How women are more equal than men

[Dontkare]

I wouldn't call raising a child a "stupid" thing to do.

It seems like in this topic, women are fucked no matter what they do. They wanna have a career? Well they shouldn't earn as much because they might get knocked up, or they aren't physically as capable... and boy, don't get me started on those whores who manage to get pregnant at just the right time to get out of a deployment! Oh, also, fuck all those lazy women who get an 18 year "free ride" because they didn't get a job and chose instead to raise a kid... those lazy bitches should get fucking jobs (and get paid less/have us cry about maternity issues and not being strong) so they don't leech so much money from men working full-time (and full-paid, without career/employment gaps for caring for a young child) careers!

I think the solution for a lot of people in this topic is never. have. children.

The point of the topic originally was not only child birth and child custody. It is about all rights in general. And while I (OP) Understand that there are cases where men seem to have more rights than women, this was for an argument/persuasion essay. Conceding all the points that people are counter-arguing would have earned me a failing grade D:

[HadesChubbs]

I wouldn't call raising a child a "stupid" thing to do.

It seems like in this topic, women are fucked no matter what they do. They wanna have a career? Well they shouldn't earn as much because they might get knocked up, or they aren't physically as capable... and boy, don't get me started on those whores who manage to get pregnant at just the right time to get out of a deployment! Oh, also, fuck all those lazy women who get an 18 year "free ride" because they didn't get a job and chose instead to raise a kid... those lazy bitches should get fucking jobs (and get paid less/have us cry about maternity issues and not being strong) so they don't leech so much money from men working full-time (and full-paid, without career/employment gaps for caring for a young child) careers!

I think the solution for a lot of people in this topic is never. have. children.

Well just about every point I was trying to make 3 pages ago has been skewed and flipped, so I think I will end my efforts here! GL on the paper.

[#686578]

Hold on editing, someone seems to have addressed this in subsequent posts.

Looks like people have already made my point.

[Cesaria]

Wow Cesaria, someone's bitter about being infertile. I've seen you mention that in several threads now and it seems to be that you are in fact the one who's angry that you cannot have children of your own and this fact therefore means that anyone who complains about any aspect of raising children is a cold-hearted, selfish asshole. Raising children is one of the hardest, most challenging, rewarding and fulfilling experiences one can have. I am genuinely sorry you are unable to have children of your own. This however doesn't give you an excuse to berate anyone who does and doesn't describe the experience as being nothing but sunshine and roses.

Beckwin is correct. The intention of that statement is that there are a lot of people who LOVE to think they know everything about the world - especially on the internets and yet they don't know a god damned thing about what they're talking about. You see all the misogyny and homophobia that runs rampant here. People use this to say whatever the fuck they want about the world and yet 80% of em are the unmarried, childless 18-24 year old crew with a good portion of em still living with mommy. That's not to say that demographic is useless and doesn't deserve an opinion but they're not exactly what I'd call experts on the subject of child rearing. If I want to know how to treat the measles I'm going to trust a doctor's opinion, not the school lunch lady.

Wow someone's up their own arse with self importance aren't they?

For the record - I ain't the school lunch lady sweetie.

[Darus Grey]

Pay a nanny or pay the ex (the nanny is probably more expensive). Your choice, but you don't get to have your capitalist superhero career (in which you are judged as "more successful" yet are not present enough to take care of a child/children) without one or the other.

I'm not sure why you assume that having a better career automatically means working 12 hours a day and being negligent.

If both parents are working full-time then they're both probably working about the same amount of hours, in which case all this bullshit breaks down.

[Beckwin]

And two parents who are working full-time typically get some kind of shared custody.

[Tyche]

I just wanted to chime in and say that a lot of your opinions on daycare are absurd. They aren't evil, your children aren't worse off (in some cases, they're probably better). The only real downside to sending your kid to daycare (other than the cost) is the fact that they will become sick more often. If you take your child to a legitimate daycare, like a NAEYC facility, I can assure you that your children are learning more and getting better care than sending your child to a relative. You don't lose any "bonding" with the child, they don't "not know who you are", those sentiments are ridiculous.

[Darus Grey]

And two parents who are working full-time typically get some kind of shared custody.

Rates have not changed significantly before anyone points that out.

Joint Custody rate is on average 14%~ across the country(Kuhn and Guidubaldi 1997) after a divorce.

Of the remaining cases, the mother has custody 80%~ of the time

Since, according to you(and it's not true btw), parents who both work full-time get joint custody "typically" that means... 80%~ of women are unwilling or unable to work full-time due to their child responsibilities? Because if they could...they'd "typically" have joint custody, no?

Really, just think about it for a moment.

Edit: Hell, let's just settle this now.

Source: Department of Labor statistics 2009 http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm

59.2% of women participate in the labor-force, of them 74% work fulltime jobs.

So of that 80%~ 47.36 of them work, and 35~% of them hold full-time positions.

If you assume that every joint custody case(and this is stupid) resulted from full-time positions held by the mother, that means under half of them result in joint custody, if you are sane and assume an even spectrum, that means that's the case in less than 5% of cases.


I know we all love to keep dismissing shit as "Anecdotal" but don't assume I can't back up about every claim I make, I'm simply lazy most of the time.

[Beckwin]

I just wanted to chime in and say that a lot of your opinions on daycare are absurd. They aren't evil, your children aren't worse off (in some cases, they're probably better). The only real downside to sending your kid to daycare (other than the cost) is the fact that they will become sick more often. If you take your child to a legitimate daycare, like a NAEYC facility, I can assure you that your children are learning more and getting better care than sending your child to a relative. You don't lose any "bonding" with the child, they don't "not know who you are", those sentiments are ridiculous.

Daycares aren't evil, but they tend to be expensive and are not a complete replacement for parenting. Plus you can't really send your kid to a daycare once they start school; at best you can hope for some afterschool programs or activities that don't require you to transport them.

Darus, based on your decade-old percentages, that has women with full/primary custody under 70% of the time. I'd say that pretty accurately reflects

2006 economic survey also found that households in the top two income quintiles, those with an annual household income exceeding $60,000, had a median of two income earners while those in the lower quintiles (2nd and middle quintile) had median of only one income earner per household.

So yes, most households in the working and middle class typically only have one income earner. How that breaks down in the upper middle class for career-income earner and part-time I'm not sure.

Your argument, and that of others, seems to be this: the primary custody holder (a woman over 2/3 of the time) should be working more so that the other parent has less financial obligation to the custody holder, also ideally leading to a situation where both parents would be paying more in childcare costs while the child has overall less parent time. If mommy and daddy have joint custody and fulltime jobs, that means little Billy is very likely spending more time away from a parent, instead of spending lots of time with one during the week and a good amount of time with the other on the weekends.

But yes, even for women with educations and careers, there's always this little obstacle to overcome:

The average for an advanced degree was $72,824 with men averaging $90,761 and women averaging $50,756 annually.

[Darus Grey]

Your argument, and that of others, seems to be this: the primary custody holder (a woman over 2/3 of the time) should be working more so that the other parent has less financial obligation to the custody holder, also ideally leading to a situation where both parents would be paying more in childcare costs while the child has overall less parent time. If mommy and daddy have joint custody and fulltime jobs, that means little Billy is very likely spending more time away from a parent, instead of spending lots of time with one during the week and a good amount of time with the other on the weekends.

In a nutshell, yes.

tl;dr version.

If both parents are working(the majority of situations) 8~h a day anyways, why should the non-custodial parent subsadize the custodial parent as opposed to them simply taking custody?

This wouldn't be an issue at all if child-support had ACCOUNTABILITY, you are subsidizing the custodial parent as much as you are the child.

Regardless, parents who both work do NOT have joint custody in most cases.

[Beckwin]

Umm, the information I posted about dual-income households seems to contradict your idea that both parents are working ~8 hrs a day.

[Darus Grey]

Where exactly? Cause I don't see it. Fulltime =40h a week, that's only true if we are only addressing lower class households(where only one incomer earner is a contributing factor to begin with).

[Tristam]

Since, according to you(and it's not true btw), parents who both work full-time get joint custody "typically" that means... 80%~ of women are unwilling or unable to work full-time due to their child responsibilities? Because if they could...they'd "typically" have joint custody, no?

Interestingly, there was a pew research poll that showed that 80% of mothers with young children considered an ideal situation to be working part time or not working at all.

[Linliel]

I just wanted to chime in and say that a lot of your opinions on daycare are absurd. They aren't evil, your children aren't worse off (in some cases, they're probably better). The only real downside to sending your kid to daycare (other than the cost) is the fact that they will become sick more often. If you take your child to a legitimate daycare, like a NAEYC facility, I can assure you that your children are learning more and getting better care than sending your child to a relative. You don't lose any "bonding" with the child, they don't "not know who you are", those sentiments are ridiculous.

FFS, I said it was my own opinion already! I just think that, for me, if I were to have kids, I wouldn't want to have them in daycare unless I absolutely had no other choice. And how do you know about loss of bonding? I hear of people putting not even 9 month old babies in daycare, and I'm sure that's not (mentally or physically) healthy for them.

[Tyche]

FFS, I said it was my own opinion already! I just think that, for me, if I were to have kids, I wouldn't want to have them in daycare unless I absolutely had no other choice. And how do you know about loss of bonding? I hear of people putting not even 9 month old babies in daycare, and I'm sure that's not (mentally or physically) healthy for them.

I know about bonding because both my children are in daycare (and have been since they were infants). My wife, worked in childcare since she was 16 with a degree in early childhood development. Runs a NAEYC center (highest rating for daycare facilities, teachers have to have at least a bachelors, standards more stringent than public schools). And nine months is actually old for children to start daycare. They can typically start as soon as 6-8 weeks. Breastfed babies go to daycare, not an issue. I don't really understand how you can assume it's not physically or mentally healthy for them. Which part exactly? You think a relative would offer better mental stimulation? Physically, you're partially right. As I said, because of the risk of exposure with many more children, they'll be sick more often. Huge downside to daycare for a lot of people. It's difficult to control parents who decide to send their kids to daycare and expose other children. All you can really do is call their parents to pick the kids up, but by the time that happens, the damage is typically done.

[#686578]

I would agree on the most part, what is the alternative to daycare anyway? Staying with home with your child until they're 4 and can go to school? Or preschool as the case may be? Wouldnt you be worried that your child missing out on important social development?

More ontopic with the thread though this video has a lot on the subject of how men are being exclude from educational opportunities in an attempt to fill the ratio gap between men and women. I personally dont think this is fair at all. If 100 men apply and 10 women apply for 20 seats why should all 10 women be guaranteed slots? They're being based less on their actual merits and solely on their gender. I can't understand how we can specify a group of individuals out and say "We are superior gender" (as feminists often do) while simultaneously shouting "We need help!" This video can also be applied to careers where the same sort of benefits for women are in place as well.

In this video he touches on a concept that he does in many of his videos and that is of "Women are not the opposite sex, they are the complimentary sex" going on to talk about how "Men and women were never meant to compete", because really men and women are just different. Generalizations ahead. Men are built differently from women. Women think differently from men. Men will often react to a situation differently than a woman, often thinking of different cause of the situation, a different method to approach, and different outcomes regarding their approach. It sounds obvious to me, but it doesnt seem to be for most people. I'd like to think that a woman is generally equal in most ways to me, but that doesnt guarantee she can do everything I can to the same degree just as I cant do everything to the same degree that she can.

[Tyche]

There's a few options. Hire an in-home sitter. You'd have to find someone that you trust and someone that will actually work with and develop the children. Extremely costly, typically moreso than a daycare for a quality sitter.

Send them to a relative. Probably the worst option in my opinion. Most of the time the cheapest route, but usually, the relative will just do whatever satisfies the child to keep them calm. Not always the best option for social or mental stimulation as they don't really have a lesson plan or any way to reinforce diverse cognitive development.

Send them to an "in-home" daycare. Generally people like these because it provides a less hostile environment. The caregiver:child ratio may be smaller than you'd find in a daycare and typically, there aren't NEAR as many children attending, so the chances of exposing a child to an ill kid is slimmer. This is actually a pretty good option.

Best option. Work from home.

[Tristam]

More ontopic with the thread though this video has a lot on the subject of how men are being exclude from educational opportunities in an attempt to fill the ratio gap between men and women. I personally dont think this is fair at all. If 100 men apply and 10 women apply for 20 seats why should all 10 women be guaranteed slots? They're being based less on their actual merits and solely on their gender. I can't understand how we can specify a group of individuals out and say "We are superior gender" (as feminists often do) while simultaneously shouting "We need help!" This video can also be applied to careers where the same sort of benefits for women are in place as well.

In this video he touches on a concept that he does in many of his videos and that is of "Women are not the opposite sex, they are the complimentary sex" going on to talk about how "Men and women were never meant to compete", because really men and women are just different. Generalizations ahead. Men are built differently from women. Women think differently from men. Men will often react to a situation differently than a woman, often thinking of different cause of the situation, a different method to approach, and different outcomes regarding their approach. It sounds obvious to me, but it doesnt seem to be for most people. I'd like to think that a woman is generally equal in most ways to me, but that doesnt guarantee she can do everything I can to the same degree just as I cant do everything to the same degree that she can.

In the vast majority of cases where gender inclusiveness is "mandated", there are an excess of qualified applicants for a limited number of positions. When this is the case, why shouldn't the gender ratio in the position reflect the gender ratio of society? This is part of the concept of why patriarchy is not necessarily a good thing for society as a whole. As a species, we tend to be biased and generally exclude those we perceive to be less like us. Being a patriarchal society lends a pervasive bias towards men being in positions of financial, political, and social power over women. This is not a myth, this is the way things are. We are becoming increasingly aware that the roles traditionally assigned to women are not because it is what was actually best for them (or society), but rather what those in power considered to be best for them.

By expanding the role of women in society, we increase the power of the marketplace of ideas by reflecting the needs and wants of society as a whole, not just society dictated by how those with the most power need and want. It's not that women necessarily think differently than men. PEOPLE think differently about things and that's part of what makes things like Democracy so powerful.

[#686578]

In the vast majority of cases where gender inclusiveness is "mandated", there are an excess of qualified applicants for a limited number of positions. When this is the case, why shouldn't the gender ratio in the position reflect the gender ratio of society?

Because you're discouraging people the people that are in over adundence to try at all and discouraging the people that are in the minority to work hard.

You can play the population game all you want, 200 men 100 women, 20 spots. Your chances of getting in if you're a man are 5%, if you're a woman 10%. It's placing less emphasis on merit and more on codling.

Let's place an arbitrary metric on these people. Let's say its GPA for a college that admissions are based solely on GPA ignoring SATs for now. If the average for GPA for the top 10 out of those 200 men is 3.5% an the average for the top 10 out of those 100 women is 3.0% why should those women who are clearly not doing better than the men be placed above them? For ease of argument let's say it's 5 men with 3 and 5 men with 4 then 10 women with GPAs of 3. Why is this fair at ALL? Why should we be encouraging this?

Turn it around so it's female in the majority and men in the minority. Should we be forcing 50% of all elementary teaching degree positions to be filled solely by men? Why do we need that standard? If there are 19 competent women and 1 competent man that can do the job, so what? Those are the best 20 PEOPLE not the best TEN MEN an TEN WOMEN.

[Linliel]

I dunno, I saw a study recently where they said that early long-term socialisation with a lot of kids actually leads to behavioural problems.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17795821/

None of my siblings or I had behavioural problems at school, and none of us were sent to daycare, and we all turned out really well. *If* I had kids I'd not want to screw with the nurture side of things in that regard ;D

As for the relative keeping kids calm, isn't that what a daycare person would do too? Why do you need a "lesson plan" for babies-3 year olds, other than reading stories or playing games?