- This topic has 794 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 24, 2014 at 3:49 PM #779430October 24, 2014 at 3:54 PM #779431
scaredyclassic
ParticipantKev, if this kind of adult discussion doesn’t wilt your wiener, then my boy, you are ready to be a man, and to marry…
October 24, 2014 at 8:52 PM #779454CA renter
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=UCGal][quote=CA renter]The feminists are trying to paint a picture of SAHPs as parasites who deserve nothing in return for their services. They are actively undermining the protections for SAHPs that many have worked so hard for over the years. [/quote]
Examples please.
Show that there is a feminist agenda to paint a picture of SAHPs as parasites. I’ve seen the exact opposite from groups I consider feminist. (Women’s professional societies, NOW, Ms Magazine, etc.)And you still don’t get my point that working parents are still contributing to the household in a non-financially compensated way during non-work hours – you don’t get to claim the 24/7 hours for SAHP and not allow working parents to claim the off-hours as well. This refusal to see this point is incredibly frustrating.
Here- maybe this will make you feel better.
CAR – you are a wonderful parent, wife, homemaker, and you are worth billions of dollars to your family!!!! Far more than any other mother anywhere.[/quote]i never thought of my family or wife as parasites. but now that you mention it, how much would a single mom have to pay a dude for a room, board and general backup care for a kid. that could be easily valued as well…it’s offensive to think that way, because it seems to point out that there is no family unit. but parcelling out services does that too, though to a far lesser degree…[/quote]
This is EXACTLY what people are saying when they say “you are so lucky that your spouse let’s you stay home all day and not work.” I kid you not, I’ve heard that more times than I can count.
You’re not getting it because you’re sitting on the other side of the fence, but I can assure you that many/most people who’ve not done the work of a SAHP believe that the SAHP is getting a “free ride.”
October 24, 2014 at 8:59 PM #779456Participant[quote=Blogstar]My youngest blogstar jr. Is going to be 8 in dec.
My kids do not need a two parent household let alone a sahp. It has nothing to do with them. They get zero benefit out of my wife and I sharing a bedroom and little out of us sharing the rest of the house day after day.What they need,
More and better mentoring. More quality time with peers and to continue to know both biological untts are crazy about them and will always be there.
What they need from their mom and I they could get with us living in separate households if we didn’t break up in a melodramatic fool fashion and play stupid hate games and victim games for years on end.That’s not to say I am anti-family but at this point where reasonableness and respect would be involved anyway , it’s not that important.[/quote]
You are 100% wrong. EVERY study shows that children suffer when their parents split up, with the possible exception of very abusive households or where severe addictions are involved.
When parents split up, the “family pie” is split up. A child’s physical and financial security is almost always made more vulnerable, and they will often shift to a lower SES as a result. They would also have to deal with having mom and dad show up at “joint” birthday parties, holiday events, school plays, etc. with their new mates/spouses, and while I think there are **a very few** parents who can make this work (we know some families where the ex and new wives and/or husbands hang out together, along with all of the various in-laws), the kids will always feel a bit awkward, especially if one of the parents doesn’t have a mate while the other one does.
And then, there’s the issue of family planning, where the children will almost always have a worse outcome if the parents remarry after divorce, not to mention if they have more kids.
Again, you really need to do some research instead of pulling your opinions out of your behind.
October 24, 2014 at 9:14 PM #779457ParticipantJust saw your post, scaredy. Thank you. 🙂
And I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, either. Just trying to get them to see things from a perspective that they might not even know exists. I know I’m not alone in my beliefs, as most SAHPs would agree to a large extent with what I’m saying here. We’re just not allowed to say it because it would be totally politically incorrect. We’re supposed to pretend that we love giving up everything else in our lives — everything that defined us prior to marriage and kids — and be absolutely joyful about serving others. So happy and joyful and grateful to serve others (for room and board — a shared room, but a space to sleep, nonetheless) that we would never even dream of claiming that this work would have any value, either financially (within or outside of our own families), or to society.
This thread is proof that we, as women, have a LONG way to go before there is ever any kind of REAL equality (not just “equality” based on how well we do “men’s work”).
October 24, 2014 at 9:19 PM #779458FlyerInHi
Guestscaredyclassic, I like your writing. Is discrete sex outside of marriage ok?
October 24, 2014 at 9:21 PM #779459Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]scaredyclassic, I like your writing. Is discrete sex outside of marriage ok?[/quote]
No.
October 24, 2014 at 9:25 PM #779460Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]My youngest blogstar jr. Is going to be 8 in dec.
My kids do not need a two parent household let alone a sahp. It has nothing to do with them. They get zero benefit out of my wife and I sharing a bedroom and little out of us sharing the rest of the house day after day.What they need,
More and better mentoring. More quality time with peers and to continue to know both biological untts are crazy about them and will always be there.
What they need from their mom and I they could get with us living in separate households if we didn’t break up in a melodramatic fool fashion and play stupid hate games and victim games for years on end.That’s not to say I am anti-family but at this point where reasonableness and respect would be involved anyway , it’s not that important.[/quote]
You are 100% wrong. EVERY study shows that children suffer when their parents split up, with the possible exception of very abusive households or where severe addictions are involved.
When parents split up, the “family pie” is split up. A child’s physical and financial security is almost always made more vulnerable, and they will often shift to a lower SES as a result. They would also have to deal with having mom and dad show up at “joint” birthday parties, holiday events, school plays, etc. with their new mates/spouses, and while I think there are **a very few** parents who can make this work (we know some families where the ex and new wives and/or husbands hang out together, along with all of the various in-laws), the kids will always feel a bit awkward, especially if one of the parents doesn’t have a mate while the other one does.
And then, there’s the issue of family planning, where the children will almost always have a worse outcome if the parents remarry after divorce, not to mention if they have more kids.
Again, you really need to do some research instead of pulling your opinions out of your behind.[/quote]
Adding to this (and there is SO much more!), as parents age, children will possibly have to care for two parents in different places if the parent’s haven’t remarried people who will nurse them through their illnesses and into old age. When parents stay married, they usually manage to take care of one another, which greatly reduces the burden on adult children who might be dealing with children of their own.
And then you have to deal with the nomadic children if parents have joint physical custody. As a teacher, it was significant to me to hear EVERY child of divorce refer to their residences as “my mom’s house” or “my dad’s house.” They never called it their own home. This was before I was married with children, so there was no bias there. It really stuck with me.
If nomadic living were so great, and if parents REALLY cared about the children’s best interests, then they would suck it up and agree to Birdnesting Custody where the parents live nomadic lives and the children stay in the same place. Needless to say, most parents don’t go for this, and of those who do, it usually doesn’t last long. Funny how most divorced parents think nothing of creating chaos in their children’s lives so that they can have the more ordered and satisfactory lives for themselves.
http://divorcedmoms.com/articles/birdnesting-custody-hooray-for-alternative-custody-arrangements
October 24, 2014 at 9:30 PM #779461ParticipantInteresting. The French family I au paired for was divorced. He lived on the top floor madame and daughter on 2nd floor me in the basement.
I remember going out for drinks with him and some girl I’d met and him hitting really desperately on the girl. I was freaked out cause I didn’t realize they weren’t together at that time!
Vive LA france!
The parents liked me but the girl didnt. She was a focused achiever and I was practically a hobo.
October 24, 2014 at 9:37 PM #779463NotCranky
ParticipantO.k. Good argument on the family staying together. Well put together.
I agree about the appearance of dog piling but CaRentter is debating pretty badly too. Has yet to admit where she has been wrong anywhere. And she has been plenty, maybe you could call it hyperbole but she is completely sincere in her claims that sociology proves men are worse than women and that other crap. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I know.
October 24, 2014 at 9:40 PM #779462Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Interesting. The French family I au paired for was divorced. He lived on the top floor madame and daughter on 2nd floor me in the basement.
I remember going out for drinks with him and some girl I’d met and him hitting really desperately on the girl. I was freaked out cause I didn’t realize they weren’t together at that time!
Vive LA france!
The parents liked me but the girl didnt. She was a focused achiever and I was practically a hobo.[/quote]
IMHO, the ideal situation would be a duplex where the kids and mom or dad would live on one side, and the other parent on the other side. The kids should have full freedom to go back and forth as they like. Of course, this might lead to problems where the kids gravitate to a more lenient parent who lets them drink soda and eat chips for dinner in front of the TV, and where homework and other chores are optional. Of course, these problems still exist for divorced couples, and the anger and resentment are still there, but I think that this would still be best for the kids.
—————–
Correction to my previous post…I meant “estate planning,” not “family planning.”
October 24, 2014 at 9:44 PM #779466GuestThen why not just go back tot he old religious laws? Forbid divorce.
Women were protected in that only the first wife’s kids were legitimate and could inherit the dad’s estate.
Parents and matchmakers would make sure the marriage was suitable.
October 24, 2014 at 10:05 PM #779465Participant[quote=Blogstar]O.k. Good argument on the family staying together. Well put together.
I agree about the appearance of dog piling but CaRentter is debating pretty badly too. Has yet to admit where she has been wrong anywhere. And she has been plenty, maybe you could call it hyperbole but she is completely sincere in her claims that sociology proves men are worse than women and that other crap. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I know.[/quote]
Please clearly point out where I am wrong. Please explain — very clearly, and without utter nonsense like “you’re being whiny,” which proves nothing — which points I am missing. And please do not do what UCGal did, where she claimed that I said something that was neither stated nor implied.
As for the notion that “men are worse than women,” I’ve never said that; what I have said is that men have oppressed women throughout history…which is why, IMHO, “women’s work” doesn’t carry the same status as “men’s work,” and why people insist (even to this day!) that it has little/no value, either monetary value, or value to their families or society. If you have some evidence to share with us that shows otherwise, I’d love to see it.
October 24, 2014 at 10:08 PM #779467Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Then why not just go back tot he old religious laws? Forbid divorce.
Women were protected in that only the first wife’s kids were legitimate and could inherit the dad’s estate.
Parents and matchmakers would make sure the marriage was suitable.[/quote]
At the very least, we should eliminate “no-fault” divorce laws. If both spouses want the divorce for some rather benign reason (“outgrew” each other, paths diverged, or something like that), then they should come up with some kind of agreement to present to a divorce court, and that divorce should be facilitated in a fairly quick and painless way.
By eliminating “no-fault” divorce, we would give the “victim” spouse (of adultery, abuse, or addiction) more power in the divorce. It would favor the spouse who was more willing to make the marriage work, in most cases, and that would probably result in a somewhat lower divorce rate.
I’ve posted some info before on other threads, but most people who work through rough patches instead of getting divorced end up happier than their divorced counterparts many years down the road. I think a lot of people get divorced for reasons that can be overcome. Society is better in almost every way when marriages remain intact and children are reared by both of their biological/adoptive parents.
October 24, 2014 at 10:15 PM #779453Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=CA renter]The feminists are trying to paint a picture of SAHPs as parasites who deserve nothing in return for their services. They are actively undermining the protections for SAHPs that many have worked so hard for over the years. [/quote]
Examples please.
Show that there is a feminist agenda to paint a picture of SAHPs as parasites. I’ve seen the exact opposite from groups I consider feminist. (Women’s professional societies, NOW, Ms Magazine, etc.)And you still don’t get my point that working parents are still contributing to the household in a non-financially compensated way during non-work hours – you don’t get to claim the 24/7 hours for SAHP and not allow working parents to claim the off-hours as well. This refusal to see this point is incredibly frustrating.
Here- maybe this will make you feel better.
CAR – you are a wonderful parent, wife, homemaker, and you are worth billions of dollars to your family!!!! Far more than any other mother anywhere.[/quote]It’s frustrating because I’ve posted **multiple times** that this work has the SAME value, whether it’s done by a SAHP, a wage-earning parent, or a third party (all else being equal).
I’m honestly bewildered about your posts. I have NEVER said that the contributions of wage earners, SAHPs, or some combination of both were in any way less valuable than another’s. And that’s really my point; the work of a SAHP is no less valuable than the work of a wage-earner. We’re apparently talking past each other for some reason.
And if you can’t see where BG has been trying to paint SAHPs as parasites, then I can’t help you. It’s all over this thread, as well as many others.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.