4 ms·

I don’t think we need to devalue women (again) to support “traditional” families (again). I got two weeks parental leave when my child was born. Civilized natio

I don’t think we need to devalue women (again) to support “traditional” families (again). I got two weeks parental leave when my child was born. Civilized nations provide 6 months or more for both mother and father. My wife could take a couple years off of work, but then her career would be set back to square one. I elected to seriously downshift my own career just so I could see my kids on a daily basis. By that I mean not work so long that I literally don’t see my children M-F. Work culture is what is destroying families, not women’s rights. I remember sitting in the office of my boss once, she was sobbing over a mountain of paperwork to do, her kid had been injured at school and sent to the ER (ankle sprain or something). She couldn’t leave. She could, but then some “important” papers in some “important” case wouldn’t be filed on time. The whole squeezing of the middle (and upper-middle) class over the last 50 years is what’s making it really hard to have kids. And as more and more colleagues opt to be child-free, the 24/7 100% dedication to work becomes normalized and makes it even harder for working parents. I think the way forward is serious social investment in supporting families and enabling parents, both men and women, to have careers and aspirations but also be parents.

iguy 8y ago
I'd be curious to hear more precisely what you'd propose here. My impression that, unfortunately, many such attempts to (essentially) make life better for working mothers appear to have pushed us away from families-with-kids, and towards ever more singletons (including single mothers). They tend, I think, to move us from a system in which the family is the economic unit, to one in which its personal compromises are not necessary.
- gumby 8y ago
  Why do you say that is unfortunate?
  - iguy 8y ago
    Because I think nearly everyone involved in attempting to change how things work was sincere in their hope that this would only lead to improvement. Yet on some pretty important measures, like the proportion of lower-class kids who get to grow up with a father, we've done very badly indeed.
- patentatt 8y ago
  Not sure where you’re going with this, but for starters I’d give new parents (both parents) like 5 years paid parental leave. Yeah, I suggested 5 years. With some sort of workforce reentry rights or support to facilitate getting back in the workforce. I’d start the discussions there.
- c0vfefe 8y ago
  This is true especially regarding divorce. Biasing divorce renumerations overwhelmingly towards one gender has greatly weakened the shared financial incentive to keep families intact.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    A lot of that is due to historical societal reasons. In a society where one gender makes money and the other takes care of kids, I don't know how it could have been any other way. In today's society, what's fair is for the non-custody parent to help support the children by reimbursing the custody parent. Or in cases of joint custody, the one with higher income reimburses the one with lower income. Which I believe is the way it's done in my state.
    - ratboy666 8y ago
      Historically, you are wrong. Custody of Infants Act 1839. Prior to this, men both "made the money" and received custody of the children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custody_of_Infants_Act_1839 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custody_of_Infants_Act_1839 FredW
theandrewbailey 8y ago
> I don’t think we need to devalue women (again) to support “traditional” families (again). I don't understand how supporting families means devaluing women. What exactly do you mean by "devalue"? If motherhood is the stated goal of a woman, and she achieves it, how/why is she "devalued"? If it brings her meaning and fulfillment, isn't that something to be celebrated and respected? I'm also bothered by your swipe against traditional families. Children who grow up in two parent homes are overwhelmingly biased towards success than children in single parent homes. Traditional families have been the norm for the entirety of human existence (until very recently). We discard them at our peril.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  "I don't understand how supporting families means devaluing women. What exactly do you mean by "devalue"? If motherhood is the stated goal of a woman, and she achieves it, how/why is she "devalued"? If it brings her meaning and fulfillment, isn't that something to be celebrated and respected?" I believe the query here is to devalue women in order to support the idea of a nuclear family. Traditional nuclear families (as mother stays home to raise the children) have never been the norm. I'm Chinese and where I am from the is the grandparents that raise the children while both parents work! From what I understand stay-at-home-motherhood has only ever been possible within a single generation in "western" society. I believe the devaluation comment is associated with the fact our society is capitalist, and one has to purchase basic living and education with money. Income and quality of life have a correlated effect which peters out well above median wage, and many fields that offer the flexibility required for motherhood are less high paying, which often means if one wishes to become a mother they may need to take a less well paying job and thus have a lower quality of life. Of course, this also means a SAHM who does not bring income is culturally not valued because their work does not directly bring in income (even though attempting to outsource this work would be often equivalent to the salary of a single laborer!). I would argue this is not a problem specifically on the shoulders of women but the shoulders of society as a whole not putting in the framework to support parenting- this would include generous parental leave, flexible work hours, opportunity to WFH, lower medical expenses for children, etc.
  - 8y ago

iguy 8y ago

I'd be curious to hear more precisely what you'd propose here. My impression that, unfortunately, many such attempts to (essentially) make life better for working mothers appear to have pushed us away from families-with-kids, and towards ever more singletons (including single mothers). They tend, I think, to move us from a system in which the family is the economic unit, to one in which its personal compromises are not necessary.

gumby 8y ago
Why do you say that is unfortunate?
- iguy 8y ago
  Because I think nearly everyone involved in attempting to change how things work was sincere in their hope that this would only lead to improvement. Yet on some pretty important measures, like the proportion of lower-class kids who get to grow up with a father, we've done very badly indeed.
patentatt 8y ago
Not sure where you’re going with this, but for starters I’d give new parents (both parents) like 5 years paid parental leave. Yeah, I suggested 5 years. With some sort of workforce reentry rights or support to facilitate getting back in the workforce. I’d start the discussions there.
c0vfefe 8y ago
This is true especially regarding divorce. Biasing divorce renumerations overwhelmingly towards one gender has greatly weakened the shared financial incentive to keep families intact.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  A lot of that is due to historical societal reasons. In a society where one gender makes money and the other takes care of kids, I don't know how it could have been any other way. In today's society, what's fair is for the non-custody parent to help support the children by reimbursing the custody parent. Or in cases of joint custody, the one with higher income reimburses the one with lower income. Which I believe is the way it's done in my state.
  - ratboy666 8y ago
    Historically, you are wrong. Custody of Infants Act 1839. Prior to this, men both "made the money" and received custody of the children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custody_of_Infants_Act_1839 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custody_of_Infants_Act_1839 FredW

theandrewbailey 8y ago

> I don’t think we need to devalue women (again) to support “traditional” families (again). I don't understand how supporting families means devaluing women. What exactly do you mean by "devalue"? If motherhood is the stated goal of a woman, and she achieves it, how/why is she "devalued"? If it brings her meaning and fulfillment, isn't that something to be celebrated and respected? I'm also bothered by your swipe against traditional families. Children who grow up in two parent homes are overwhelmingly biased towards success than children in single parent homes. Traditional families have been the norm for the entirety of human existence (until very recently). We discard them at our peril.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
"I don't understand how supporting families means devaluing women. What exactly do you mean by "devalue"? If motherhood is the stated goal of a woman, and she achieves it, how/why is she "devalued"? If it brings her meaning and fulfillment, isn't that something to be celebrated and respected?" I believe the query here is to devalue women in order to support the idea of a nuclear family. Traditional nuclear families (as mother stays home to raise the children) have never been the norm. I'm Chinese and where I am from the is the grandparents that raise the children while both parents work! From what I understand stay-at-home-motherhood has only ever been possible within a single generation in "western" society. I believe the devaluation comment is associated with the fact our society is capitalist, and one has to purchase basic living and education with money. Income and quality of life have a correlated effect which peters out well above median wage, and many fields that offer the flexibility required for motherhood are less high paying, which often means if one wishes to become a mother they may need to take a less well paying job and thus have a lower quality of life. Of course, this also means a SAHM who does not bring income is culturally not valued because their work does not directly bring in income (even though attempting to outsource this work would be often equivalent to the salary of a single laborer!). I would argue this is not a problem specifically on the shoulders of women but the shoulders of society as a whole not putting in the framework to support parenting- this would include generous parental leave, flexible work hours, opportunity to WFH, lower medical expenses for children, etc.
- 8y ago