41 ms·

Independence is the most important value in Norway. So probably one reason I mention it ;-) We value the independence of everyone. Independence of young people

Independence is the most important value in Norway. So probably one reason I mention it ;-) We value the independence of everyone. Independence of young people to make their own choices. Independence of women to marry or divorce regardless of what she wants. > What is so wrong with being dependent on your spouse when raising children together that it should even come up as a consideration? Seems obviously bad to me. Should your spouse leave you or die, and you are totally dependent on him, that would suck. But that was not really what I was thinking of but rather the ability to be financially independent later in life because you actually had a career. > Raising children well is hard enough and time consuming enough as it is. Why try to make it harder by also trying to make sure neither parent is dependent on the other? I think you misunderstand what I said, or thing about this in a very different way from me. With the system we have in Norway with leave for both parents and both parents having a career, we are able help each other out MORE! Child raising is LESS work for my wife because I can help her out. Meanwhile I would have less stressful work life because my wife also has a job and can help out the family financially. It seems to me like we are making life easier for both of us. It is hard for me to grasp how you conclude that this will make things harder. Your logic seems to be that depriving my wife of any career or financial security she is forced to stay with me. That is some pretty screwed up logic. I want my wife to be with me because she wants to not because she cannot survive without me. And for children it is better. I know what Norway was like in the old days where the mom stayed home and the dad worked. By not involving the dad, and only have him provide financial security, a lot of men back in old Norway were big assholes. They ran away from their family responsibilities. You don't see modern Norwegian dads do this. Families may be divorced but dads still participate in child raring. They have been their from the start and child raring is seen as a shared responsibility. There are a lot more divorced families in modern Norway but there are a lot more dads taking responsibility and looking after their kids. They take turns through the week picking up kids at school. They stay part of the week with their dad. It means mom gets more spare time to live her life. And ultimately you get happier families because people live together because they want to, not because they have to.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Should your spouse leave you or die, and you are totally dependent on him, that would suck. A) Don't have children with someone that is going to leave you, B) life insurance. >But that was not really what I was thinking of but rather the ability to be financially independent later in life because you actually had a career. Why is that desirable? Would society not be a better place if many more people were dedicated to helping their communities rather than making money for corporations? >With the system we have in Norway with leave for both parents To be clear, I'm not opposed to the idea of family leave for fathers. >Your logic seems to be that depriving my wife of any career or financial security she is forced to stay with me. Choosing to marry someone and have children with them is a permanent choice, and one that should not be done flippantly if you want what is best for your children. I don't understand why you think it is beneficial to optimize for enabling spouses to divorce. It seems to me that it would be a better idea to optimize for having people marry and have children with someone that they are very unlikely to want to divorce later. >I want my wife to be with me because she wants to not because she cannot survive without me. If you want what is best for your children, you should pick a spouse that would not consider divorce except in the most extreme circumstances, and you yourself should not consider divorce except in the most extreme circumstances. >And for children it is better. It sounds like what really changed in Norway is that fathers have changed their attitude toward child rearing. That, I think, is unambiguously positive for children, but seems to me to be entirely orthogonal to having both parents be independent. Parents can be sole financial providers and still take a very active role in raising the children. That is more about the attitude of the parent than anything. If you believe it is not your job to rear children, you are going to do it poorly whether you work 60 hours per week or 0.
- socialdemocrat 7y ago
  A society where fathers are used to and expected to participate more actively in child raring will also care more about their children IMHO. Such a society is hard to build without gender equality and independence for women. I don’t see low divorce numbers as a direct goal. I view happy families as the goal. Lower divorce numbers will follow from that. If you optimize for low divorce numbers you simply force women to stay in unhappy marriages. You seem to advocate a sort of 1950s style family life. I don’t think that is good for anyone.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago

>Should your spouse leave you or die, and you are totally dependent on him, that would suck. A) Don't have children with someone that is going to leave you, B) life insurance. >But that was not really what I was thinking of but rather the ability to be financially independent later in life because you actually had a career. Why is that desirable? Would society not be a better place if many more people were dedicated to helping their communities rather than making money for corporations? >With the system we have in Norway with leave for both parents To be clear, I'm not opposed to the idea of family leave for fathers. >Your logic seems to be that depriving my wife of any career or financial security she is forced to stay with me. Choosing to marry someone and have children with them is a permanent choice, and one that should not be done flippantly if you want what is best for your children. I don't understand why you think it is beneficial to optimize for enabling spouses to divorce. It seems to me that it would be a better idea to optimize for having people marry and have children with someone that they are very unlikely to want to divorce later. >I want my wife to be with me because she wants to not because she cannot survive without me. If you want what is best for your children, you should pick a spouse that would not consider divorce except in the most extreme circumstances, and you yourself should not consider divorce except in the most extreme circumstances. >And for children it is better. It sounds like what really changed in Norway is that fathers have changed their attitude toward child rearing. That, I think, is unambiguously positive for children, but seems to me to be entirely orthogonal to having both parents be independent. Parents can be sole financial providers and still take a very active role in raising the children. That is more about the attitude of the parent than anything. If you believe it is not your job to rear children, you are going to do it poorly whether you work 60 hours per week or 0.

socialdemocrat 7y ago
A society where fathers are used to and expected to participate more actively in child raring will also care more about their children IMHO. Such a society is hard to build without gender equality and independence for women. I don’t see low divorce numbers as a direct goal. I view happy families as the goal. Lower divorce numbers will follow from that. If you optimize for low divorce numbers you simply force women to stay in unhappy marriages. You seem to advocate a sort of 1950s style family life. I don’t think that is good for anyone.