100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Gender roles in society. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I already provide for myself, as well as taking care of my property and needs. That's because I don't have another option at this point. However, when my wife enters the equation, does she not become equally responsible? What if my job couldn't support an entire family (as it currently couldn't)? Do I still get locked up for trying, but failing? Does my wife then have to raise our child on her own, WITHOUT my modest contribution, because what little I gave wasn't enough? That seems totally fair to all parties concerned. Or would it make more sense to share responsibility for providing AND housekeeping, since 1) we're both capable of it, 2) we'd probably both be used to it by that point, 3) marriage is a partnership (at least so I've always believed), and that implies an equitable share of work, and 4) it means more income than what I would earn alone, thus presumably making things easier on the whole family. Does this mean that when my wife becomes pregnant, and we have offspring, I'm going to force my wife to go to work and not take any time off, as well as keep up with her share of the housework? Hell no, and I think that's a ridiculous situation. While she's pregnant, I'll gladly pick up the slack when it comes to housekeeping (sort of like I already do), and if it turns out my job pays better, or offers better benefits, or is otherwise the more rewarding job, then I will keep it regardless of whether she goes back to work sooner or later. HOWEVER. I'd expect the same kind of consideration if, for example, I had to temporarily stop working because of a disability, or if we decide her job is more rewarding, and I stay home and take care of the house and children. As long as the work is divvied up fairly between one provider and one home-maker, I'm okay with that kind of "fairness". I'm just not totally sold on the idea that the former HAS to be male, and the latter HAS to be female. whatever one was going to do when they were together , should continue after they are apart the standard for 'trying' would be hard to measure I don't believe its trying just because a man sends gifts once a season(my personal case),,,,,that no more than family friends do,, and not enough for a DAD if they are working there should be regular support, whether married or not,, they should register for licenseas separated from their kids, like with a drivers license,,,,the support should be linked to that license if they make more kids BEFORE settling up with the support of the ones they have,,,, they should lose their freedom just as much as the mother who has to do it all alone has,,, Whatever was going on when they were together is over after they part  ...Why don't you single mothers get this?...The only thing that "should" continue is one or both of you need to care for and support the children that BOTH of you made.... no or because we are over doesn't end BOTH of our role as parent to the child WE made BOTH should still be legally responsible for caring for the children,, or face stiff penalties for leaving the other to do it alone,,, If women marry the man (or men) they breed with and divorce him later, he IS legally responsible for child support...Those who don't bother to marry before breeding can hire an attorney and take his azz to court if he refuses to help support his child...That is, of course, after paternity is proven.... What if the state cannot collect child support from him (he could be a foreigner and leave the country, he could go to prison, he could be below the poverty line, he could have had an accident and died, he could just not pay). So, why not just give mothers paid leave and other assistance such as childcare and college education if the father can't be found? Why if we live have gender equality, does the state force women and children to be under the financial control of men? How about DON'T breed with deadbeats....How about don't breed if you can't afford to.....How about take responsibility for yourself and your children... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I already provide for myself, as well as taking care of my property and needs. That's because I don't have another option at this point. However, when my wife enters the equation, does she not become equally responsible? What if my job couldn't support an entire family (as it currently couldn't)? Do I still get locked up for trying, but failing? Does my wife then have to raise our child on her own, WITHOUT my modest contribution, because what little I gave wasn't enough? That seems totally fair to all parties concerned. Or would it make more sense to share responsibility for providing AND housekeeping, since 1) we're both capable of it, 2) we'd probably both be used to it by that point, 3) marriage is a partnership (at least so I've always believed), and that implies an equitable share of work, and 4) it means more income than what I would earn alone, thus presumably making things easier on the whole family. Does this mean that when my wife becomes pregnant, and we have offspring, I'm going to force my wife to go to work and not take any time off, as well as keep up with her share of the housework? Hell no, and I think that's a ridiculous situation. While she's pregnant, I'll gladly pick up the slack when it comes to housekeeping (sort of like I already do), and if it turns out my job pays better, or offers better benefits, or is otherwise the more rewarding job, then I will keep it regardless of whether she goes back to work sooner or later. HOWEVER. I'd expect the same kind of consideration if, for example, I had to temporarily stop working because of a disability, or if we decide her job is more rewarding, and I stay home and take care of the house and children. As long as the work is divvied up fairly between one provider and one home-maker, I'm okay with that kind of "fairness". I'm just not totally sold on the idea that the former HAS to be male, and the latter HAS to be female. whatever one was going to do when they were together , should continue after they are apart the standard for 'trying' would be hard to measure I don't believe its trying just because a man sends gifts once a season(my personal case),,,,,that no more than family friends do,, and not enough for a DAD if they are working there should be regular support, whether married or not,, they should register for licenseas separated from their kids, like with a drivers license,,,,the support should be linked to that license if they make more kids BEFORE settling up with the support of the ones they have,,,, they should lose their freedom just as much as the mother who has to do it all alone has,,, Whatever was going on when they were together is over after they part ...Why don't you single mothers get this?...The only thing that "should" continue is one or both of you need to care for and support the children that BOTH of you made.... no or because we are over doesn't end BOTH of our role as parent to the child WE made BOTH should still be legally responsible for caring for the children,, or face stiff penalties for leaving the other to do it alone,,, If women marry the man (or men) they breed with and divorce him later, he IS legally responsible for child support...Those who don't bother to marry before breeding can hire an attorney and take his azz to court if he refuses to help support his child...That is, of course, after paternity is proven.... What if the state cannot collect child support from him (he could be a foreigner and leave the country, he could go to prison, he could be below the poverty line, he could have had an accident and died, he could just not pay). So, why not just give mothers paid leave and other assistance such as childcare and college education if the father can't be found? Why if we live have gender equality, does the state force women and children to be under the financial control of men? How about DON'T breed with deadbeats....How about don't breed if you can't afford to.....How about take responsibility for yourself and your children... I see...blame the woman. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I already provide for myself, as well as taking care of my property and needs. That's because I don't have another option at this point. However, when my wife enters the equation, does she not become equally responsible? What if my job couldn't support an entire family (as it currently couldn't)? Do I still get locked up for trying, but failing? Does my wife then have to raise our child on her own, WITHOUT my modest contribution, because what little I gave wasn't enough? That seems totally fair to all parties concerned. Or would it make more sense to share responsibility for providing AND housekeeping, since 1) we're both capable of it, 2) we'd probably both be used to it by that point, 3) marriage is a partnership (at least so I've always believed), and that implies an equitable share of work, and 4) it means more income than what I would earn alone, thus presumably making things easier on the whole family. Does this mean that when my wife becomes pregnant, and we have offspring, I'm going to force my wife to go to work and not take any time off, as well as keep up with her share of the housework? Hell no, and I think that's a ridiculous situation. While she's pregnant, I'll gladly pick up the slack when it comes to housekeeping (sort of like I already do), and if it turns out my job pays better, or offers better benefits, or is otherwise the more rewarding job, then I will keep it regardless of whether she goes back to work sooner or later. HOWEVER. I'd expect the same kind of consideration if, for example, I had to temporarily stop working because of a disability, or if we decide her job is more rewarding, and I stay home and take care of the house and children. As long as the work is divvied up fairly between one provider and one home-maker, I'm okay with that kind of "fairness". I'm just not totally sold on the idea that the former HAS to be male, and the latter HAS to be female. whatever one was going to do when they were together , should continue after they are apart the standard for 'trying' would be hard to measure I don't believe its trying just because a man sends gifts once a season(my personal case),,,,,that no more than family friends do,, and not enough for a DAD if they are working there should be regular support, whether married or not,, they should register for licenseas separated from their kids, like with a drivers license,,,,the support should be linked to that license if they make more kids BEFORE settling up with the support of the ones they have,,,, they should lose their freedom just as much as the mother who has to do it all alone has,,, Whatever was going on when they were together is over after they part ...Why don't you single mothers get this?...The only thing that "should" continue is one or both of you need to care for and support the children that BOTH of you made.... no or because we are over doesn't end BOTH of our role as parent to the child WE made BOTH should still be legally responsible for caring for the children,, or face stiff penalties for leaving the other to do it alone,,, If women marry the man (or men) they breed with and divorce him later, he IS legally responsible for child support...Those who don't bother to marry before breeding can hire an attorney and take his azz to court if he refuses to help support his child...That is, of course, after paternity is proven.... What if the state cannot collect child support from him (he could be a foreigner and leave the country, he could go to prison, he could be below the poverty line, he could have had an accident and died, he could just not pay). So, why not just give mothers paid leave and other assistance such as childcare and college education if the father can't be found? Why if we live have gender equality, does the state force women and children to be under the financial control of men? How about DON'T breed with deadbeats....How about don't breed if you can't afford to.....How about take responsibility for yourself and your children... I see...blame the woman. Blame?..... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men and women share the beauty of humanity. .there are things that are peculiar to men and peculiar to women..it is usually the arrogant attitude that results in the complex relationships between men and women..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes the system is against women. Most women want to be mothers, most men want to run away, so there is a shortage of decent men to do the job. But if we change the system then this would be accounted for by offering women the resources to opt out of depending on a man. Being a good mother should be attainable to most women and it is good for society if the system would support this idea despite men. It should not depend on a man or it is not gender equality.
It should start by giving all mothers and fathers the option of paid leave when their child is born. We would see then men would become better fathers and husbands. Family households need 2 incomes, and even with that good childcare is out of reach for the majority. With parental leave, it would eliminate childcare expenses and encourage men and women to bond with their children. The mother could use her paid leave first and then the father could use his when the mother starts working again. This would make it less likely for parents to become deadbeats as they would both have the chance to bond with their child and provide good daycare and still get back to work. The child would learn to identify more with the parents and be taught by them. Regardless, the state needs to also provide women the option to be a single mother (out of choice or need) and the state should not punish women for leaving abusive men by withholding financial resources. It will teach children gender equality. When men and women are on the same footing that is when gender equality is learned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Gender" Roles, gender training[conditioning] is a topic, meriting many years of study as the impact of that conditioning has a life long, deep & profound effect on an individual. Psychologically, "Gender" is the first learned element of self-identity in the conscious perception of an infant["I am a boy or, I am a girl. "- male or female].
Although it's impossible to respond to the complex issue of "Gender" in a post format; here's an easy way to understand "Gender-Assigned-Roles" in your next trip to the Greeting/ Holiday Card section of any store you happen to be in. Check out, "New Baby Congratulation Cards" category & make note of the major differences between the greeting cards for: "Your New Baby [Boy]" as opposed to the cards addressing," A New Baby [Girl]". Old-School or New Age; nothing's really changed; there's enough information in those baby cards to indicate that fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 02/15/15 09:28 AM
|
|
I already provide for myself, as well as taking care of my property and needs. That's because I don't have another option at this point. However, when my wife enters the equation, does she not become equally responsible? What if my job couldn't support an entire family (as it currently couldn't)? Do I still get locked up for trying, but failing? Does my wife then have to raise our child on her own, WITHOUT my modest contribution, because what little I gave wasn't enough? That seems totally fair to all parties concerned. Or would it make more sense to share responsibility for providing AND housekeeping, since 1) we're both capable of it, 2) we'd probably both be used to it by that point, 3) marriage is a partnership (at least so I've always believed), and that implies an equitable share of work, and 4) it means more income than what I would earn alone, thus presumably making things easier on the whole family. Does this mean that when my wife becomes pregnant, and we have offspring, I'm going to force my wife to go to work and not take any time off, as well as keep up with her share of the housework? Hell no, and I think that's a ridiculous situation. While she's pregnant, I'll gladly pick up the slack when it comes to housekeeping (sort of like I already do), and if it turns out my job pays better, or offers better benefits, or is otherwise the more rewarding job, then I will keep it regardless of whether she goes back to work sooner or later. HOWEVER. I'd expect the same kind of consideration if, for example, I had to temporarily stop working because of a disability, or if we decide her job is more rewarding, and I stay home and take care of the house and children. As long as the work is divvied up fairly between one provider and one home-maker, I'm okay with that kind of "fairness". I'm just not totally sold on the idea that the former HAS to be male, and the latter HAS to be female. whatever one was going to do when they were together , should continue after they are apart the standard for 'trying' would be hard to measure I don't believe its trying just because a man sends gifts once a season(my personal case),,,,,that no more than family friends do,, and not enough for a DAD if they are working there should be regular support, whether married or not,, they should register for licenseas separated from their kids, like with a drivers license,,,,the support should be linked to that license if they make more kids BEFORE settling up with the support of the ones they have,,,, they should lose their freedom just as much as the mother who has to do it all alone has,,, Whatever was going on when they were together is over after they part ...Why don't you single mothers get this?...The only thing that "should" continue is one or both of you need to care for and support the children that BOTH of you made.... no or because we are over doesn't end BOTH of our role as parent to the child WE made BOTH should still be legally responsible for caring for the children,, or face stiff penalties for leaving the other to do it alone,,, If women marry the man (or men) they breed with and divorce him later, he IS legally responsible for child support...Those who don't bother to marry before breeding can hire an attorney and take his azz to court if he refuses to help support his child...That is, of course, after paternity is proven.... What if the state cannot collect child support from him (he could be a foreigner and leave the country, he could go to prison, he could be below the poverty line, he could have had an accident and died, he could just not pay). So, why not just give mothers paid leave and other assistance such as childcare and college education if the father can't be found? Why if we live have gender equality, does the state force women and children to be under the financial control of men? How about DON'T breed with deadbeats....How about don't breed if you can't afford to.....How about take responsibility for yourself and your children... this is what Im talking about judgmental and unrealistic clich� attacks as if people know in advance what someone will do down the line do we tell date rape victims not to date rapists? two people make the baby, two people should be legally LIABLE for caring for the baby,, ,,,,if one doesnt, THEY should receive the bulk of the scorn and the innocent children broadsided by their departure should be shown some SUPPORT ,,,,,THE END |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women have three sex roles- menstrate, lactate and gestate, whereas men have only one- impregnate. Men need to take responsibility for that. And women need to stop trying to flush their tampons down my toilet and clogging it up!
|
|
|
|
|
