"This viral comic about working motherhood is so true"

[Jolly_Penguin]

People are going to choose to have children. That is the reality. And those choices are not always based on rational decision-making

So what? It's still a choice they made. If they now regret it, ok. But their choice still has consequences. Same with pretty much any other choice you freely make. You want to have kids? You'll need to find a way to raise them. Nannies, house husband's, not having them in the first place, abortion, adoption are all options.

Don't have kids if you aren't prepared to care for them or to arrange for their care. Kids are a life long obligation. Treat it as such before having a kid. Not thinking it through isn't an excuse for you to resent the needs of a child you brought into world.

I don’t remember you having the same attitudes about men who become parents.

You didn't ask. I have exactly the same attitudes about men who become parents. Nobody should bring kids into this world if they are not prepared to raise them or see to them being raised.

 

[J842P]

There are hurdles created by social conventions.

Actual laws against them perhaps?

Prostitutes choose their profession and they know it is illegal. They choose to remain where it is illegal instead of moving to where it is legal. The principle of choice is the same in both instances. Yet your progressive liberal response is radically different. With child-bearing women who work, it is to hold them responsible for their choices instead of advocating or even understanding the restrictions on their choices. With prostitutes who ply their trade where prostitution is illegal, your response is to work to get rid of the restrictions instead of holding them responsible for their choices.

I certainly can understand why you would not willing to face your glaring double standard.

It isn't. The restrictions are legal restrictions, which have legal remedies.

In the case of working mothers, there are no legal restrictions preventing them from choosing to marry house husbands. Or choosing to delay or avoid having children altogether. I suspect if there were, Jolly would support removing those restrictions.

 

[J842P]

I said not have kids or be the ones raising them. These men who are not raising kids may be either. Other men actually do take on the duties of raising kids.

Right. Because it’s women’s choice when men generally don’t do their fair share. And the existence of some men who do is relevant because.........it’s most women’s fault for having kids with men who as it turns out aren’t willing to be one of those?

Oh you genuine gender egalitarian you.

Of course it was their choice. They married the guys, or chose to have children with them.

In most cases, women are attracted to the sort of guy who would do this in the first place, the guy with a big career focus. Indeed, being not very focused on your career and willing to do something like being a stay-at-home father is the sort of thing that will make it difficult for a guy to find a wife.

Women want to have their cake and eat it too. There are plenty of guys who would be willing to be house-husbands. Marry those guys.

In my own family, both my older brothers turned out to carry the burden of child-rearing, for different reasons. But it happens. And those guys exist.

 

[J842P]

So have many. Contraception is also a thing, as abortion and adoption. Come join the modern west where women have all these choices.

So your solution for the artist, for instance, is for the entire female population of Peru to pick up and move to a somewhat fictionalized version of Canada? Rather than, through art, trying to influence the problem she sees in her society?

His solution is ‘women should stop complaining because it’s their own fault’.

It’s times like this that we can see that Jolly’s underlying objections don’t inherently or actually in the final analysis only have to do with, for example, Chanty Binx’s abrasive approach, but extend to ‘women just speaking up’.

What a load of nonsense.

 

[laughing dog]

There are hurdles created by social conventions.

Actual laws against them perhaps?

Prostitutes choose their profession and they know it is illegal. They choose to remain where it is illegal instead of moving to where it is legal. The principle of choice is the same in both instances. Yet your progressive liberal response is radically different. With child-bearing women who work, it is to hold them responsible for their choices instead of advocating or even understanding the restrictions on their choices. With prostitutes who ply their trade where prostitution is illegal, your response is to work to get rid of the restrictions instead of holding them responsible for their choices.

I certainly can understand why you would not willing to face your glaring double standard.

It isn't....

Wrong. You miss the point - in both cases these women make choices based on their lifes and community. Being a prostitute is not like sneezing - people have choices either to forego prostitution where it is illegal and do something else or to move where prostitution is legal. So, if they choose to practice prostitution where it is illegal, they have no valid complaints about their situation, since they made a choice and it doesn't matter why they made that choice (JP's standards). In principle that is no different than telling women that since they choose to have children, they have no complaints.


Unlike JP, I do not subscribe to the view that because they made a choice, there is no reason for them to point out the obstacles or hurdles they face or that they may be the victims of unfair expectations. I find the "they made a choice" response to be based on a the vacuum approach (i.e. context free) to social issues. At best, it is a flippant, non-reflective response.

 

[Toni]

I don’t remember you having the same attitudes about men who become parents.

You didn't ask. I have exactly the same attitudes about men who become parents. Nobody should bring kids into this world if they are not prepared to raise them or see to them being raised.

You've mentioned before and have shown little sympathy towards women who raise children and seem just fine with men leaving all that business to women.

I also think that nobody should raise children unless they want to raise children and are prepared to make the commitment of time and other resources and sacrifices to raise them.

But society makes it much harder than it needs to for parents--and at the same time, society benefits from having healthy, happy well raised children who grow up to be healthy, happy and productive adults. No matter what anybody thinks, we don't raise our children in isolation or alone.

My opinion is that our society is at its best when it does the best job possible at providing for the most vulnerable: children and elderly, the sick, the injured, the poor. When they are well provided for, so are the rest of society.

 

[Toni]

I said not have kids or be the ones raising them. These men who are not raising kids may be either. Other men actually do take on the duties of raising kids.

Right. Because it’s women’s choice when men generally don’t do their fair share. And the existence of some men who do is relevant because.........it’s most women’s fault for having kids with men who as it turns out aren’t willing to be one of those?

Oh you genuine gender egalitarian you.

Of course it was their choice. They married the guys, or chose to have children with them.

In most cases, women are attracted to the sort of guy who would do this in the first place, the guy with a big career focus. Indeed, being not very focused on your career and willing to do something like being a stay-at-home father is the sort of thing that will make it difficult for a guy to find a wife.

True story and one I've told before. When we were first parents, I worked full time and my husband was a grad student and spent a couple of days a week at home with our son, who was in day care part time. We didn't have much money and frankly we looked pretty scruffy, especially my husband who didn't care much about how nicely he was dressed or when his last haircut had been.

We usually went grocery shopping, we often did it together, all 3 of us. Hubby usually pushed the cart with baby sitting in it, and made a great adventure and game out of counting out how many oranges we would get or finding the right cereal box, etc. Often, to be more efficient, I walked down another aisle to find something--and when I would come back, it was not at all uncommon to see women practically drooling over my scruffy (but extremely handsome under the scruff) husband as he cheerfully talked with, played with, amused our child as they picked out needed supplies for the week.

Yeah, women find men who like children and are good with them to be extremely attractive. My sisters have always been envious of the fact that my husband is excellent with small children and is also a good cook.

Women want to have their cake and eat it too.

T

You mean women want to have a career and a family. Like men do.

There are plenty of guys who would be willing to be house-husbands. Marry those guys.

There aren't really so many of them. Besides, why should either parent have to choose between having children and having a career? Why can't both parents be equally involved in caring for children and home? That's actually the model I see among young families these days. Your attitude seems old-fashioned to the point of being backward.

 

[Metaphor]

Right. Because it’s women’s choice when men generally don’t do their fair share. And the existence of some men who do is relevant because.........it’s most women’s fault for having kids with men who as it turns out aren’t willing to be one of those?

Yes, it is women's choice what men they select to have offspring with. (I'm also unsure what you think a 'fair share' is, but that's a different story).

"As it turns out"? You realise you should probably get to know people before you have kids with them, right? If you want to marry somebody and you have particular attitudes about what percentage of domestic duties you want them to do, you should probably find out.

 

[Metaphor]

There aren't really so many of them. Besides, why should either parent have to choose between having children and having a career? Why can't both parents be equally involved in caring for children and home?

Because it's none of your business how other couples organise their affairs?

 

[Toni]

There aren't really so many of them. Besides, why should either parent have to choose between having children and having a career? Why can't both parents be equally involved in caring for children and home?

Because it's none of your business how other couples organise their affairs?

What part of the word ‘chose’ do you not understand?

If I were to assert that it is the man’s choice to engage in sex that might result in parenthood for him and that he had therefore made a choice to put caring for children ahead of his career, you’d have a meltdown. You’d get insrnsed if I suggested that men should leave the child rearing to womenfolk who are suited for it and work themselves into early graves to provide for their families.

I think that societal expectations are too rigid for men and for women and that children do best when both parents are invited over and not too exhausted or distracted by work to properly care for them.

Currently, the ‘choice’that society supports is that women take on the brunt of the household and child rearing chores while maintaining a career that can support the family if dad takes off but is not so demanding or structured that they can’t take time off when kids (or grandma or grandpa or dad) need them to—and men get bumps in their careers because they need it because they have a wife and children.

It really doesn’t serve the best interests of anybody.

 

[laughing dog]

Right. Because it’s women’s choice when men generally don’t do their fair share. And the existence of some men who do is relevant because.........it’s most women’s fault for having kids with men who as it turns out aren’t willing to be one of those?

Yes, it is women's choice what men they select to have offspring with. (I'm also unsure what you think a 'fair share' is, but that's a different story).

"As it turns out"? You realise you should probably get to know people before you have kids with them, right? If you want to marry somebody and you have particular attitudes about what percentage of domestic duties you want them to do, you should probably find out.

Yes, because as we all
everyone can accurately assess and predict
1) the circumstances they will be in when children are born,
2) how life will be organized once children are born, and
3) what percentage of domestic duties they are willing to do in the future when there are children.

 

[Metaphor]

What part of the word ‘chose’ do you not understand?

Why are you being deliberately dishonest? In your second sentence, you lay on the table exactly how you want people to choose:

Why can't both parents be equally involved in caring for children and home?

Both parents can be equally involved, if they want to be. Or one parent can be the primary carer. Or one parent can do absolutely everything at work and at home and the other one can be absolutely useless. Couples make these choices (or live with them).

If I were to assert that it is the man’s choice to engage in sex that might result in parenthood for him and that he had therefore made a choice to put caring for children ahead of his career, you’d have a meltdown. You’d get insrnsed if I suggested that men should leave the child rearing to womenfolk who are suited for it and work themselves into early graves to provide for their families.

That's right. Couples should decide for themselves how they're going to distribute the total paid and unpaid work burden. Some will choose a 50/50 paid/unpaid split. Many will not. You should accept the choices these people make.

I think that societal expectations are too rigid for men and for women and that children do best when both parents are invited over and not too exhausted or distracted by work to properly care for them.

Currently, the ‘choice’that society supports is that women take on the brunt of the household and child rearing chores while maintaining a career that can support the family if dad takes off but is not so demanding or structured that they can’t take time off when kids (or grandma or grandpa or dad) need them to—and men get bumps in their careers because they need it because they have a wife and children.

It really doesn’t serve the best interests of anybody.

Individual households make choices. You are best placed to make your own choices, but you certainly are not best placed to make those choices for others.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, because as we all
everyone can accurately assess and predict
1) the circumstances they will be in when children are born,
2) how life will be organized once children are born, and
3) what percentage of domestic duties they are willing to do in the future when there are children.

I'm not the one with the assumption that all adults in a household should equally share the paid work and equally share the unpaid work.

You and Toni think that's the way to make people happy. I think that's a ridiculous stricture and you should let people decide for themselves what they're going to do.

 

[Toni]

Why are you being deliberately dishonest? In your second sentence, you lay on the table exactly how you want people to choose:



Both parents can be equally involved, if they want to be. Or one parent can be the primary carer. Or one parent can do absolutely everything at work and at home and the other one can be absolutely useless. Couples make these choices (or live with them).

If I were to assert that it is the man’s choice to engage in sex that might result in parenthood for him and that he had therefore made a choice to put caring for children ahead of his career, you’d have a meltdown. You’d get insrnsed if I suggested that men should leave the child rearing to womenfolk who are suited for it and work themselves into early graves to provide for their families.

That's right. Couples should decide for themselves how they're going to distribute the total paid and unpaid work burden. Some will choose a 50/50 paid/unpaid split. Many will not. You should accept the choices these people make.

I think that societal expectations are too rigid for men and for women and that children do best when both parents are invited over and not too exhausted or distracted by work to properly care for them.

Currently, the ‘choice’that society supports is that women take on the brunt of the household and child rearing chores while maintaining a career that can support the family if dad takes off but is not so demanding or structured that they can’t take time off when kids (or grandma or grandpa or dad) need them to—and men get bumps in their careers because they need it because they have a wife and children.

It really doesn’t serve the best interests of anybody.

Individual households make choices. You are best placed to make your own choices, but you certainly are not best placed to make those choices for others.

Rigidity of societal expectations and structures which prioritizes male careers over female careers and prioritizes women doing most of the childrearing and household chores is not the same thing as providing a free choice. Which is what I'm advocating: a less rigid society which prioritizes family life, including supporting children and older and disabled or ill persons over rigid workplace structures.

I'm not the person being dishonest here.

 

[Toni]

Yes, because as we all
everyone can accurately assess and predict
1) the circumstances they will be in when children are born,
2) how life will be organized once children are born, and
3) what percentage of domestic duties they are willing to do in the future when there are children.

I'm not the one with the assumption that all adults in a household should equally share the paid work and equally share the unpaid work.

You and Toni think that's the way to make people happy. I think that's a ridiculous stricture and you should let people decide for themselves what they're going to do.

I think that people should be free to make the choices they wish to make and that society should be structured to allow for equal parenting. Or do you not think that children benefit as much from playing with dad as they do with mom? Or that they do not benefit from having dad make dinner and change diapers and do the washing up and grocery shopping as much as they do if it's mom who shoulders that entire burden?

I'm for greater choice and a society that supports it. Just as I'm for a society that supports gay rights and marriage equality and adoption rights and so on. Although I don't think that being gay is a choice, it is a choice whether to form a committed relationship with someone else and to have a family and so on. Society should support those choices and not relegate them to only cis-straight couples.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, because as we all
everyone can accurately assess and predict
1) the circumstances they will be in when children are born,
2) how life will be organized once children are born, and
3) what percentage of domestic duties they are willing to do in the future when there are children.

I'm not the one with the assumption that all adults in a household should equally share the paid work and equally share the unpaid work.

You're the one who wrote "If you want to marry somebody and you have particular attitudes about what percentage of domestic duties you want them to do, you should probably find out." Glad to see you recognize how ridiculous that was.

You and Toni think that's the way to make people happy. I think that's a ridiculous stricture and you should let people decide for themselves what they're going to do.

I never wrote anything about how people ought to structure domestic duties. Your confidence in divining what I think is not warranted at all.

As for accepting what people "choose" for their household arrangements, that paradigm assumes all choices are freely taken with any restrictions apply equally to all involved. If that is not the case, then it is neither unreasonable nor unwise to either examine whether the restrictions are useful or fair or malleable or whether some offsetting changes elsewhere might be better.

The OP is about the obstacles that women face in juggling careers and households. It quickly got derailed by the brainless "the women chose it, so they can live with the consequences" trope. The fact that women accept these inequalities for the sake of their household does not mean it is fair or that there is not scope for change on the part of men.

Now, I realize that change is a dirty word for some around here. And I realize that change that might improve the general lot of women is an anathema to some around here.

But that does not mean it is not a topic for rational discussion that goes beyond reflexive tropes.

 

[Toni]

There aren't really so many of them. Besides, why should either parent have to choose between having children and having a career? Why can't both parents be equally involved in caring for children and home?

Because it's none of your business how other couples organise their affairs?

Is it the business of employers? The government? Society? Saying someone has a free choice is only meaningful if a range of choices are available and supported. Choosing to have a child should not mean working yourself to death for either parent. It’s bad for the kids. It’s bad for the parents. It’s bad for society.

 

[Metaphor]

You're the one who wrote "If you want to marry somebody and you have particular attitudes about what percentage of domestic duties you want them to do, you should probably find out." Glad to see you recognize how ridiculous that was.

You should find out. If a certain arrangement of paid and unpaid work is a dealbreaker for you, you should absolutely find out.

As for accepting what people "choose" for their household arrangements, that paradigm assumes all choices are freely taken

No, it doesn't.

with any restrictions apply equally to all involved. If that is not the case, then it is neither unreasonable nor unwise to either examine whether the restrictions are useful or fair or malleable or whether some offsetting changes elsewhere might be better.

What restrictions are there on men that are not on women and vice versa?

The OP is about the obstacles that women face in juggling careers and households. It quickly got derailed by the brainless "the women chose it, so they can live with the consequences" trope. The fact that women accept these inequalities for the sake of their household does not mean it is fair or that there is not scope for change on the part of men.

Now, I realize that change is a dirty word for some around here. And I realize that change that might improve the general lot of women is an anathema to some around here.

But that does not mean it is not a topic for rational discussion that goes beyond reflexive tropes.

My workplace has a policy that all jobs will be 'flexible by default' - that is, that the days and hours are up for negotiation for the successful candidate.

They want women with children to be able to hold down more senior positions without the traditional commitment that senior positions generally requires. They also encourage men - especially senior men - to make their job flexible.

When you can't get the result you want by making women more like men, try and make men more like women, the reasoning seems to go. And it's not enough that they offer the option: they have targets for them, too.

I like the idea of being offered flexible work. But I think it's madness to lose sleep over the fact that women take it up more than men. I believe men and women have minds of their own.

 

[Metaphor]

Is it the business of employers? The government? Society? Saying someone has a free choice is only meaningful if a range of choices are available and supported. Choosing to have a child should not mean working yourself to death for either parent. It’s bad for the kids. It’s bad for the parents. It’s bad for society.

What choices do men have that women do not?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

On average women are more responsible. That's the real story, not this disingenuous apologetics for having or not having children. It just so happens that fathers will out-slow mothers on average. And so mothers end up doing the housework more often while fathers do it less often. Now, of course you can call it a choice, but it's rather absurd not to recognize that someone HAS to do it in order to enrich the children's lives and even not neglect them. Talk about average differences if you want but at least recognize facts.

Studies consistently show that women are more concerned for others' needs and more socially responsible. This is a thing both in the home AND at work. So, if one measures success according to get-ahead greed schemes, men may outperform women, but if one looks at success in terms of long-term success and positive impact to others, women are winning. This may not correlate to rank in a corporate hierarchy, but it ought to.