They aren't? There goes my membership.
It's one of those weird things, it extends to male nannies too. Loads of people think that it's not "normal".
They aren't? There goes my membership.
It must be wonderful to be so certain that you are right on every facet of life socially that any other viewpoint is instantly ignorance worthy of nothing more than sarcasm.
I mean it in the literal, go out and put food on the table way.
It's one of those weird things, it extends to male nannies too. Loads of people think that it's not "normal".
I'm not. Far from it.
But when you are faced with the neanderthal bullshit about race and sex that has been spouted on the Caf this week it isn't hard to call it out.
Nuance isn't even a thing here.
The war itself was of course an exception. That apart I didn't say 100% of women with families in the 30s-50s gave up work , I said most did. I also said in the 80s 60% gave up work whilst having children, again not 100%.If your mum wasn't working during the war she was in the minority. A lot of women also kept working after the wars, regardless of their husbands coming back or not. The 80s had quite a large middle class, many of them working.
But essentially what you responded to was a chap saying that feminism is about women having the right to choose, whether a woman wants a career, a family or both. There is obviously more to it than that but there is no ignorance there and he was not assuming it was his place to give permission to anyone. I actually would be fairly confident in guessing I hold a lot of similar views to you but you don't half go about discussing them in a snippy way.
Wait til I'm pissed off. I leave snippy far behind.
One of my pet hates is people (white men) giving minorities permission to be equal. It might not be meant but it is hugely condescending and entitled.
Wait til I'm pissed off. I leave snippy far behind.
One of my pet hates is people (white men) giving minorities permission to be equal. It might not be meant but it is hugely condescending and entitled.
I don't want to get this wrong, how can one state an opinion on equal opportunity without appearing to be 'giving permission'?
dude it is all in your brain.
It is like me telling someone "you can go and have food if you are hungry", and you are responding me, "thank you very much giving him permission to eat, how nice of you".
I mean come on.
Having a bit of mare it seems....Love too reduce 3.5 bn people to a single average.
It really isn't. Not even slightly.
Poundland’s aggressive, hyper-sexualised elf ad campaign has ruined Christmas
https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...xualised-elf-ad-campaign-has-ruined-christmas
That's a pretty perfect description of traditional gender roles, btw. The man dishonorably fails to feed the family, so the woman has to take up un-womanlike occupations. These attitudes have decreased a lot since then of course, but one result is that many women are now facing the double-bind of having to work while still being considered the person primarily responsible for kids and household.Nonsense. My working-class father, having his children in the 1930-50s, said quite plainly he would have felt a failure if his wife had to work once they had children. Many had to of course, but a lot more didn't. For my generation, having children in the 80s, I once read 60% of mothers gave up work while the children were young, although the norm had changed in that most went back to work again afterwards. The out of touch jibe is somewhat ironic.
That's a pretty perfect description of traditional gender roles, btw. The man dishonorably fails to feed the family, so the woman has to take up un-womanlike occupations. These attitudes have decreased a lot since then of course, but one result is that many women are now facing the double-bind of having to work while still being considered the person primarily responsible for kids and household.
Yes indeed, that's the way it was for many. There were social pressures then as now, they were just different ones. As well as financial pressures of course.
I suppose more people have more choice nowadays, but it does seem that many see life as a frantic rush to acquire possessions, at the expense of time.
That's not true, men are expected to be great husbands and have a great career. And they are not considered full men when they are stay at home dads, they are certainly not part of the "brotherhood".
Yeah, often new pressures replace the old ones in the process. In the end, the ceiling of emancipation in capitalism is becoming an equal part of the workforce. Still something that absolutely has to be preferred over various kinds of discrimination, but in many ways nothing to rejoice over.Yes indeed, that's the way it was for many. There were social pressures then as now, they were just different ones. As well as financial pressures of course.
It's only really a choice from a certain income upwards imo, for many it is simply a necessity. When you include things like a sufficient pension, prosthodontics, etc. in the outlook, securing even the basics at an older age requires a significant lifetime income.I suppose more people have more choice nowadays, but it does seem that many see life as a frantic rush to acquire possessions, at the expense of time.
fecking hell teabagging
Poundland’s aggressive, hyper-sexualised elf ad campaign has ruined Christmas
https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...xualised-elf-ad-campaign-has-ruined-christmas
Financial pressures are a lot higher now. Nowadays it’s virtually impossible to own your home and raise a family on one income alone.
Outside London it's still possible on not much above the average wage, especially if one parent only takes a few years out. But during those years they won't have an iphone each, a car each, foreign holidays, meals out, the latest 4k telly or whatever.
If you're on less than average wage then it's a different matter, as I've referred to in earlier posts. And if you're on anywhere even close to average wage and in London then, why?
So essentially it’s only possible if you have above average wage and that’s if you live outside of London. And then you would have to do it for a few years before the kids costs get higher.
That still backs up @Silva point that only the rich can really afford for only one parent to work.
If you equate my 'not much above the average wage' as being your 'rich', then you're both right, yes.
And that’s only if you live outside of London and make cuts.
Agreed. Like I said 'still possible'.
Wibble, you are a very Judgemental person, always have been. No one is as good as you are they? Or as smart?It really isn't. Not even slightly.
Wibble, you are a very Judgemental person, always have been. No one is as good as you are they? Or as smart?
You are the total typical fudd everyone should laugh at. On the Internet of course...
Which is where you live......mongo..
Go and be nice.
Don't worry. Society has just worked better on the younger one. And hope isn't lost. The older girl still like female specific toys like my little pont. By the time she grows up I'm sure she will have complied to expectations a bit better.
I'm not even slightly wound up. People's ignorance simply amases me.
Oh dear. The lights may be on but .......
For sure. Although there is an unspoken pressure on women, specifically, to be a great parent and have a great career. Men can generally get away with one or the other. They’re not perceived as letting down the sisterhood if they choose to be a stay at home parent.
Yeah, I'd totally agree with that. But how do you fix it ? A lot of the pressures for both sexes stem from trying to keep up with the Jones's of this world, & managing the demands & expectations of our children in this commercial & capitalist world. If they don't get what they want for their birthday or Christmas, we feel like we've failed them. That's a heavy burden for men & women. But I certainly take your point that women in general have in tougher.