Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

working moms

nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 12:50:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
it befuddles me that people out there are still dead-set against this. I can understand why it may not be the right choice for a particular person, but then assertions are made that being a working mom makes you a bad, selfish mother. What is your stance on it? If you're against it, i'd like to pick your brain. (i cant think of anyone on ddo who would be against it offhand, so this may be a pointless thread.)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 6:38:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If you can afford it's good to have someone home with the kids.

now... it doesn't HAVE TO be the mom... though it seems like young men do get Ants in their pants to do the career thing a bit quicker than women... be it for social or physiological reasons...

that said... I wouldn't say working parents Can't be good parents..

just that it'd prolly be better for the kids if someone's home/involved with their life a good bit.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 10:18:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ideally one parent stays at home to manage the household and act as primary caregiver to the child.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 10:52:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well, were I live, for example at my little brothers school, parents hire full time pseudo-mothers, or "nannies". Their roles are to get the women's kids to and from school, feed them, nurse them, look after them and other chores unknown to me. From what I've seen the children are bratty and have the "your not my real mother" personality; but, then again I've never observed them to such an extent to make a solid judgment.

Given the libertarian status quo here at DDO the opinion will probably be: if she wants to and is able to, she can. Personally, I wouldn't and I'm morally against it. Given a steady income from the father I'd stay with the children. The lack of a parent of either sex has strong adverse effects on socalisation and behaviour.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 10:55:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I believe that the father should always work, but the mother should have the option to do so. However, first priority is home. Taking care of children and raising them well is more important than a double income for a few years to come. This system in Finland is working, which is one of the reasons why the children do very well with education.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 11:53:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 10:18:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Ideally one parent stays at home to manage the household and act as primary caregiver to the child.

This.

Sadly, in many cases that doesn't happen, particularly in impoverished households.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 7:40:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 10:52:30 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Given a steady income from the father I'd stay with the children.

aright, zets...

now... just come out and tell us..

does this mean you're Secretly a girl?? or Secretly gay?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 11:27:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I believe that everyone should work (give to soceity) in some way.
I recently posted exactly what I think which is basically a "welfare" (and capitalistic) state in which no one gets the food they need (minors excluded; children should be registered and would recieve their own alotted amount) unless they do SOMETHING you get you basic needs (like food paid for with pseudo money, which cannot be spent on non-food) from volunteer work (anything that you don't really need training to do, like walking dogs, or cleaning the park) and for steady jobs you get more (including pseudo money for housing allotment)
and the more valuable your service the more you make for each thing, like a doctor would make roughly the same amount in food as 3 people that work at Burger King.
And under the system there would be free money which could be spent on more food, housing, better insurance, cars, gas, internet etc, and the free money should come from most jobs.
Both parents should work in order to have a house or apartment big enough for the family, and to have enough money for each, however, they should be at the house at alternating times, and even have some of the same or different days off.

Although idealy, one of the parents having a sort of job in volunteer work in which they can show their kid how to care for animals, read [to the elderly] devolop social skills with non-related people early, clean up after themselves, etc
And doing that, assuming they were both working, they would make about the same amount as they would if that parent just had a job.
During school age time, I do not see why a parent of a child in public school shouldn't work a steady job. There is no reason for any parent to have to be home to watch and help the kid when [s]he's not even there.

But thats under my ideal soceity. Under this one, both parents need to work, and hope they have family that isn't working at the same time so their kids can be watched cheap enough so they can actually afford to care for them.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 11:31:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 11:53:47 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/18/2010 10:18:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Ideally one parent stays at home to manage the household and act as primary caregiver to the child.

This.

Sadly, in many cases that doesn't happen, particularly in impoverished households.

Well it is ironic that in a rich country like the UK (no seriously) a lot of families can't afford to do this, indeed it is Government policy to discourage it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 11:32:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 7:40:18 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/18/2010 10:52:30 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Given a steady income from the father I'd stay with the children.

aright, zets...

now... just come out and tell us..

does this mean you're Secretly a girl?? or Secretly gay?

Secretly gay?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 11:55:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I also don't see why it should be the mother that has to raise the kid. She does her fair share giving birth, and nursing, and such, plus both parents need to equally be part of their life for the normal argument to stand. If the father works all day and doesn't see the kid but the mother is a house wife (which btw the idea really disgusts me, but thats just me) that kid isn't really getting the benefits of having both parents certainly not in context of raising them.

Anyway if its a system of one parent stays home the other works, I would say the father should stay home, because its really not fair if the mother is the only one that forms any bond with the child. (And when my dad was working to support the three of us and wouldn't let her work, I couldn't even identify him. I just knew tall and uniform, until they were divorced, and everything I didn't know anything at all about him, and at times doubted he existed and thought maybe I just dreamed that he might have existed.)

However bonds with the mother tend to last longer, so her pressence wouldn't be needed as much as his to have a pretty healthy balance of both.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2010 11:58:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So, the mother should do a hard job and get exhausted, while the father should play with the kids and make some coffee? Is that it? Shame.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 12:02:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/18/2010 11:58:20 PM, Mirza wrote:
So, the mother should do a hard job and get exhausted, while the father should play with the kids and make some coffee? Is that it? Shame.

Yea... because thats all a full time parent does... sheesh!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 12:05:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 12:02:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/18/2010 11:58:20 PM, Mirza wrote:
So, the mother should do a hard job and get exhausted, while the father should play with the kids and make some coffee? Is that it? Shame.

Yea... because thats all a full time parent does... sheesh!
No, but it is much easier for the man to do that than it is for the woman to work, especially if it is physically hard work. The woman is better fit for the home and taking care of children, and the man is better fit for other work.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 12:12:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 12:02:16 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/18/2010 11:58:20 PM, Mirza wrote:
So, the mother should do a hard job and get exhausted, while the father should play with the kids and make some coffee? Is that it? Shame.

Yea... because thats all a full time parent does... sheesh!

This. And damn mirza was fast to jump on sexist express.

Like the only jobs are "hard" jobs. Like all women are worse at it than all men. Like all women would take care of kids better than all men.
I'm talking about devoloping children, not "well I think these people would be better sorted working this type of job....."
No, I'm saying whats best for the kids.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 1:05:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 12:12:08 AM, lovelife wrote:
This. And damn mirza was fast to jump on sexist express.
It is not sexist.

Like the only jobs are "hard" jobs. Like all women are worse at it than all men. Like all women would take care of kids better than all men.
I'm talking about devoloping children, not "well I think these people would be better sorted working this type of job....."
No, I'm saying whats best for the kids.
The best thing for the kids is to let them be raised by their own parents instead of strangers. Letting the father raise the children while the mother works is a stupid thing. The mother is far better at expressing love and kindness toward her children than the father is. Moreover, the children need to be disciplined; if they think that a woman should do hard work - above her capabilities - while the man should do something which is far below his level of physical strength, then it is idiotic. It is absurd and catastrophic.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 1:42:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 1:05:40 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/19/2010 12:12:08 AM, lovelife wrote:
This. And damn mirza was fast to jump on sexist express.
It is not sexist.

Like the only jobs are "hard" jobs. Like all women are worse at it than all men. Like all women would take care of kids better than all men.
I'm talking about devoloping children, not "well I think these people would be better sorted working this type of job....."
No, I'm saying whats best for the kids.
The best thing for the kids is to let them be raised by their own parents instead of strangers. Letting the father raise the children while the mother works is a stupid thing. The mother is far better at expressing love and kindness toward her children than the father is. Moreover, the children need to be disciplined; if they think that a woman should do hard work - above her capabilities - while the man should do something which is far below his level of physical strength, then it is idiotic. It is absurd and catastrophic.

But this assumes that the work done by the father is purely 'physical' in nature. Which, sadly, is not true for most of the people. And also, assuming that whole of the male species is incapable of expressing love and kindness is a sweeping generalization. There are many evidence on both sides to oppose this claim. The ability of expressing love and kindness does not depend on the gender of the person. It depends on the upbringing, the nature, and many other factors.

I would contend that yes, the kids should be raised by their own parents, but there should be no societal pressure for a particular gender to work, and the other to nurture. Proper timing and cooperation is the essence.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 5:56:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 1:42:08 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 11/19/2010 1:05:40 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/19/2010 12:12:08 AM, lovelife wrote:
This. And damn mirza was fast to jump on sexist express.
It is not sexist.

Like the only jobs are "hard" jobs. Like all women are worse at it than all men. Like all women would take care of kids better than all men.
I'm talking about devoloping children, not "well I think these people would be better sorted working this type of job....."
No, I'm saying whats best for the kids.
The best thing for the kids is to let them be raised by their own parents instead of strangers. Letting the father raise the children while the mother works is a stupid thing. The mother is far better at expressing love and kindness toward her children than the father is. Moreover, the children need to be disciplined; if they think that a woman should do hard work - above her capabilities - while the man should do something which is far below his level of physical strength, then it is idiotic. It is absurd and catastrophic.

But this assumes that the work done by the father is purely 'physical' in nature. Which, sadly, is not true for most of the people. And also, assuming that whole of the male species is incapable of expressing love and kindness is a sweeping generalization. There are many evidence on both sides to oppose this claim. The ability of expressing love and kindness does not depend on the gender of the person. It depends on the upbringing, the nature, and many other factors.

I would contend that yes, the kids should be raised by their own parents, but there should be no societal pressure for a particular gender to work, and the other to nurture. Proper timing and cooperation is the essence.

This. And sweeping generalizations of either sex, is indeed sexist.

(under sexist)
"male chauvinist: a man with a chauvinistic belief in the inferiority of women"

"sexism - Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination against individuals or groups because of their gender."

"sexism - is an attitude toward a person based on that person's gender rather than on objective knowledge of the person."

"sexism - Bias against a certain gender."

http://www.google.com...
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 7:11:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 1:42:08 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
But this assumes that the work done by the father is purely 'physical' in nature. Which, sadly, is not true for most of the people.
It does not have to be purely physical to be exhausting.

And also, assuming that whole of the male species is incapable of expressing love and kindness is a sweeping generalization.
I did not say that either.

There are many evidence on both sides to oppose this claim. The ability of expressing love and kindness does not depend on the gender of the person. It depends on the upbringing, the nature, and many other factors.
The female is more emotional and usually more caring than the male, and in general terms, she is better at raising children through love than the male is.

I would contend that yes, the kids should be raised by their own parents, but there should be no societal pressure for a particular gender to work, and the other to nurture. Proper timing and cooperation is the essence.
Yes there should. Both genders should be dealt with according to their abilities.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 8:53:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 7:11:57 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/19/2010 1:42:08 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
But this assumes that the work done by the father is purely 'physical' in nature. Which, sadly, is not true for most of the people.
It does not have to be purely physical to be exhausting.

So you are suggesting that for a job of manager of a company, a male will deliver better output than a female? Both the species, at least in contemporary workplace, contribute *equally*. The concept of males being better at working, is just something that has evolved over time because that's essentially what the males have been doing over the course of time. And that was somewhat right, i agree, because at that time, the work was mostly physical. But now, we need to move with the times.


And also, assuming that whole of the male species is incapable of expressing love and kindness is a sweeping generalization.
I did not say that either.

Okay, i admit, this did come out wrong. I meant that you meant to say that females are better at expressing love and kindness than males, and that is generalization.


There are many evidence on both sides to oppose this claim. The ability of expressing love and kindness does not depend on the gender of the person. It depends on the upbringing, the nature, and many other factors.
The female is more emotional and usually more caring than the male, and in general terms, she is better at raising children through love than the male is.

see above.

I would contend that yes, the kids should be raised by their own parents, but there should be no societal pressure for a particular gender to work, and the other to nurture. Proper timing and cooperation is the essence.
Yes there should. Both genders should be dealt with according to their abilities.

There are no abilities. At least abilities that can be attributed to the whole sex. The idea has evolved over time, till the point it became a stereotype, and now its just that.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 9:29:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Haven't you all read Brave New World, the tale of the ultimate utopian society.

All children should clearly be raised by the State.

That frees up both parents to work and have as much unprotected sex as they want. It solves underpopulation problems, like the lower than replacement birth rates in Europe.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 10:37:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 9:29:41 AM, bluesteel wrote:
Haven't you all read Brave New World, the tale of the ultimate utopian society.

All children should clearly be raised by the State.

That frees up both parents to work and have as much unprotected sex as they want. It solves underpopulation problems, like the lower than replacement birth rates in Europe.

Thats not a problem. The problem is OVERpopulation.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 10:41:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 10:37:31 AM, lovelife wrote:
Thats not a problem. The problem is OVERpopulation.
There is no such thing as overpopulation. Our problems are excessive amounts of hatreds, intolerances, and lack of understanding, which make it harder for us to fill the world with more human beings.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 10:45:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 10:41:06 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/19/2010 10:37:31 AM, lovelife wrote:
Thats not a problem. The problem is OVERpopulation.
There is no such thing as overpopulation. Our problems are excessive amounts of hatreds, intolerances, and lack of understanding, which make it harder for us to fill the world with more human beings.

No. We don't have enough food, water, land, and resources for everyone.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 10:50:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 10:45:06 AM, lovelife wrote:
No. We don't have enough food, water, land, and resources for everyone.
Yes we have.

http://www.greece-map.net...

Can you see the area called Northern Ireland? I hope so - because our population can fit into it.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 10:52:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 10:50:12 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/19/2010 10:45:06 AM, lovelife wrote:
No. We don't have enough food, water, land, and resources for everyone.
Yes we have.

http://www.greece-map.net...

Can you see the area called Northern Ireland? I hope so - because our population can fit into it.

No. Have you seen Japan?
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 10:55:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 10:52:49 AM, lovelife wrote:
No.
Yes.

Have you seen Japan?
Yes, and our fellow billions of humans can fit in there too, except that they cannot live properly due to the crowdedness as a result of no space to breathe. You have heard of Russia - the flat lands are enough to fill our population for decades to come - or centuries (but we might not live in centuries to come, I think).
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 10:57:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 10:55:22 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/19/2010 10:52:49 AM, lovelife wrote:
No.
Yes.

Have you seen Japan?
Yes, and our fellow billions of humans can fit in there too, except that they cannot live properly due to the crowdedness as a result of no space to breathe. You have heard of Russia - the flat lands are enough to fill our population for decades to come - or centuries (but we might not live in centuries to come, I think).

There isn't enough room in these small islands, and in Russia, its too cold for most people, in most parts. Plus there isn't a lot of food and such that we can have/get there.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 11:03:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/19/2010 10:57:55 AM, lovelife wrote:
There isn't enough room in these small islands, and in Russia, its too cold for most people, in most parts. Plus there isn't a lot of food and such that we can have/get there.
My point is not that we should live at one big area. My point is that we can fit into very small areas, which means that we are not overpopulated. If you scatter humans throughout the lands in which we can live on (speaking of climate conditions, land types, etc.), then there is no such thing as overpopulation. We have enough food, water, etc. The problem is that many governments or some mind-wrecked, idiotic tribes make political and war calling moves which hinder food and fresh water from reaching hungry, innocent people. That is not overpopulation, that is outrageous, catastrophic, utterly hateful idiocy, which comes from small groups of "powerful" beast-minded dumbbells.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2010 11:31:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You both honestly think "overpopulation" exists?

We need some Askbob up in this thread

=================================================

At 11/18/2010 7:40:18 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/18/2010 10:52:30 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Given a steady income from the father I'd stay with the children.

aright, zets...

now... just come out and tell us..

does this mean you're Secretly a girl?? or Secretly gay?
I don't think so...
'sup DDO -- july 2013