5 ms·

I wouldn't say "neglect". Working hard to provide for your family is the very opposite of neglect.

TempestSA 10y ago
Neglect is a loaded word. Children don't need hard working parents who earn lots of money though. What children need is your love and your time, along with support, security, food etc. It's all about having a work life balance, usually working hard comes at the expense of your family.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  this. many people work hard to provide for their families, end up in a bad spiral of more-work-for-more-money and what they fail to see is child's view - they want their daddy and mommy to be with them as much as possible, talk to them, tech them, spend their time together. In this case it's not just quality, quantity matters too. this helps kid on so many levels that money just cannot buy, and forms their personality in one way or the other. will kids survive neglect? of course they will. but if your idea of a good parent is that your kids just survive, think again. this world has already plenty of human beings ridden with all kinds of inner issues stemming from childhood
knorker 10y ago
I repeatedly admitted it was not the best word.
- littletimmy 10y ago
  What I was trying to get at is that neglect is not even a crude approximation of reality in this case. This tendency to see the family as a collection of individuals is a rather new way of thinking. So when we say "the father as an individual" is "neglecting" the "child as an individual", we misrepresent reality. What used to be the way to think about this was that the family is the fundamental unit, and the persons are components of this machine. So the father doesn't take action (in this case work outside the home) of his own accord, but (ideally speaking), plays his role as is in the interests of the family. Similarly, the mother does not stay at home out of some oppression, but plays her role as what is in the best interests of the family. It is modern feminism that has eroded this idea of the family as a unit, and replaced it with the idea of the family as a collection of individuals.
  - knorker 10y ago
    Ah. Sure. But the woman becoming an individual instead of a family role seems to have taken a front row seat to that meaning that the man will become an individual instead of role too. And that means admitting that the father role means not being able to have the family part like the mother role does. I'm in this not saying people should be individuals or roles, just that we as a society (and individuals) should make that choice with our eyes open. I think "deprioritizing" instead of "neglecting" doesn't sufficiently stress just how much you have to not do, in order to do the other thing. My opinion is that the tasks of working and home maker should be up to the grownups involved. And if circumstances are such that you spend lots of time on children, then you are probably less useful to the workplace, and therefore should be paid less. It's insane to me that in some jurisdictions you legally have to count years worth of parental leave as if you were at work every day. A CV will not show this gap, even though it should.
    - littletimmy 10y ago
      I do sympathize with your idea of giving responsibility "to the grownups involved", but in reality ordinary people seldom take that responsibility. They just take cues from somewhere else if society does not give it to them (Sheryl Sandberg, for example). Why should traditional systems be deemed inferior to pop media in directing people's lives?
      - knorker 10y ago
        I don't think it's inferior at all. There are, as I see it, two extremes here: 1) Use traditional roles, including the woman doesn't work. 2) Everyone does everything 50/50 Neither, if imposed from the outside, is good. It's a hard problem in general that people don't know what they want, or what they need to be happy. Women (or men for that matter) who stay home with children are told (implicitly or explicitly) that they "should" go out and work may become unhappy if they do this. And they can become unhappy not because they don't do what they want, but because they are treated like, or even start believing, that they "want the wrong things". And it's not just that other people say it. It can be the case that they genuinely don't know if they would be happier doing something else. Try not wanting to have children at all. Parents, family members, and even complete strangers will tell you that you are not happy, that you want the wrong thing, and they'll pity you. Then there's the "it's selfish of you to not work as a woman, have children, be an breadwinner as a man", etc.. That's worse. That's admitting that the advice you're giving would make that person less happy, so that they will fit in to the advice giver's world view. In the end I just want people to have control of their lives. I can try enabling their freedom, but I can't make them make good choices.

Neglect is a loaded word. Children don't need hard working parents who earn lots of money though. What children need is your love and your time, along with support, security, food etc. It's all about having a work life balance, usually working hard comes at the expense of your family.

saiya-jin 10y ago
this. many people work hard to provide for their families, end up in a bad spiral of more-work-for-more-money and what they fail to see is child's view - they want their daddy and mommy to be with them as much as possible, talk to them, tech them, spend their time together. In this case it's not just quality, quantity matters too. this helps kid on so many levels that money just cannot buy, and forms their personality in one way or the other. will kids survive neglect? of course they will. but if your idea of a good parent is that your kids just survive, think again. this world has already plenty of human beings ridden with all kinds of inner issues stemming from childhood

knorker 10y ago

I repeatedly admitted it was not the best word.

littletimmy 10y ago
What I was trying to get at is that neglect is not even a crude approximation of reality in this case. This tendency to see the family as a collection of individuals is a rather new way of thinking. So when we say "the father as an individual" is "neglecting" the "child as an individual", we misrepresent reality. What used to be the way to think about this was that the family is the fundamental unit, and the persons are components of this machine. So the father doesn't take action (in this case work outside the home) of his own accord, but (ideally speaking), plays his role as is in the interests of the family. Similarly, the mother does not stay at home out of some oppression, but plays her role as what is in the best interests of the family. It is modern feminism that has eroded this idea of the family as a unit, and replaced it with the idea of the family as a collection of individuals.
- knorker 10y ago
  Ah. Sure. But the woman becoming an individual instead of a family role seems to have taken a front row seat to that meaning that the man will become an individual instead of role too. And that means admitting that the father role means not being able to have the family part like the mother role does. I'm in this not saying people should be individuals or roles, just that we as a society (and individuals) should make that choice with our eyes open. I think "deprioritizing" instead of "neglecting" doesn't sufficiently stress just how much you have to not do, in order to do the other thing. My opinion is that the tasks of working and home maker should be up to the grownups involved. And if circumstances are such that you spend lots of time on children, then you are probably less useful to the workplace, and therefore should be paid less. It's insane to me that in some jurisdictions you legally have to count years worth of parental leave as if you were at work every day. A CV will not show this gap, even though it should.
  - littletimmy 10y ago
    I do sympathize with your idea of giving responsibility "to the grownups involved", but in reality ordinary people seldom take that responsibility. They just take cues from somewhere else if society does not give it to them (Sheryl Sandberg, for example). Why should traditional systems be deemed inferior to pop media in directing people's lives?
    - knorker 10y ago
      I don't think it's inferior at all. There are, as I see it, two extremes here: 1) Use traditional roles, including the woman doesn't work. 2) Everyone does everything 50/50 Neither, if imposed from the outside, is good. It's a hard problem in general that people don't know what they want, or what they need to be happy. Women (or men for that matter) who stay home with children are told (implicitly or explicitly) that they "should" go out and work may become unhappy if they do this. And they can become unhappy not because they don't do what they want, but because they are treated like, or even start believing, that they "want the wrong things". And it's not just that other people say it. It can be the case that they genuinely don't know if they would be happier doing something else. Try not wanting to have children at all. Parents, family members, and even complete strangers will tell you that you are not happy, that you want the wrong thing, and they'll pity you. Then there's the "it's selfish of you to not work as a woman, have children, be an breadwinner as a man", etc.. That's worse. That's admitting that the advice you're giving would make that person less happy, so that they will fit in to the advice giver's world view. In the end I just want people to have control of their lives. I can try enabling their freedom, but I can't make them make good choices.