4 ms·

Actually, why must the family homemaker necessarily be a woman? If in a male/female relationship the female is the more ambitious one prioritize the male as th

Actually, why must the family homemaker necessarily be a woman? If in a male/female relationship the female is the more ambitious one prioritize the male as the primary care giver. Either way raising children still takes time, energy, and focus that could otherwise pile into something else. While there are differences in general approaches males and females take in raising children I don't think there is any research indicating females are necessarily better than males, or the contrary. The reductio ad absurdum of it is that males tend to be more challenging and females tend to be nurturing, but those distinctions are highly variable.

foolinaround 6y ago
>family homemaker necessarily be a woman Women, making a broad assumption, seem to have the traits (honed over millemia) of watching over the family. But in a household, if the husband and wife exhibit the opposite traits, then that must be encouraged too. I know of a family in which the woman is the bread-winner, the husband takes care of the kids and home, and both are happy.
dcow 6y ago
1. I didn't say it needs to be a women, I am highlighting that there’s a stigma against women performing that role today. 2. The problem is exactly with the characterization (that you made) of the “more ambitious” route being the career route. Why do we assume having a career requires more ambition than wanting to raise a healthy family?
- david-gpu 6y ago
  > I am highlighting that there’s a stigma against women performing that role today That is true, but there's an even bigger stigma against men who want to perform that role. Sure, you may find a very career-driven spouse who would be happy with you taking the role of the caregiver, but that is not a common occurrence. The man who does not provide substantial income to the family will find it much harder to find a partner than a woman in the same situation. Talking about heterosexual couples here, of course.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  >1. I didn't say it needs to be a women, I am highlighting that there’s a stigma against women performing that role today. I'm not aware of any stigma from women being stay at home moms. My impression is that most, if not all, people are aware that money gives you power (or freedom, if you will). And who doesn't like freedom. There's also less security of income for everyone, so a household relying on one spouse's income is risky. Especially if there's no extended family around that can come to the rescue in the event of loss of income. >Why do we assume having a career requires more ambition than wanting to raise a healthy family? Because it's too easy to say "I want to raise a healthy family", therefore it's a poor signal. Proving yourself with work, well remunerated or not, is a better signal. So I would say there are a lot of incentives for women to work, but not because society stigmatizes it, but because it leads to optimal results for women (and men).
  - dcow 6y ago
    True about income security. I am interested in a solution that looks something like the homemaking person operating as something that resembles a sole proprietorship focused on the care of children. Not a perfect solution but something in that vein. Re “too easy”: I’m not talking about just wanting to raise a healthy family, the implication is that you actually do it. And that takes a lot of hard work. The suggestion that two working parents provides optimal results is not true or sustainable in my experience and seems to be the undertone of the discussion: in order to have both parents working, someone probably sacrificed their most fertile years to build a resume. And this isn’t necessarily good for the future of our species. Is a household with two stable incomes nice? Sure. At the expense of the woman’s fertility.. the sacrifice is questionable. Would also love to see our society support mothers of older children who need less immediate care entering the workforce not just young blood fresh out of high school and college.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      >Re “too easy”: I’m not talking about just wanting to raise a healthy family, the implication is that you actually do it. And that takes a lot of hard work. And how do you discern if your potential partner is and willing to do the hard work? One way is to use the type of work they do as a proxy. Maybe it's not a good proxy, but I think it is one in use in much of the dating market. I agree with most of the rest of your comment, but people are just trying to play with the cards they have, even if that results in undesirable long term consequences for society. In the US, I blame all the voters who have somehow not prioritized parental leave and adequate time at home with children. I guess many of us want to be able to shop at grocery stores and eat at restaurants at 9PM at minimum cost.
david-gpu 6y ago
I don't think the GP implied that women must be the caregivers given that he himself would be happy as a stay-at-home dad. I think he was just commenting about a common scenario. > If in a male/female relationship the female is the more ambitious one prioritize the male as the primary care giver Why equate "ambition" with "desire for a high-paying career"? Somebody who wants to raise a family can also feel ambitious about it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
sir_bearington 6y ago
It doesn't. But only 20% of mothers want to work fill time as compared to 70% of fathers. 30% of mothers want to not work at all, and 50% want to work part time. I don't think the argument here is that women make better parents than men. Rather, we live in a free society where men and women make their own choices. And women and men have substantially different work preferences after becoming a parent. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/10/WomenWorking.pdf https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jimbokun 6y ago
I agree with your general point. But would add that in the very early stages: 1. Women are the ones who get pregnant, which takes a physical toll, and maybe makes working super stressful jobs and long hours ill advised. 2. There is a period of time needed for recovering from the trauma of child birth. 2. Many women prefer breast feeding their children. Yes, they can pump, but may prefer to feed their children er, "naturally", which means getting up at odd hours of the night for a period of time. 3. If the mother is doing most of the feeding because of this, it takes time to fully wean the child. And then the child will likely have a stronger bond with the mother than the father for a little while after that. 4. And maybe the father is now working more hours than the mother due to the added burdens the mother has, which could be another reason the child might be more attached to Mom than Dad at these very young ages. 5. Repeat all of the above for the number of children you plan to have. All of which is to say, socialization is a huge factor. But there are also differences between being a mother and being a father that are strictly due to biology.

foolinaround 6y ago

>family homemaker necessarily be a woman Women, making a broad assumption, seem to have the traits (honed over millemia) of watching over the family. But in a household, if the husband and wife exhibit the opposite traits, then that must be encouraged too. I know of a family in which the woman is the bread-winner, the husband takes care of the kids and home, and both are happy.

dcow 6y ago

1. I didn't say it needs to be a women, I am highlighting that there’s a stigma against women performing that role today. 2. The problem is exactly with the characterization (that you made) of the “more ambitious” route being the career route. Why do we assume having a career requires more ambition than wanting to raise a healthy family?

david-gpu 6y ago
> I am highlighting that there’s a stigma against women performing that role today That is true, but there's an even bigger stigma against men who want to perform that role. Sure, you may find a very career-driven spouse who would be happy with you taking the role of the caregiver, but that is not a common occurrence. The man who does not provide substantial income to the family will find it much harder to find a partner than a woman in the same situation. Talking about heterosexual couples here, of course.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
>1. I didn't say it needs to be a women, I am highlighting that there’s a stigma against women performing that role today. I'm not aware of any stigma from women being stay at home moms. My impression is that most, if not all, people are aware that money gives you power (or freedom, if you will). And who doesn't like freedom. There's also less security of income for everyone, so a household relying on one spouse's income is risky. Especially if there's no extended family around that can come to the rescue in the event of loss of income. >Why do we assume having a career requires more ambition than wanting to raise a healthy family? Because it's too easy to say "I want to raise a healthy family", therefore it's a poor signal. Proving yourself with work, well remunerated or not, is a better signal. So I would say there are a lot of incentives for women to work, but not because society stigmatizes it, but because it leads to optimal results for women (and men).
- dcow 6y ago
  True about income security. I am interested in a solution that looks something like the homemaking person operating as something that resembles a sole proprietorship focused on the care of children. Not a perfect solution but something in that vein. Re “too easy”: I’m not talking about just wanting to raise a healthy family, the implication is that you actually do it. And that takes a lot of hard work. The suggestion that two working parents provides optimal results is not true or sustainable in my experience and seems to be the undertone of the discussion: in order to have both parents working, someone probably sacrificed their most fertile years to build a resume. And this isn’t necessarily good for the future of our species. Is a household with two stable incomes nice? Sure. At the expense of the woman’s fertility.. the sacrifice is questionable. Would also love to see our society support mothers of older children who need less immediate care entering the workforce not just young blood fresh out of high school and college.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    >Re “too easy”: I’m not talking about just wanting to raise a healthy family, the implication is that you actually do it. And that takes a lot of hard work. And how do you discern if your potential partner is and willing to do the hard work? One way is to use the type of work they do as a proxy. Maybe it's not a good proxy, but I think it is one in use in much of the dating market. I agree with most of the rest of your comment, but people are just trying to play with the cards they have, even if that results in undesirable long term consequences for society. In the US, I blame all the voters who have somehow not prioritized parental leave and adequate time at home with children. I guess many of us want to be able to shop at grocery stores and eat at restaurants at 9PM at minimum cost.

david-gpu 6y ago

I don't think the GP implied that women must be the caregivers given that he himself would be happy as a stay-at-home dad. I think he was just commenting about a common scenario. > If in a male/female relationship the female is the more ambitious one prioritize the male as the primary care giver Why equate "ambition" with "desire for a high-paying career"? Somebody who wants to raise a family can also feel ambitious about it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

sir_bearington 6y ago

It doesn't. But only 20% of mothers want to work fill time as compared to 70% of fathers. 30% of mothers want to not work at all, and 50% want to work part time. I don't think the argument here is that women make better parents than men. Rather, we live in a free society where men and women make their own choices. And women and men have substantially different work preferences after becoming a parent. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/10/WomenWorking.pdf https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jimbokun 6y ago

I agree with your general point. But would add that in the very early stages: 1. Women are the ones who get pregnant, which takes a physical toll, and maybe makes working super stressful jobs and long hours ill advised. 2. There is a period of time needed for recovering from the trauma of child birth. 2. Many women prefer breast feeding their children. Yes, they can pump, but may prefer to feed their children er, "naturally", which means getting up at odd hours of the night for a period of time. 3. If the mother is doing most of the feeding because of this, it takes time to fully wean the child. And then the child will likely have a stronger bond with the mother than the father for a little while after that. 4. And maybe the father is now working more hours than the mother due to the added burdens the mother has, which could be another reason the child might be more attached to Mom than Dad at these very young ages. 5. Repeat all of the above for the number of children you plan to have. All of which is to say, socialization is a huge factor. But there are also differences between being a mother and being a father that are strictly due to biology.