Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 47 of 47

Thread: Women are happier without a spouse or children

  1. #26
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,202
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,202, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    The gender gap in longevity disappears in a study of monks and nuns:

    https://www.allianz.com/en/press/new...013-09-11.html

    This is based on a German study (small decline in life expectancy for monks in the 1970s coincides with permitting monks to smoke cigarettes):



    If monks live much longer than married men, while nuns do not live much longer than married women, then something has to be wrong with an article which claims that marriage benefits men's health more.
    You'd have to look at the study methodology. Where does it say that all the men and women not in religious orders were married? They may be looking at something completely different, like is the monastic life healthier.

    Men who aren't monks, for example, would be much more likely not to die of work accidents, homicide, and suicide, all three of which kill men more than women.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  2. #27
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registeredThree Friends5000 Experience Points
    Stuvanè's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-09-16
    Posts
    172
    Points
    6,495
    Level
    23
    Points: 6,495, Level: 23
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 55
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1e

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    For what is my personal experience - living and working in Milan, which in the Italian scenario has its own social and work specificity, and where I believe that singles now outnumber family groups or are very close in number - I think I can say that in the past the life of a couple, especially if publicly regularized with a religious or civil marriage, was a sort of social safety net, especially for women. Religious considerations aside (which in the past certainly had a greater weight), in the centuries and until a few decades ago the woman was a subject very weak from a contractual point of view, so her "survival" depended in large part on the economic availability of the partner and the possibility of entering a higher social sphere than the one of origin.


    Now these differences have settled. Even in a traditional reality like the Italian one - and in particular in medium-large cities - the woman who works is frequently autonomous professionally and economically, she does not need to depend on the finances of others (and on the other hand the same men for the most part do not have more than a "commodity" as attractive as it used to be, making it quite interesting to a woman).


    What are the results? On the one hand, autonomous women are able to manage their time even better, devoting themselves to training for professional advancements, but also for passions and interests that can sometimes be valid replacements for family or maternal joys (all within a framework of more or less deliberate de-responsibility, almost as if you were living a prolonged adolescence, also thanks to the new medical technologies that allow a woman to have children - or imagine having them - almost at the start of menopause).


    On the contrary, the few who decide to marry and have an offspring can do it with two very different basic purposes:


    1) to marry and become a mother with good reason, convinced, with a great sense of responsibility and greater awareness (often when one is a bit over the years), not marrying the first man that happens but usually a person of whom one is they trust a lot, in a frame of very mature emotional dimension
    2) to marry and be mothers exactly as one can satisfy a hobby / pastime. It is not the absolute priority of their life, but something to experience during life.
    It is obvious that the game must be worth the candle: in this second sub-group there are also the brides who consider it a hobby, but one of the most expensive ones, which well marks a specific status symbol. Therefore the husband / partner must be economically and socially up to the situation. Paradoxically, one returns to marriage as a social lift, but of great luxury, and few can afford it.

  3. #28
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points
    ArdianTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-10-18
    Location
    CH
    Posts
    10
    Points
    680
    Level
    6
    Points: 680, Level: 6
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 70
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J-L283
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    And there are studies saying that women (in general) are less content with their lifes since they've been given the possibilty to pursue a career, especially if that career has made it impossible for them to have and raise children. From an evolutionairy standpoint - and considering that mankind is probably the most successful species on Earth - it would also make no sense to punish women for ensuring the survival of humans.

  4. #29
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,202
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,202, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    It's undeniable that in developed countries in our modern world the most educated women have the fewest children. I don't think evolutionary biologists believe that's a good idea.

  5. #30
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,765
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,765, Level: 63
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 63.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    evolutionary biology is based on the principle of the survival of the fittest
    since the end of WW II - or maybe earlier - that principle doesn't work for humans any more
    testosteron in male biology is an adaptation to the the principle of the survival of the fittest itself

    should we ban testosteron or should we re-install some kind of competition?
    if you ban the testosteron we end up with a bunch of sexless males
    if you exclude competition and rewards, you end up with males who don't know how to handle their testosteron

    this is why it is harder for males to adapt to modern society than for females

  6. #31
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,202
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,202, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ArdianTH View Post
    And there are studies saying that women (in general) are less content with their lifes since they've been given the possibilty to pursue a career, especially if that career has made it impossible for them to have and raise children. From an evolutionairy standpoint - and considering that mankind is probably the most successful species on Earth - it would also make no sense to punish women for ensuring the survival of humans.
    I also don't think it makes sense to punish high IQ women by making it impossible for them to use their intellects. Don't misunderstand me: raising children is the hardest and most demanding job I've ever had. However, it didn't satisfy all of my "intellectual" needs. Plus, is society to lose all the advancements that women doctors and scientists, as just one example, have given the world?

    Perhaps the solution is to make it easier for women to do both, and men as well if they so choose.

    Flex hours, no penalty in terms of promotion for working part time for a few years etc.

    The reality is that if a woman is working a dead end, repetitive job because the family needs the money, she more than likely would prefer to stay home and be a full time mother instead. If a woman is a high achiever, she and her husband together probably make enough money to hire help.

    Is that ideal? Imho, no, I don't think so, not until they go to school. Ideally, one or the other parent should be with them until then. Once they're in school, that frees up a lot of time. Hiring some help for after school driving to activities, starting them on their homework until one of the parents gets home usually works. I did it, so I know. Of course, as attitudes in the workplace are now, one of you has to take the hit in terms of promotion by being home by 5 or 6. That was also me. That's what I mean by saying that the workplace rules and attitudes have to change. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

  7. #32
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,254
    Points
    41,765
    Level
    63
    Points: 41,765, Level: 63
    Level completed: 9%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 63.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    raising children should be the responsbility of both parents
    but men will always be more inclined to put the job first, and women vice versa

    in Belgium the politicians have already spent all the money in the pension funds
    so the working generation is paying for the people in retirement in the present
    many countries are in the same situation (the politicians should have been jailed for setting up a Ponzi-scheme)

    raising children is an investment
    my proposal is to abolish legal pensions, and let the children pay for their retired parents
    those who didn't raise children didn't make that investment, they should have saved for their retirement
    I believe that would be the right way to stimulate having children
    in a way, it is going back to the old traditional way

  8. #33
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    391
    Points
    11,134
    Level
    31
    Points: 11,134, Level: 31
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 116
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    Quote Originally Posted by Tutkun Arnaut View Post
    Women health gets better after deliveries, and women who have kids live longer.
    Lol, you probably agree with Charles Darwin who though that it is not healthy for his wife (and other women) not to be pregnant a year after year, and that she may fall ill if not being pregnant for a longer period of time ...

    This is what Charles Darwin though about marriage (he was putting pros and cons if to get married or not):

    Marry
    Children—(if it Please God) [14] — Constant companion, (& friend in old age) who will feel interested in one,— object to be beloved & played with.— —better than a dog anyhow.— [15] Home, & someone to take care of house— Charms of music & female chit-chat.— These things good for one’s health.— [16] but terrible loss of time. —
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/tags...arwin-marriage

  9. #34
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,202
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,202, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    What a completely self-centered, obnoxious jerk.

    See, you can be a brilliant scientist and an *** **** at the same time.

    Btw, it gets worse. He entered into an incestuous marriage and then, knowing there might be risks, used his children as test subjects, keeping detailed diaries to see what problems might show up.

    Originally Posted by Tutkun Arnaut
    Women health gets better after deliveries, and women who have kids live longer.

    Who the heck told you that nonsense? The more pregnancies, the more chances you'd die during one of them: puerperal fever, hemorrhages, strokes, and on and on. Even before the birth, women get things like diabetes, and terrible varicose veins, high blood pressure, preeclampsia etc. That's today. Now just imagine what it used to be like. That's why if you visit the older part of cemeteries, you see one man and two or three wives.

    Also, your health gets progressively worse if your body doesn't get to recover in between. The baby takes all the nutrients first, and working class and poorer rural women didn't get enough food as it was. So, it was common for women to lose teeth because the baby leached the calcium from their bones. Do you have any idea of the metabolic stress the female body goes through to bring that child to life?

    "


    • It’s hard on your body. Having another child so soon after the first means your body doesn’t necessarily have sufficient time to fully recover. Your iron and calcium levels may be depleted, and you may suffer from prenatal anemia or just feel tired and run down. Some research has shown that getting pregnant again within a year of giving birth puts you at higher risk of giving birth prematurely, and within two years could be tied to an increased risk of your second child developing autism. Plus you may be more likely to develop the baby blues after having a second child so quickly in succession to the first. If your first was born by C-section less than 18 months before your second arrives, it may be difficult (or dangerous) for you to deliver vaginally. All of which is why experts recommend waiting at least 18 months between pregnancies."

    "

    • When it comes to how prepared your body is for the next baby, a 2-year gap is healthier for you than waiting less time: Your body has had enough time to bounce back from the last pregnancy.
    • It reduces risk of pregnancy complications. Experts recommend waiting at least 18 months between pregnancies because it reduces the risk of your youngest child being preterm or low birthweight (especially if you’re over 35)."

    "

    • According to some research, you may have the lowest risk of labor complications when you have your second baby around three years after your first.
    • Pregnancy may carry less risk for you and your baby. Again, this time frame seems to be easier on your body versus having a baby earlier (when you haven’t had as much time to recover) or later (when you’re older and potentially may face age-related risks)."

    They don't even get into the idiocy of doing this eleven times like my poor grandmother. My nonna and my mother were agreed when it came to the church and birth control: If the Pope wants all these children being born, let him grow them, carry them, give birth to them, and then feed, clothe and house them until they're adults.

    That goes for any men out there too.

    Why don't you stick to commenting on things about which you have some accurate information, if there are any.

  10. #35
    Junior Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    28-08-18
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    3
    Points
    669
    Level
    6
    Points: 669, Level: 6
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 81
    Overall activity: 3.0%


    Ethnic group
    European
    Country: Algeria



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    today we live in an artificial world, we've turned far away from the rythm of nature
    the framework has gone, but hormones are still at play
    it's hard to find new ways in harmony
    We may have turned away from nature, but nature hasn’t turned away from us.

    In reality there is no separation between humans and nature, it’s an illusion (and perhaps a delusion) that is, for the time being, easy to maintain it you’re a city dweller who gets water from a tap, food from a grocery store and clothing from a retail shop or the internet. All these things, and many more, conveniently, almost magically, appear. You never have to think about the mechanics and logistics involved in getting water and electricity to your home and food stuffs to the supermarket and where these things originate. You don’t have to think about what the “stuff” the stuff you own is made from (e.g. all the parts and components of your smart phone) and the processes that are involved in manufacturing them.

    The fact is, almost all the the tangible things we use are manufactured from or contain materials (e.g. plastic) that are made from non-renewable resources that have been extracted from the earth. The most common one being oil. We have been using up resources much much faster than the earth replenishes them. This obviously can’t go on indefinitely.

    Then there are essentials for life, like drinking water and, if you live in a cold climate, heat in the winter. Do you know where your city or region gets its drinking water from and how it is delivered to your tap? If, for whatever reason, turning the tap no longer produces potable water and the supply chain bringing bottled water to store shelves is interrupted where would you get drinking water from? Some dry regions of the earth, like the desert states of the south western USA, are pumping up groundwater at a much faster rate than the natural replenishing cycle replaces it. In the SW United States not only is groundwater scarce but rivers that have been dammed and diverted to get water to cities and agricultural land are drying up because of drought conditions and shrinking glaciers and winter snowpacks. In 50 years large swathes of the region could be uninhabitable.

    Last but not least, there is global warming due to climate change. It is already having a major impact and the effects will only get more intense as it continues. Nobody on earth will be able to ignore it. We are as reliant on “nature” as ever because that is all there is. Take away the easily extractible resources, interrupt supply lines, deplete water sources etc. and you will quickly find out just how dependent on the earth you are. Anyone who has ever gotten lost in the woods with no food or water knows this too.

    Only fools take the earth for granted and lay waste to it in order to pull up, chop down and extract resources at an ever faster pace while spewing climate altering gasses into the atmosphere without any foresight whatsoever. Those fools are us humans and we will not be able to escape the grim reckoning we face by sticking our heads in the sand and hoping everything will just magically work out.

  11. #36
    Junior Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    28-08-18
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    3
    Points
    669
    Level
    6
    Points: 669, Level: 6
    Level completed: 60%, Points required for next Level: 81
    Overall activity: 3.0%


    Ethnic group
    European
    Country: Algeria



    Apologies for the lengthy OT post. Wasn’t my intention to hijack the thread.

  12. #37
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,202
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,202, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Two critics of the science of the original study:
    https://quillette.com/2019/06/10/hap...c-malpractice/

    I don't think the fact that one category, i.e. absent, was misinterpreted, necessarily invalidates all the findings of the study; however, the differences don't seem very significant.

  13. #38
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    25-06-18
    Posts
    252
    Points
    3,734
    Level
    17
    Points: 3,734, Level: 17
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 116
    Overall activity: 12.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-M269 (LDNA)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a1b

    Ethnic group
    Thracian
    Country: Greece



    I totally agree with the fact that women are probably happier being single. Marriage, puts a lot of pressure on women, not only to be sexy but to be a provider but also a mother, a cook, a cleaning lady. Unless the male helps in a substantial way, I don't blame a married woman with kids for being unhappy.

  14. #39
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,498
    Points
    58,280
    Level
    74
    Points: 58,280, Level: 74
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 270
    Overall activity: 75.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by Dagne View Post
    Lol, you probably agree with Charles Darwin who though that it is not healthy for his wife (and other women) not to be pregnant a year after year, and that she may fall ill if not being pregnant for a longer period of time ...
    Well he did not predict ectogenesis (which will detach pregnancy from women):

    https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/14/human...ecade-8156458/

    https://www.vice.com/amp/en_us/artic...re-ectogenesis



    With ectogenesis there will also be egg banks for gay couples and single men.

  15. #40
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    391
    Points
    11,134
    Level
    31
    Points: 11,134, Level: 31
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 116
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    eeea, this ectogenesis is not happening now. To think hypothetically, the idea of rejuvenation
    http://theconversation.com/ageing-in...the-lab-101214
    may bring humans even further away from the current human world - giving birth may not be such a critical necessity because people would stay young for ever (or more than 100 years) ...

    And Darwin was right that many things about women like hair and skin look much better when being pregnant (and that they get really crappy after giving birth)...
    Last edited by Dagne; 19-06-19 at 11:42.

  16. #41
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    391
    Points
    11,134
    Level
    31
    Points: 11,134, Level: 31
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 116
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    To return to our topic, I think being happy depends a lot more on person's genetic make up than to circumstances like if she's married/single/with children/no children. We all find our ways that make us happy, unless of course someone has serious depression issues.

    The only thing that I find really sad is that humanity will have less and less IQ because clever women are less reproductive. It is likely that men can inherit their IQ only from their mothers...

    "some studies suggest that intelligence is inherited from the mother. These findings were initially found in studies on mice, but confirmed when extrapolated to human brains. This was carried out by a study conducting a survey on >12,000 people. Paternal genes tend to accumulate in the limbic system, which is concerned with aggression, hunger, e.t.c. basic instincts. No paternal gene is found in the cerebral cortex, which is concerned with advanced functions like learning, reading, e.t.c.

    Intelligence genes are carried by the X chromosome, which are 2 with women. Even if it comes from the X chromosome of the father, it gets deactivated. "https://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/228963

    "15 IQ points decreases women's odds of parenthood by 21–25%. Because women have a greater impact on the average intelligence of future generations, the dysgenic fertility among women is predicted to lead to a decline in the average intelligence of the population in advanced industrial nations".https://reason.com/2014/07/31/smart-...t-have-babies/

    Clever men often do not mind marrying a woman who is pretty though not so intelligent, but it means that his genes for intelligence may be lost if he has only boys as offsprings. Still if woman's IQ is average but her father is of high IQ, she may have deactivated IQ genes for an offspring with high IQ. So men should really scrutinise wife's family for IQ because his IQ genes may be passed only to girls and they will be deactivated until the next generation.
    On the other hand, some men may feel somewhat intimidated if their woman is much smarter than himself, so smart women may not be seen as perfect marriage material by average men.

    Besides, smart women themselves may tend to skip marriage and children if they cannot find a smart man for herself. I don't think that they always dislike the idea of children and family, only that smart women want a man who is even smarter than herself, someone to look up and to be worth of sacrificing or compromising her professional ambitions or whatever else she wanted to do in her life. Still, family is a structure which supports men's goals in live. A woman may also take some career, but her goals are somewhat secondary. In many cases this is how the woman feels, too, because fighting for contracts or doing big business requires a lot of male aggressiveness not so much IQ and it would not make women happy to adapt to male world too much, where roles in family were reversed with husband staying home to take care of children and her fighting for money/status, etc.


    Technically the humanity would be better off under matriarchal system where clever women had many offsprings with whatever - either smart or handsome or men with strong instincts, instead of the opposite where the classical ideal is "clever man + pretty woman" (or man with status has a harem of beauties)
    Female genes are more important in carrying intelligence while in case of other features like height - male genes behave more "aggressively" and some of female genes get deactivated (conditioned) so that children will get to inherit more of their father's features, especially girls, apart from IQ, as far as it is understood now.
    Pity I don't remember where I read a study about it.
    Last edited by Dagne; 19-06-19 at 16:59.

  17. #42
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points
    ArdianTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-10-18
    Location
    CH
    Posts
    10
    Points
    680
    Level
    6
    Points: 680, Level: 6
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 70
    Overall activity: 4.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J-L283
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I also don't think it makes sense to punish high IQ women by making it impossible for them to use their intellects. Don't misunderstand me: raising children is the hardest and most demanding job I've ever had. However, it didn't satisfy all of my "intellectual" needs. Plus, is society to lose all the advancements that women doctors and scientists, as just one example, have given the world?
    I agree - forcing half of the population to sit around the stove would have a detrimental effect not only on science, but also on the economy and human development in general. However, Western societies have gone from encouraging women to aspire a career to shaming them for not doing so. A mother of three that invests all of her energy into keeping the household going and raising the kids is usually seen as inferior to a career driven woman; even if she chose to do so. And, in my opinion, that's the quintessence: Letting people chose, neither pressuring them into one nor the other direction. Equal opportunities should be provided (even through law, which is mostly the case in Western countries), however, trying to force an equal outcome by introducing quota systems (or similar) is the wrong way to go.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Perhaps the solution is to make it easier for women to do both, and men as well if they so choose.
    Flex hours, no penalty in terms of promotion for working part time for a few years etc.
    The problem is not really based on working part time but in the willingess to do overtime (and therefore the willingess to sacrifice part of your social life, your life beyond your job). High achieving men and women usually are workaholics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    The reality is that if a woman is working a dead end, repetitive job because the family needs the money, she more than likely would prefer to stay home and be a full time mother instead.
    And what should men working in a repetitive, dead end job do in the same situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    If a woman is a high achiever, she and her husband together probably make enough money to hire help.
    ... And that help would usually be just another not really well paid woman, right? :) Or maybe a day care center in which, again, mostly women are employed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Is that ideal? Imho, no, I don't think so, not until they go to school. Ideally, one or the other parent should be with them until then. Once they're in school, that frees up a lot of time. Hiring some help for after school driving to activities, starting them on their homework until one of the parents gets home usually works. I did it, so I know. Of course, as attitudes in the workplace are now, one of you has to take the hit in terms of promotion by being home by 5 or 6. That was also me. That's what I mean by saying that the workplace rules and attitudes have to change. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle.
    I think we're going in the right direction. Flex time is pretty widespread among private companies and the public sector now.

    I'm rather concerned about the fact that we are entering an era in which a lot of human work is being made redundant by machines, while approx. 15% of a general population have an IQ of under 85, which should make us think how we're going to provide work for these people - as of right now, these are the ones working on the dead end, repetitive jobs.

  18. #43
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,202
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,202, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by ArdianTH View Post
    I agree - forcing half of the population to sit around the stove would have a detrimental effect not only on science, but also on the economy and human development in general. However, Western societies have gone from encouraging women to aspire a career to shaming them for not doing so. A mother of three that invests all of her energy into keeping the household going and raising the kids is usually seen as inferior to a career driven woman; even if she chose to do so. And, in my opinion, that's the quintessence: Letting people chose, neither pressuring them into one nor the other direction. Equal opportunities should be provided (even through law, which is mostly the case in Western countries), however, trying to force an equal outcome by introducing quota systems (or similar) is the wrong way to go.

    The problem is not really based on working part time but in the willingess to do overtime (and therefore the willingess to sacrifice part of your social life, your life beyond your job). High achieving men and women usually are workaholics.

    And what should men working in a repetitive, dead end job do in the same situation?

    ... And that help would usually be just another not really well paid woman, right? :) Or maybe a day care center in which, again, mostly women are employed.

    I think we're going in the right direction. Flex time is pretty widespread among private companies and the public sector now.

    I'm rather concerned about the fact that we are entering an era in which a lot of human work is being made redundant by machines, while approx. 15% of a general population have an IQ of under 85, which should make us think how we're going to provide work for these people - as of right now, these are the ones working on the dead end, repetitive jobs.
    I agree with virtually everything you said.

    I would respond to this one statement, however:

    " Originally Posted by AngelaThe reality is that if a woman is working a dead end, repetitive job because the family needs the money, she more than likely would prefer to stay home and be a full time mother instead.



    And what should men working in a repetitive, dead end job do in the same situation?

    I wouldn't presume to tell them what to do. However, if you want my honest opinion, no study because I don't know of one, I think men would be more likely to want to work on that factory assembly line, if such a thing even exists anymore, than staying home, cleaning the house, organizing everything and everyone, doing the laundry, cooking, and mostly having to be "mommy" every waking moment of the day.

    I've also seen the emotional wrench which most women go through after returning to work from maternity leave. Maybe some exist somewhere, but I've never seen a man have that reaction going back to work after a week or so. We're more controlled by our genetics, by our hormones, than many people will admit.

    I was never a little girl who wanted to "play house" with baby dolls, and I wanted to be a nun until high school. Hormones won out, though, both with men and with babies. :) It's as if they're still attached to you by the birth cord. When they were first born I didn't want to let them out of my sight or my hands, had no desire for anyone to watch them for a "night out", nothing. For years after my two were born, the smell of a baby, holding one in my arms, would make me go all "broody". It's only stopped within the last couple of years when I'm holding a baby. I used to call it "baby fever". It was real. :)

    Raising them? That gets more and more challenging. I told you: it's the hardest job I ever had, and there were days when working at Walmart for a few hours would have been a welcome relief. :)
    Last edited by Angela; 19-06-19 at 23:25.

  19. #44
    Guest Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsThree FriendsVeteran
    ΠΑΝΑΞ's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-14
    Posts
    239
    Points
    4,908
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,908, Level: 20
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 142
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Greece



    .
    I find interesting and true all the opinions, from their perspective.

    I also consider that all those who probably wish to have children or a spouse, are not necessary to be good parents or partners.
    Well actually, maybe no one ever was... It is from those kind of few things that parents/partners someday will might say something like:
    <<- Hey, I could done it better...>>. A lot of parents will confirm me and a lot more to the "future".

    Anyway, It is not risky to say that from those who dont want, -and they dont have- in contrast to those who want - and they have- but are not able to, the
    first is almost "painless" for the social impact. Mind the toxic behaviour inside the family... -crimes in silence, I would say.
    I have no doubt, the issue is deep and we might have many and differents causes and all have a true share for that phaenomenα.

    Of course that those of "denial" kind aspects of life are not unprecenteted. At 11th cent. at the E.Roman empire the ascetic "trend" of that time, led a lot of
    the population to the monasteries and the institutionalize of a new of society inside the borders of the empire. Quite radical for the social consensus of that ages.

    Well, I dont remember to know, where the first female monasteries appear, but surely they was and they are a good "remembrance" of similar turbulant;
    times. I dont relate the past with today because are different causes behind, but a divergence up on the possible social norms is obvious.
    It's not the first time.

  20. #45
    Guest Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsThree FriendsVeteran
    ΠΑΝΑΞ's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-14
    Posts
    239
    Points
    4,908
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,908, Level: 20
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 142
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Greece



    Anyway, for me the undenial fact is that:
    The pregnant women smells beautifull and the babies even better... Serotonine charger.
    and
    All that might be discussed...
    << ...It was about last night. Today is an other day...
    -Darling..! >>


    (We are talking about women...)

  21. #46
    Guest Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsThree FriendsVeteran
    ΠΑΝΑΞ's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-14
    Posts
    239
    Points
    4,908
    Level
    20
    Points: 4,908, Level: 20
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 142
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Greece



    Of course the issue goes similar for both sexes. The modern people mature late, some never.
    We have taboo's about the issues of " getting mature" and "death". Terms that cannot describe qualities of completence, but instead they decoded as loss.
    How desperate and heartberaking is that Y.O.L.O sort of attitude, by the way.


    Unfortunatelly for the women, they keep on search for the prince on the white horse for a long time, but at mid fourties they realise that a loyal servant would
    be more... usefull. -lol

  22. #47
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    09-07-19
    Posts
    11
    Points
    92
    Level
    1
    Points: 92, Level: 1
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 58
    Overall activity: 12.0%


    Country: United States



    The true value of happiness is decided by a person herself. We cannot limit ourselves with simple and ordinary dreams.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •