why do some people feel working moms are selfish (daycares, toddler, wife)
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.
And I think that is a horrible generalization that is insulting to both men and women. Men are not incapable of nurturing and taking care of children and women are not incapable of having successful careers. Just because society sends messages otherwise, doesn't make them true.
Replace "men" or "women" in your statement with "African-American" or "Latino." Does it sound absurd? It should because it is absurd, and would be racist. Just like making those same generalizations about gender is absurd and racist.
AlaskaAma is right on the money. Everyone has to throw the racist card around to try to make a point. Nothing racist or discriminatory was mentioned. It was the accepte way of life for centuries and longer. You seem to think that we had it wrong sine the beginning of time and we finally progressed and got it right. Wrong. We ruined a good thing by trying to think that women's can do what men can and men can do what women can the same as we think that girls should play on boys football teams and boys should be cheerleaders. Complete insanity and no common sense used any more.
I just don't get it. I am a woman and if I ever had a child I would have to be a working mother. I just think it is too risky to rely on someone else for survival. I would only be comfortable having a baby if I could provide for all my baby's needs. Anything could happen in life. Your spouse or partner can suddenly drop dead, or leave you. I am not knocking stay at home moms. I think everyone should do what they feel is right for themselves and their families. I actually am in awe of women who are comfortable being SAHM's. I am just not one of those people. I just think it is sad some people, mostly religious people, think that working mothers and feminism has ruined the family or society somehow. I think that is ridiculous. I think working to provide for your baby and family is never selfish. I just want some of your perspectives on this topic. honestly not trying to start a flame war. Do you think that babies need at least one parent to stay at home or do you think two working parents is ok?
You know, I just spent a half hour typing a response to your failed assertion about us nasty religious people and our antiquated ideas about child rearing. Then I realized you wouldn't accept or believe any of it so why bother? My time is better spent with people who are a bit more open minded...
No one is looking down on you. You seem to make a lot of reasons for not going the treaditionwl route. Saying that your spouse could drop dead or leave you is as irrational as saying I could get into an accident today so I am not going to drive, to, I'm not going to eat because I may choke to death. All a bunch of what ifs and what might happens.
Being raised by my stay at home mom in the 60s was wonderful. Every mother of all of my many friends in my neighborhood were at those. Of course it was a time when one income could support a family and most of them were not thinking it could al end in a moment's time. I think a child needs their mother at home at least for those first couple of years. My wife is a teacher and stayed home for our two different kids. They shouldn't be raised by pre school teachers, baby sitters etc. those are the years for creating a bond. It is a choice of course but I feel the child is the priority.
No amount of money will equate what the child is losing by not being there for them. It's all about choices and what works for you. I also think that children NEED father and mother. Both sexes contribute character traits to a child. I don't want to hear from the same sex parents. I don't agree with it. My mind will never be changed, nor does it need to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trusso11783
Terrible argument. A child for,s a bond tpwith their northern. Of course it is far more beneficial for a child to be raised by mom instead of a day care person. And then dad at night. The child is being raised by both. Not Mary Smith, who has absolutely no connection to the child whatsoever and who will never care about your child aa fraction as much as you. A child needs to know their mom is there for them when they cry or get scared or need something. Historically, they see dad when they get home after work. Of course, the feminisists csnnot stand this and it's "old fashioned" values. Well, I can attest that the 40s,50s and 60s promoted far stronger family values by these old fashioned methods than what is going on today. The entire society is out of control now thanks to women deciding that they don't need some stinking man to raise their children or to help support them.
Yeah, no looking- down on anyone going on there.....
No one is looking down on you. You seem to make a lot of reasons for not going the treaditionwl route. Saying that your spouse could drop dead or leave you is as irrational as saying I could get into an accident today so I am not going to drive, to, I'm not going to eat because I may choke to death. All a bunch of what ifs and what might happens.
Being raised by my stay at home mom in the 60s was wonderful. Every mother of all of my many friends in my neighborhood were at those. Of course it was a time when one income could support a family and most of them were not thinking it could al end in a moment's time. I think a child needs their mother at home at least for those first couple of years. My wife is a teacher and stayed home for our two different kids. They shouldn't be raised by pre school teachers, baby sitters etc. those are the years for creating a bond. It is a choice of course but I feel the child is the priority.
No amount of money will equate what the child is losing by not being there for them. It's all about choices and what works for you. I also think that children NEED father and mother. Both sexes contribute character traits to a child. I don't want to hear from the same sex parents. I don't agree with it. My mind will never be changed, nor does it need to be.
Please see below, and, yes, you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbiekat
Child care providers don't "raise" kids. They feed them, change them, and keep them entertained. Patents raise kids. Parents instill values.
Even the people posting here that they don't judge sure do a crappy job of hiding their judgement
Terrible argument. A child for,s a bond tpwith their northern. Of course it is far more beneficial for a child to be raised by mom instead of a day care person. And then dad at night. The child is being raised by both. Not Mary Smith, who has absolutely no connection to the child whatsoever and who will never care about your child aa fraction as much as you. A child needs to know their mom is there for them when they cry or get scared or need something. Historically, they see dad when they get home after work. Of course, the feminisists csnnot stand this and it's "old fashioned" values. Well, I can attest that the 40s,50s and 60s promoted far stronger family values by these old fashioned methods than what is going on today. The entire society is out of control now thanks to women deciding that they don't need some stinking man to raise their children or to help support them.
You didn't do a good job of explaining why it's ok for dad to only be around at night but mom needs to be around all the time.
You might also want to remember the women who went to work in the 40's while the men were at war. If you can attest, you were there? How old are you? My grandmother, who would be over 100 now was a working mom during all of those decades you mentioned, and managed to raise 4 kids with stronger values than almost anyone else I know.
In general, men are wired to be providers and women are wired to be nurturers. I think mothers and fathers are equally important to a child's development but are not interchangeable. So, while having Dad at home may be the best solution for some families, and is certainly preferable to neither parent being with the kids, I think Mom is usually better suited to being the constant loving presence that a child needs in the first few years of life.
Dad is just as capable of being the constant loving presence in a child's life, a vagina doesn't make you a more loving parent.
I have been a SAHM and a working mom (after my divorce) and I will take being a SAHM any day. While being a SAHM can be busy, imagine working all day, then coming home and doing everything that a SAHM does during the day. BTW, I say, if you can afford it, by all means stay home. I look down upon no one for their decisions. I just think a working mom has much more on their plates.
And I think that is a horrible generalization that is insulting to both men and women. Men are not incapable of nurturing and taking care of children and women are not incapable of having successful careers. Just because society sends messages otherwise, doesn't make them true.
Replace "men" or "women" in your statement with "African-American" or "Latino." Does it sound absurd? It should because it is absurd, and would be racist. Just like making those same generalizations about gender is absurd and sexist.
I never said anyone was "incapable" of anything. But it is simple biological fact that (yes, in general) men and women are wired differently and have preferences for different things. The fact that working women overwhelmingly choose more nurturing types of jobs (social worker, teacher, nurse) should be sufficient proof of this. Mothers will in general be happier being the nurturers and fathers will in general be happier being the providers.
Would it be racist to say that people from Congo will generally have darker skin pigmentation than people from Sweden? Have we really fallen so far from a grasp of reality that any sort of recognition of actual, physiological differences between human beings with different genetic profiles gets labeled with an "-ist" epithet?
There is absolutely nothing sexist about celebrating the different strengths that men and women bring to a family. I think one of the worst disservices the feminist movement has done is to convince women that being a good wife and mother is somehow less important than earning a paycheck. How is it possibly demeaning or sexist to say that, as a mother, you play an essential, irreplaceable role in your child's development? Why would any woman want to think that the only unique thing she brings to the table as a parent is having a uterus for the baby to develop in? Why is it a slight to say that your child needs your presence more than your employer does?
I have been a SAHM and a working mom (after my divorce) and I will take being a SAHM any day. While being a SAHM can be busy, imagine working all day, then coming home and doing everything that a SAHM does during the day. BTW, I say, if you can afford it, by all means stay home. I look down upon no one for their decisions. I just think a working mom has much more on their plates.
Some people function better that way. I know I do. I need the motivation of having somewhere to be in the morning, and the motivation of having finite time at home to get stuff done. I was home for a while, and I'm glad I was, but it was better for my mental health to go back to work. That's better for everyone in the household! It goes back to everyone being different, and different things working for different people. I don't know why some people have such a hard time understanding that (not you. some people).
I never said anyone was "incapable" of anything. But it is simple biological fact that (yes, in general) men and women are wired differently and have preferences for different things. The fact that working women overwhelmingly choose more nurturing types of jobs (social worker, teacher, nurse) should be sufficient proof of this. Mothers will in general be happier being the nurturers and fathers will in general be happier being the providers.
Would it be racist to say that people from Congo will generally have darker skin pigmentation than people from Sweden? Have we really fallen so far from a grasp of reality that any sort of recognition of actual, physiological differences between human beings with different genetic profiles gets labeled with an "-ist" epithet?
There is absolutely nothing sexist about celebrating the different strengths that men and women bring to a family. I think one of the worst disservices the feminist movement has done is to convince women that being a good wife and mother is somehow less important than earning a paycheck. How is it possibly demeaning or sexist to say that, as a mother, you play an essential, irreplaceable role in your child's development? Why would any woman want to think that the only unique thing she brings to the table as a parent is having a uterus for the baby to develop in? Why is it a slight to say that your child needs your presence more than your employer does?
Citations?
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.
