4 ms·

> Why do we really expect women to have a similar behaviour of men about work, when they have a socially aceptable and now economical venue to avoid it. Baby r

• bobthechef 6y ago
  Frankly, I would make the stronger point: it's more important than your job (raising children can be difficult, to be sure, but it's not quite "work" in the sense that work by and large tends to be servile while raising children is a higher end for which work is done). The reason people work is overwhelmingly so that they can support their children and their families.
• renewiltord 6y ago
  Sure. You can replace "work" in his text with "work for hire" or something else if it helps you understand what he meant.
  • pseudalopex 6y ago
    Critiquing the framing doesn't mean they didn't understand.
    • renewiltord 6y ago
      Understanding somewhat doesn't mean they can't understand better.
    • ameister14 6y ago
      Sure, but the manner in which they critiqued the framing shows they didn't understand, potentially deliberately.
      • pseudalopex 6y ago
        It's a common rhetorical device.
        • ameister14 6y ago
          Deliberately changing the intent of someone's words may be a common rhetorical device but it's not engaging with the argument at hand.
          • pseudalopex 6y ago
            This isn't a formal debate. There isn't just 1 argument at hand. People bring up tangential points all the time.
            • ameister14 6y ago
              It's not a formal debate, but I think it's rude to misinterpret someone in this way. It's not even a tangential point, because it's not actually connected - it's parallel. And sure, people do that all the time. People do all sorts of things. It doesn't mean they are communicating effectively, getting any kind of point across or coming to any conclusion at all. I could start into semantics too, for example saying that people don't bring up tangential points because tangents aren't points they are lines. It wouldn't be a good idea, because it wouldn't further the discussion at all. That's basically what I see happened here.
              • pseudalopex 6y ago
                Pointing out unintended implications of what someone said isn't misinterpreting them. It's connected to the claim parenting is a socially acceptable way for women to avoid work. Their point was clear. The verbal meanings of tangent and point don't disrespect geometry.
    • 13415 6y ago
      That comment seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what "framing" means. Framing pertains to different ways of expressing the same facts, for example the glass is half empty vs. the glas is half full. Whether you consider work to require being hired and paid for it by an employer or understand it in a broader sense as including any activity that is important for society is not a matter of framing. These are fundamentally different concepts of work that also have different extensions.
• sb52191 6y ago
  You're completely missing the point of the person's comment... The top comment is asking why girl's perform better, and yet and under-represented in top tier jobs. The comment you replied to responds that they think it's because of having child and choosing not to go back to work. At no point are they taking a stance on whether or not raising a child is as important as working a job...
  • Kluny 6y ago
    I think YOU'RE missing the point. Childcare is still considered a less important and honorable occupation than pretty much everything else you can do. If you're "just" a parent, you're not considered qualified for really anything else. That means most men won't do it, because they'll lose status. Meanwhile women will always place lower importance on status than on childcare, and so they will do childcare because no one is available to do it for them. The disparity won't ever disappear until it's just as valid and socially supported for a man to stay home and raise children, as for a woman.
    • jtmarl1n 6y ago
      You're making a straw man argument about the importance of work that wasn't in the original commenter's post at all. Seems like you are bringing bias or an agenda into your comment.
• swebs 6y ago
  Sure, but that's something most humans naturally want to do, even if they have no financial incentive. Most people don't like having to go to the office 8 hours a day, and very few probably would if money wasn't in the equation.
  • Pet_Ant 6y ago
    > Sure, but that's something most humans naturally want to do, I don't know that is true of most men. Have children? Sure. Raise them? Not so sure. I once read that men wanting to have more children is inversely proportional to the amount of work the mother expects them to contribute.
    • Dylan16807 6y ago
      If you took a bunch of women that weren't expected to be the primary caregiver, and gave them the same variety of expected hours per day spent on children, I would expect to see a similar correlation.
    • bobthechef 6y ago
      Men and women contribute to child rearing in different ways. Women tend to be more nurturing so their role is disproportionately more important during a child's earlier formative years. They also tend to have a stronger orientation toward domestic affairs. Men, on the other hand, tend to be more strongly oriented toward the public sphere. The home is the focal point. Thus women are at the center of the action, as it were, when it comes to the amount of time they spend with children, while men tend to be more strongly motivated to take care of affairs for the sake of their families outside of the home. The home is also associated with greater safety and comfort, which is something women tend to prefer (we also see this reflected in occupational preferences), while the public sphere contains more risk and discomfort, something men prefer to face esp. when the reward is sufficiently high (this is also reflected in occupational preferences; men tend to prefer taking on more dangerous and higher stress jobs and longer hours in exchange for more pay). I have used the word "tend" for a reason. These are not two sealed off magisteria. Proportion is probably good way to frame things, though to a point. So men also participate in child rearing, esp. where discipline is concerned (the complement of maternal nurturing is the need for paternal authority which serves the child later in other ways like the ability to relate to authority elsewhere in a healthy way). Women also operate in the public sphere and often also work. Conditions and circumstances can also constrain how male and female roles are expressed.
• novok 6y ago
  When your "customers" or "boss" are people you love vs. a boss or corporation that is more prone to be an asshole than not, and the work of having kids has genetically encoded feel good chemicals while many find work a pure slog, it's not surprising if given the choice people would chose to be mothers vs. workers for a while.
• ganzuul 6y ago
  ..Just have to say that these are terrible reasons to have children. You produce a small version of yourself and you are emotionally satisfied that something you did will mean something in the end. If you get to raise the child yourself then you get to perpetuate your mental life as well. Still selfish reasons, but at least much better than producing... laborers.
• jimbokun 6y ago
  > Baby raising is quite important work. Which is exactly why many women drop out of the work force to do this important work, and many men would, too, if it was more socially acceptable for them?
• rjbwork 6y ago
  I think you're being deliberately obtuse and uncharitable to the argument being presented. Any reasonable and charitable reading clearly interprets it as talking about "job for pay" rather than saying "childcare is not work".
• nemo44x 6y ago
  No one disagrees. We literally have a day to celebrate that and societies for millennia have cherished that. Many wars have been fought in essence so the mothers of their group would have better conditions to be a mother in as it gives their offspring the best chance to thrive. Most everyone loves their mom more than anything else.