost promotions can likely never be made up. Health insurance, as we well know, is not cheap!
It is assumed that the higher income parent work because it makes the most sense when you embrace a team outlook on life. My husband misses his kids of course, but he also feels great knowing that his beloved wife is taking care of them. He also wouldn't be happy at home. What makes him have such a high income is his intense drive to succeed and do well. He would not be content to work part time. It's not in his nature. Most of the men I know would not want to sacrifice their career to stay home. Many of the women I know feel the same. That's fine. It's their right to feel that way. I'm just saying that is why it typically works out that way. The household could not be supported on my income unless I worked 2 jobs. My husband works one job with fairly normal hours and supports the entire family.
Both work part time? You do realize that would slash their current salary as well as future earning potential for LIFE. Plus, no health benefits, retirement benefits, etc. That's ridiculous. You're not going to get promotions when you're working 25 hours a week. It's not going to happen. Those lost promotions can likely never be made up. Health insurance, as we well know, is not cheap!
It is assumed that the higher income parent work because it makes the most sense when you embrace a team outlook on life. My husband misses his kids of course, but he also feels great knowing that his beloved wife is taking care of them. He also wouldn't be happy at home. What makes him have such a high income is his intense drive to succeed and do well. He would not be content to work part time. It's not in his nature. Most of the men I know would not want to sacrifice their career to stay home. Many of the women I know feel the same. That's fine. It's their right to feel that way. I'm just saying that is why it typically works out that way. The household could not be supported on my income unless I worked 2 jobs. My husband works one job with fairly normal hours and supports the entire family.
Did you miss the if financially doabe part. What ever works for a couple. I dont see anything wrong with Vikings proposal.
To clarify: I object to the idea that it's a womans "job" or role to be home, taking care of children whilst the man works.
I think both parties in a parenthood (be it man and woman, or same sex parents) have an equal responsibility in the upbringing of a child, I also think they have an equal right to take part in it.
That being said, in some relationships it will make more sense for one parent to be the main source of income and another to spend more time with the child or children, if that's a common decision that both agree with, that's fine. It's the idea that womens role in life is motherhood, whereas the male is a breadwinner more so than a father, that I object to.
In my relationship specifically, neither will be a stay at home parent when time comes (if it comes), but both might work reduced hours is the situation allows it.
Agree, agree, and...confused....
I don't think the woman has more rights to take part in the raising of the child, but the man is still raising his child if he works full time and she doesn't. By your logic, the day care facility will be raising your child just in order to keep things completely even in your relationship. Most working parents would never imply that daycares raise their children for them, but that's essentially what you're saying with this line of thought....
Did you miss the if financially doabe part. What ever works for a couple. I dont see anything wrong with Vikings proposal.
Ok, but the financially doable is sketchy. It could happen.....not likely though. You'd have to get a really unique couple with a unique skill set to make that work without serious financial repercussions.
One on thing we agree: Being a mother is not a job, it's who you are, as a female, once you give birth to or adopt a child (or otherwise take on the parental role in that child's life).
But once that child is born, the male also becomes a father, with all the same responsibilities, to nurture, protect, teach and support the child, I cannot for the life of me understand why any male would not want to take part in their child's life and upbringing to the same level as their spouse.
I do not subscribe to the idea that the woman who carries the child should somehow have more love or more reason to take care of it than the other partner (be it a woman or a man... or two men for that matter), each parent, in the cases where two is present, share the same responsibility and should have the same interest in seeing the child have a good upbringing.
If I impregnate a female, the result is just as much my responsibility as the females.
Yes, its a shared responsibility but the roles are a bit different. A woman gives birth and later breast feeds the infant, neither of which men can do, and for a very good reason. The male is normaly the provider and the woman is the nutrurer. This is the way we are naturaly made, and it has not changed since hunter/gatherer times or the very beginning of manking. These are two very obvious differences, which cannot be denied but that is only scratching the surface. The maternal bond between a child and its mother, goes way deeper than that and is a large part of what modern psychology is based on. Freud was a little bit of a nut on this subject, but he was spot on in many instances. This type of bond does not exist between the male and its offspring. Yet, since 1950s this has become a subject of gender equality and expecting a woman to be the mother she was always meant to be, is degrading to women.
No they don't. A man has no part deciding the baby's fate.
So fathers are completely unneeded and has no say in their childs life? That's an interesting take on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southshorelady
Agree, agree, and...confused....
I don't think the woman has more rights to take part in the raising of the child, but the man is still raising his child if he works full time and she doesn't. By your logic, the day care facility will be raising your child just in order to keep things completely even in your relationship. Most working parents would never imply that daycares raise their children for them, but that's essentially what you're saying with this line of thought....
Like I said, I think we'd both be inclined to work reduced hours, if possible, but a) I don't think you have to be with a child 24/7 to raise it.
b) There are plenty of very good day care facilities, at least in the environments I'm familiar with, that is of great benefit to the child and sending a child there would be an example of great parenting because the child would be better off because of it.
Just because you don't spend all waking hours in the presence of a child does not mean you're leaving it up to someone else to raise it.
Ok, but the financially doable is sketchy. It could happen.....not likely though. You'd have to get a really unique couple with a unique skill set to make that work without serious financial repercussions.
I agree.
Im intrigued by a guy and his wife who recently had their first child. Although they both work, he is equally involved in the child care more than any young couple I've seen. Today he took off work to take the baby to the Dr. while his wife went to work. They take turns getting up and night and going to appointments. He will take care of the baby while she goes out with her friends and she will take care of the baby while he goes out with his. Of course they still go out together.
Another couple that both work here and have a toddler are quite the opposite. She works part time since the baby was born because she takes him to and picks him up from daycare, takes off to go to all the dr. appointments while he stays at work. She is always the one to stay up nights and stay home when the baby is sick, etc.
So fathers are completely unneeded and has no say in their childs life? That's an interesting take on it.
Nope. I did agree that both father/mother have to do their part in all aspects raising the child but as for deciding the baby's fate (to let the baby live or kill it through abortion) a man has no word/opinion whatsoever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
