4 ms·

> 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. W

> 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.
- patentatt 8y ago
  I also agree with much of this. To the extent that there is a “devaluation” of full-time parenting it’s in the context of a capitalistic society. Again though, to the original response, I don’t find parenting to be low value myself, just the idea that as a society we should mandate that all people of one gender must be stay at home parents. I think that idea from a few generations ago reflects a sexist bias.
patentatt 8y ago
I agree with the thrust of your comment, I think I just didn’t frame it properly. The comment I was responding to seemed (to me) to suggest that we go back to the 1950s when a woman didn’t have a right as a matter of law or de facto to have a career and aspirations of her own. I read the comment as suggesting that women’s empowerment was a proximate cause to the degradation of the family. I think electing to be a parent is not “devaluing” (as I myself, as a father, have done so) but that removing the option and making the decision for all women is devaluing. Not sure I track the comment re: swipe against traditional families? If I suggested that then I was inarticulate or misinterpreted. Edit: also to the gp comment, which suggests that women are ‘naturally’ better at parenting. Fuck all that, I’m a kickass dad, I’ll go toe to toe any day with any mother.
- LMYahooTFY 8y ago
  How does the GP comment suggest that? It's not clear to me. It seemed to suggest that there are complementary roles that cannot be completely subsumed by either individually.
  - patentatt 8y ago
    The undertone is that women are better at being parents than men. I don’t agree with that.
    - LMYahooTFY 8y ago
      Can you elaborate and explain how this "undertone" is present? How do you see the GP comparing two mutually exclusive roles in child rearing?
collyw 8y ago
From a purely economic perspective, staying at home raising kids isn't going to generate you any income. We should perhaps value mothers in other ways, but money is the principal indicator of value in our current society.
- c0vfefe 8y ago
  Is our culture so blind as to see no distinction between moral value and economic value? This doesn't make sense on an intuitive human level, which is why people will often help out their fellow man without being motivated by profit. Similarly, a stay-at-home parent is (most often) working for the good of their children at the expense of creating economic value, and we as a society need to recognize the moral value of that.
  - patentatt 8y ago
    Try to pay your mortgage with moral value. Or, as my grandfather was known to say: wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first. No, the virulent strain of capitalism that has gripped the western world over the last century does not value anything but currency. Full stop.
    - c0vfefe 8y ago
      Some of these comments from today might help brighten your worldview. Human beings do feel love and and act on it, regardless of how virulent your perception of capitalism. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19727156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19727156
- frosted-flakes 8y ago
  Many countries with strong social support systems have a baby bonus program where people are literally paid to have kids. In Canada, it's based on household income. In 2016, the max was $6,496 per child under age 6 and $5,481 per child age 6 through 17. If you have two kids (2 years old and 10 years old) with a household income of $50k, that works out to roughly $10k per year. When you consider that you don't need to pay for childcare (which could be more than $20k per year for a 2-year old in Toronto) and the constant care and support those children will receive, that's actually pretty good. And once the kids get a bit older and can be trusted to care for themselves once they get home from school, the stay-at-home parent can easily start working full-time again.

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.

patentatt 8y ago
I also agree with much of this. To the extent that there is a “devaluation” of full-time parenting it’s in the context of a capitalistic society. Again though, to the original response, I don’t find parenting to be low value myself, just the idea that as a society we should mandate that all people of one gender must be stay at home parents. I think that idea from a few generations ago reflects a sexist bias.

patentatt 8y ago

I agree with the thrust of your comment, I think I just didn’t frame it properly. The comment I was responding to seemed (to me) to suggest that we go back to the 1950s when a woman didn’t have a right as a matter of law or de facto to have a career and aspirations of her own. I read the comment as suggesting that women’s empowerment was a proximate cause to the degradation of the family. I think electing to be a parent is not “devaluing” (as I myself, as a father, have done so) but that removing the option and making the decision for all women is devaluing. Not sure I track the comment re: swipe against traditional families? If I suggested that then I was inarticulate or misinterpreted. Edit: also to the gp comment, which suggests that women are ‘naturally’ better at parenting. Fuck all that, I’m a kickass dad, I’ll go toe to toe any day with any mother.

LMYahooTFY 8y ago
How does the GP comment suggest that? It's not clear to me. It seemed to suggest that there are complementary roles that cannot be completely subsumed by either individually.
- patentatt 8y ago
  The undertone is that women are better at being parents than men. I don’t agree with that.
  - LMYahooTFY 8y ago
    Can you elaborate and explain how this "undertone" is present? How do you see the GP comparing two mutually exclusive roles in child rearing?

collyw 8y ago

From a purely economic perspective, staying at home raising kids isn't going to generate you any income. We should perhaps value mothers in other ways, but money is the principal indicator of value in our current society.

c0vfefe 8y ago
Is our culture so blind as to see no distinction between moral value and economic value? This doesn't make sense on an intuitive human level, which is why people will often help out their fellow man without being motivated by profit. Similarly, a stay-at-home parent is (most often) working for the good of their children at the expense of creating economic value, and we as a society need to recognize the moral value of that.
- patentatt 8y ago
  Try to pay your mortgage with moral value. Or, as my grandfather was known to say: wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first. No, the virulent strain of capitalism that has gripped the western world over the last century does not value anything but currency. Full stop.
  - c0vfefe 8y ago
    Some of these comments from today might help brighten your worldview. Human beings do feel love and and act on it, regardless of how virulent your perception of capitalism. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19727156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19727156
frosted-flakes 8y ago
Many countries with strong social support systems have a baby bonus program where people are literally paid to have kids. In Canada, it's based on household income. In 2016, the max was $6,496 per child under age 6 and $5,481 per child age 6 through 17. If you have two kids (2 years old and 10 years old) with a household income of $50k, that works out to roughly $10k per year. When you consider that you don't need to pay for childcare (which could be more than $20k per year for a 2-year old in Toronto) and the constant care and support those children will receive, that's actually pretty good. And once the kids get a bit older and can be trusted to care for themselves once they get home from school, the stay-at-home parent can easily start working full-time again.