5 ms·

Over 90% of children whose parents went through divorce end up with mother. Somehow we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men and we enforce

Over 90% of children whose parents went through divorce end up with mother. Somehow we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men and we enforce it by law. At the same time we're still in middle-ages thinking that a male can't be as a good parent as a female. It's all very one-sided. As long as women get what they want. It definitely is not about equal places in the society. Women got more in the past 50 years, men lost their natural advantage in the workforce but still are destined to fullfil typical, stereotypical roles in their families (a.k.a 'providers'). I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up.

jokull 13y ago
Are you kidding me? Ending up with the kid after a divorce takes opportunities away too. It’s what is expected of most women and in my mind contributes to inequality tipping job opportunities and hirability in the favor of men.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  Then - as a long as you are a woman in court - you can always say "I don't want these kids". Bam, they go to the father. That's exactly how it happens in the courts in the US. As easy as that. Contrary to what you claim, somehow never happens. Over 90% want the kids. And I'm not surprised. Somehow they want it all.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
oinksoft 13y ago
Somehow we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men men lost their natural advantage in the workforce To be able to make these claims so boldly .. you must have no shame whatsoever.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  so you need to take it out of the context to call me shameless? You changed the meaning and you know it. Better downvote without commenting if you have to employ dirty tactics like this. EDIT: typo meaning instead of meanings
  - oinksoft 13y ago
    In what context could those statements (1) make any sense, or (2) be in any way acceptable? And further, you wrote one piddling paragraph. Any reader can plainly find the context: It is that you believe in gender roles so strong, it sounds as though you are an early 19th-century time traveler who just hopped out his ship. You conceal this in what I think boils down to, "men are better at everything," but it's clear you think that women belong in the kitchen and men in the mineshaft (especially when reading your other comments for this article).
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      If traditional gender roles are NOT so strong with you, why you are the one so strongly defending "XIX Century" role of a father "provider" who can't be a good parent and gets the children in less than 10% of divorce rulings? Somehow when talking about employment 50/50 rule is very forward thinking, but if somebody would dare to employ the same rule to divorce court rulings it's "19th century". So when at work we are all forgetting about the traditional family rules, but when in the court law having a divorce case we can be as sexist as we were 100 years ago? That's your progress? As long as it is better just for one gender it is good? That's how you fight sexism?
      - oinksoft 13y ago
        I'm not sure if your original choice of words was regrettable, or if you're trying to cover a retreat. The tenor of your comments (here and elsewhere) certainly suggests the latter. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former .. never use "natural" when you mean "historic." And "Somehow (emphasis added) we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men" implies that you find this unbelievable. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that is exactly how it sounds.
illuminate 13y ago
"Somehow we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men" "men lost their natural advantage in the workforce" MRAs, never change. Oh wait, you don't.

jokull 13y ago

Are you kidding me? Ending up with the kid after a divorce takes opportunities away too. It’s what is expected of most women and in my mind contributes to inequality tipping job opportunities and hirability in the favor of men.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
Then - as a long as you are a woman in court - you can always say "I don't want these kids". Bam, they go to the father. That's exactly how it happens in the courts in the US. As easy as that. Contrary to what you claim, somehow never happens. Over 90% want the kids. And I'm not surprised. Somehow they want it all.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

oinksoft 13y ago

Somehow we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men men lost their natural advantage in the workforce To be able to make these claims so boldly .. you must have no shame whatsoever.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
so you need to take it out of the context to call me shameless? You changed the meaning and you know it. Better downvote without commenting if you have to employ dirty tactics like this. EDIT: typo meaning instead of meanings
- oinksoft 13y ago
  In what context could those statements (1) make any sense, or (2) be in any way acceptable? And further, you wrote one piddling paragraph. Any reader can plainly find the context: It is that you believe in gender roles so strong, it sounds as though you are an early 19th-century time traveler who just hopped out his ship. You conceal this in what I think boils down to, "men are better at everything," but it's clear you think that women belong in the kitchen and men in the mineshaft (especially when reading your other comments for this article).
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    If traditional gender roles are NOT so strong with you, why you are the one so strongly defending "XIX Century" role of a father "provider" who can't be a good parent and gets the children in less than 10% of divorce rulings? Somehow when talking about employment 50/50 rule is very forward thinking, but if somebody would dare to employ the same rule to divorce court rulings it's "19th century". So when at work we are all forgetting about the traditional family rules, but when in the court law having a divorce case we can be as sexist as we were 100 years ago? That's your progress? As long as it is better just for one gender it is good? That's how you fight sexism?
    - oinksoft 13y ago
      I'm not sure if your original choice of words was regrettable, or if you're trying to cover a retreat. The tenor of your comments (here and elsewhere) certainly suggests the latter. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former .. never use "natural" when you mean "historic." And "Somehow (emphasis added) we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men" implies that you find this unbelievable. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that is exactly how it sounds.

illuminate 13y ago

"Somehow we came to believe that women can be as good employees as men" "men lost their natural advantage in the workforce" MRAs, never change. Oh wait, you don't.