|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 04:59 PM February 17th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"What happened when the Girls Who Had It All became mothers? A new book explores why this generation feels so insane"
I'll take a few guesses: feminism, selfishness, family dysfunction.
Solution for both sexes: Don't have kids unless you REEAALLLYYY want them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:41 PM February 17th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Here, here.
Apart from spreading the usual tripe about mothers providing all of children's education, and having to organize their husbands lives; this article doesn't even stick to its own facts.
It states that men work an average of 51hrs/week while women are around 40hrs/week, and then goes on to talk about how mothers are not being supported and that government financial aids are needed.
And apparently these are deductions from a generation of women where "many" did better in math than their male counterparts growing up...
You have a choice to have children, it comes with responsibilities and is difficult. Suck it up.
As a father, there wasn't much in that article that I hadn't dealt with myself, other that staying home. But then someone has to make money to have a nice home. It's a fact. Doesn't change the effort I put into my family, though. And I don't complain. It was a choice, and I work hard at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tumescent on 11:07 PM February 17th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"It states that men work an average of 51hrs/week while women are around 40hrs/week, and then goes on to talk about how mothers are not being supported and that government financial aids are needed."
Actually, the article stated that mothers work an average of 41 hours, but I wonder where that statistic comes from. I guessing it only counts those women who have full time jobs, not the ones that work part time, flex hours, and take the summer off. If one were to factor in those mothers, I'm sure the number of hours worked would be much, much less. I think one of the most galling things mentioned in the article was in some of the solutions listed. Most all of the solutions were tax incented or government mandated or administered programs which take more money out of mens' paychecks to give to women who want to do it all, but do none of it very well. Be a mother and wife or be a worker- pick one please. The men out there are tired of busting our behinds so women can do things they consider hobbies-- like work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:12 PM February 17th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah,
I thought I wrote 41. Noticed after my click I didn't.
In my defense, I did say "around". :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 08:00 AM February 18th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
This would have been a great article if it had mentioned fathers a bit more often than once-every-two-pages parenthetical asides. The author would be much more convincing, especiallt to male readers, if she paid attention to the fact that however difficult the "choices" of these mothers may be, their husbands don't even *have* such choices. For the father, "life = work" and staying home to be a full-time parent isn't an option.
Also, the following excerpt could have been cut out:
"I heard of whole towns turning out for a spot in the right ballet class; of communities where the competition for the best camps, the best coaches and the best piano teachers rivaled that for admission to the best private schools and colleges. Women told me of their exhaustion and depression, and of their frustrations with the "uselessness" of their husbands. "
I'd be pretty "useless" too if I were expected to devote what little energy I had to getting my kid into the most popular activities instead of just raising a happy, well-adjusted human being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 01:35 PM February 18th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
one thing that demonic patriarchy had going for it was that it KNEW how hard and involved it was to raise children...
the division of labor across individual lines (man or woman) was a better one than division of labor across labor lines (means everyone will have to be as good as everyone else, and no job will be completed by a single person)
the one thing that the matriarchy has against it is the belief that you can have it all, and do it all...
the tyranny of the patriarchy was the practical recognition that some of the most important things in life are so hard that you cant just add them to you calander and squeeze them in. it wasnt that the patriarchy was saying stay home have babies.
it was that life was saying make a choice and be happy with it or suffer the mediocre result....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 03:20 AM February 19th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
One thing that applies here is the theory of competitive advantage, in economics. (Was it David Ricardo who defined this? Can't remember.)
The basic point of this law is that economic entities, including people, are most efficient when they work only at what they're best at, letting other people produce the products (or handle the jobs) that they are most efficient at. In the traditional family, if a father was a better provider and a mother was a better nurturer, then they each focused on their specialty, despite the mother undoubtedly being able to provide financially, and the father's ability to raise kids.
Perhaps the problem now is that these mothers consider themselves to be superior to their husbands in all areas of human endeavor, and consequently feel that they have to take on all the tasks of life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:39 AM February 19th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
well, If there's anyone out there that still doesn't believe that women in the western world have been grossly OVER COMPENSATED, I invite you to re-think your position.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Tumescent writes "The latest Newsweek cover is