4 ms·

>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)

>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
  >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 why that should be so. Men need to think that it's important for their children's growth for them to be heavily involved in raising them, but I don't see why that should necessitate women being financially independent or achieving "gender equality", whatever that means. For example, if men believe that there are some critical aspects of child raising that simply cannot be done correctly by women, I think men would take a more active role in order to make sure they're able to provide their needed input, but I would guess those sorts of beliefs are contrary to "gender equality". I could actually see it making things worse to tell men that women are as capable of all aspects of child rearing as are men, because then why can't the woman just do it all? >I don’t see low divorce numbers as a direct goal. I don't either. The goal is a stable and happy society full of adults who were raised in stable and happy homes. Low divorce numbers are an essential element of achieving that. >If you optimize for low divorce numbers you simply force women to stay in unhappy marriages. That depends on how you try to lower the divorce rate, I suppose. If you make divorce a crime punishable by death and change nothing else, ya that's what you're going to end up with. If on the other hand you encourage people to avoid lifestyle choices that are associated with divorce, you will end up with fewer divorces and happier marriages. >You seem to advocate a sort of 1950s style family life. I don’t think that is good for anyone. Women reported being happier back then, so it seems like it was good for them at least. Who do you think that wasn't good for, and why?

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
>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 why that should be so. Men need to think that it's important for their children's growth for them to be heavily involved in raising them, but I don't see why that should necessitate women being financially independent or achieving "gender equality", whatever that means. For example, if men believe that there are some critical aspects of child raising that simply cannot be done correctly by women, I think men would take a more active role in order to make sure they're able to provide their needed input, but I would guess those sorts of beliefs are contrary to "gender equality". I could actually see it making things worse to tell men that women are as capable of all aspects of child rearing as are men, because then why can't the woman just do it all? >I don’t see low divorce numbers as a direct goal. I don't either. The goal is a stable and happy society full of adults who were raised in stable and happy homes. Low divorce numbers are an essential element of achieving that. >If you optimize for low divorce numbers you simply force women to stay in unhappy marriages. That depends on how you try to lower the divorce rate, I suppose. If you make divorce a crime punishable by death and change nothing else, ya that's what you're going to end up with. If on the other hand you encourage people to avoid lifestyle choices that are associated with divorce, you will end up with fewer divorces and happier marriages. >You seem to advocate a sort of 1950s style family life. I don’t think that is good for anyone. Women reported being happier back then, so it seems like it was good for them at least. Who do you think that wasn't good for, and why?