3 ms·

> The former-Communist East-European country I lived in as a kid was a lot more egalitarian than most of present-day Western countries That really depends on h

> The former-Communist East-European country I lived in as a kid was a lot more egalitarian than most of present-day Western countries That really depends on how you measure gender equality and general freedom though. > to this day I still think that a stay-at-home parent is a lazy human being You're just being too judgemental though. If a family is wanting for nothing and they agree that one parent should stay at home to spend more time looking after the family, why not?

paganel 10y ago
> That really depends on how you measure gender equality and general freedom though. Like I said, gender equality was pretty well established. "General freedom" doesn't have that much in common with equality, we can all be equal but not free. I'd say that for further reading on the matter Mona Ozouf's essays on "liberté, égalité, fraternité" is a good starting point (a related article about it in French: http://www.letelegramme.fr/bretagne/mona-ozouf-pas-simple-de-faire-vivre-la-liberte-et-l-egalite-04-04-2015-10582676.php http://www.letelegramme.fr/bretagne/mona-ozouf-pas-simple-de...) > You're just being too judgemental though. If a family is wanting for nothing and they agree that one parent should stay at home to spend more time looking after the family, why not? I know this point-view might be seen as judgemental, it's just that I see people not contributing back to society with their work-time as not giving it all. It's not a matter of money, I am a little marxist inside me and I do believe that work it's one of the things that define us as a species. I've heard my ~84-year-old peasant grandma' saying that she was very upset that her legs were hurting her because she wanted to continue working.
- forthefuture 10y ago
  Well the idea of a stay at home parent is that child care is work. You can either pay someone or do it yourself, in which case you're doing the job you would have paid someone else to do.
- macspoofing 10y ago
  >I know this point-view might be seen as judgemental, It is judgmental. >it's just that I see people not contributing back to society with their work-time as not giving it all Child-rearing has societal benefits. It's one of the key reasons why children from two parent-households do significantly better on average than children from one. Either they get the benefit of dual income or a full-time parent. >I've heard my ~84-year-old peasant grandma' saying that she was very upset that her legs were hurting her because she wanted to continue working I believe that but it's a choice.
  - paganel 10y ago
    > Child-rearing has societal benefits. It's one of the key reasons why children from two parent-households do significantly better on average than children from one. Either they get the benefit of dual income or a full-time parent. Link to studies on that? And I mean comprehensive studies, not the ones limited to the US.
    - adrienne 10y ago
      They won't be able to provide, because it turns out the differences basically evaporate when you control for the financial stability of the households. It's just that one-parent households (especially in the US) tend to be a hell of a lot less financially stable than two-parent households.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- webrender 10y ago
  Your last paragraph, I feel, is focusing too much on the individual, direct contribution and ignoring the effect a person staying at home can have on their family. By taking care of their auxilliary needs and letting them focus on their core tasks (work, school, etc.), the increase in productivity of the family as a whole can exceed that of a direct individual's contribution. I think of it as a project manager for the family - they don't directly contribute to the development of a project, but they handle the overhead that would otherwise thrash their developers.
- poikniok 10y ago
  You could not have given a better explanation of why I would never want to live in a marxist society if you tried.

paganel 10y ago

> That really depends on how you measure gender equality and general freedom though. Like I said, gender equality was pretty well established. "General freedom" doesn't have that much in common with equality, we can all be equal but not free. I'd say that for further reading on the matter Mona Ozouf's essays on "liberté, égalité, fraternité" is a good starting point (a related article about it in French: http://www.letelegramme.fr/bretagne/mona-ozouf-pas-simple-de-faire-vivre-la-liberte-et-l-egalite-04-04-2015-10582676.php http://www.letelegramme.fr/bretagne/mona-ozouf-pas-simple-de...) > You're just being too judgemental though. If a family is wanting for nothing and they agree that one parent should stay at home to spend more time looking after the family, why not? I know this point-view might be seen as judgemental, it's just that I see people not contributing back to society with their work-time as not giving it all. It's not a matter of money, I am a little marxist inside me and I do believe that work it's one of the things that define us as a species. I've heard my ~84-year-old peasant grandma' saying that she was very upset that her legs were hurting her because she wanted to continue working.

forthefuture 10y ago
Well the idea of a stay at home parent is that child care is work. You can either pay someone or do it yourself, in which case you're doing the job you would have paid someone else to do.
macspoofing 10y ago
>I know this point-view might be seen as judgemental, It is judgmental. >it's just that I see people not contributing back to society with their work-time as not giving it all Child-rearing has societal benefits. It's one of the key reasons why children from two parent-households do significantly better on average than children from one. Either they get the benefit of dual income or a full-time parent. >I've heard my ~84-year-old peasant grandma' saying that she was very upset that her legs were hurting her because she wanted to continue working I believe that but it's a choice.
- paganel 10y ago
  > Child-rearing has societal benefits. It's one of the key reasons why children from two parent-households do significantly better on average than children from one. Either they get the benefit of dual income or a full-time parent. Link to studies on that? And I mean comprehensive studies, not the ones limited to the US.
  - adrienne 10y ago
    They won't be able to provide, because it turns out the differences basically evaporate when you control for the financial stability of the households. It's just that one-parent households (especially in the US) tend to be a hell of a lot less financially stable than two-parent households.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
webrender 10y ago
Your last paragraph, I feel, is focusing too much on the individual, direct contribution and ignoring the effect a person staying at home can have on their family. By taking care of their auxilliary needs and letting them focus on their core tasks (work, school, etc.), the increase in productivity of the family as a whole can exceed that of a direct individual's contribution. I think of it as a project manager for the family - they don't directly contribute to the development of a project, but they handle the overhead that would otherwise thrash their developers.
poikniok 10y ago
You could not have given a better explanation of why I would never want to live in a marxist society if you tried.