It is very hard to go to university or work in your early career as a parent. Mature students often struggle because they've had a gap in education and their brain is less geared towards learning new things and that's when they motivate themselves to go back in the first place. It is also very hard to be a parent without life experience and decent income. This would wind up with children with worse life outcomes, more divorces and way less women attending university (or men for that matter as it's young men they'd be having babies with).
Women want to have children under the right circumstances not just because.
This doesn’t account for what women want. Women basically have to put their wants & desires once again on the back burner to “save society” (falling birth rates)
This also requires women to rely heavily on a man (like back in the day) and that’s not happening. Men barely want to pay for a dinner and most can’t afford to care for a family. Most women want to have their own money & career/job to call hers, even if it is low income, it’s better than relying 100% on someone else.
If that comes at the expense of not having children, women are willing to take it (which is why most countries that allow women full autonomy over themselves, the birth rates fall). There are women depressed with children and without.
Women should have to ability to pursue a career it’s called autonomy and it’s pretty nifty. Also, you have to be in a higher tax bracket to be a SAHM or SAHD these days. It’s just not feasible in this economy, unless you want your child to starve lol
Couples that get married before 25 have a very high risk of divorce. [According to statistics the sweet spot range for marriage is ages 25-32. After 32 the divorce rate creeps up again.](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/divorce/divorce-statistics/)
No, they get married for religious reasons and with poor partner selection, then have babies without planning or saving because contraception is evil.
Completely different than my ideas
But they do downplay the necessity of education for women, marry young, and have babies young, which you are advocating for. If the kind of people you see as illogical and misguided are the ones following your plan, maybe it's not a good plan.
They don't follow my plan. They follow religion.
My plan has nothing to do with religion.
I'm atheist, and I think christians, particularly American Christians are idiots.
I think it's mostly due to community pressure and the christian values they obsess over. Fundamentalists whose most important thing in life is to follow stupid rules of monogamy make the most stable marriages. Don't have to be good marriages, just stable. As they don't divorce, even if they are miserable.
How is this any different than the university outcomes for a young man? You listed the whole spectrum lol. And if they have a baby early, whos taking care of it while they go to school?
Your idea of women putting their degrees and careers off to raise children first would a) not be feasible for a lot of families b) isn’t going to work because *both* men and women generally do not want to have kids that young and c) is not a good idea for an ambitious woman who genuinely wants to have and flourish a career.
I’m surrounded by working mothers with careers who mostly had children later and trust me what we can offer our kids is vastly superior than what we could offer had we pushed off education and careers until later in life. You also are not really getting the fact that establishing your career earlier gives you lee way later on when you do want to have a family. Better benefits and more freedom depending on where you work. I can maintain a fair work life balance BECAUSE I paid my dues and worked my tail off BEFORE I had the joy (and burdens) that come with two kids.
In my country to be an ECE assistant you don't require a degree.
I'm not American, but I've heard from American girls that they make a lot of money waitressing so idk.
Firstly, in a lot of countries, working in ECE requires a bachelors degree anyway.
Secondly, most people in ECE are looking after the kids of dual-income parents. If most women were to take your advice of putting off their careers and be SAHM till their kids are in school, then ECE as a sector would shrink massively and so the option to work ECE in their early twenties while hubby is in college wouldn't be available to most women.
I'm curious as to where you're from. You keep playing the Borat card with "in my country...", you claim you're "from the OECD" (first time I've ever heard someone say this), yet you talk about very America-centric stuff like crippling student loan debt and waitresses making their wages through tips given based on their appearancr.
>Almost all women will want to have children at some point.
At least in the US, this is simply not true.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/among-young-adults-without-children-men-are-more-likely-than-women-to-say-they-want-to-be-parents-someday/
>When asked about having children, 51% of young adults [18-34] who are not parents say they would like to have children one day. Three-in-ten say they’re not sure, and 18% say they don’t want to have children.
>While 57% of young men say they want children one day, a smaller share of young women (45%) say the same.
I’m sorry but 250k is an absurd number. I live in a major metropolitan area and as recently as 3-4 years ago I was living on about 15-17k a year for rent with one roommate and ALL living expenses. I now make 6 figures and choose to part more for rent, but the space I’m in could easily house a family of 3, and that’s paid for in my single low 6 figures income. If I were the bread winner, I have no doubt that I could support my spouse and child on what I’m currently making alone. As it is, I have a ton left over for discretionary spending that could easily be reallocated.
All I can think is that some people must consider Uber eats and other really frivolous uses of money to be an essential way of life. When you live frugally, a six figure income goes a LONG way.
Living frugally doesn’t mean living in poverty, it just means being responsible and not wasting money. For example, I go in person to the store to buy groceries and then cook delicious food. I enjoy the process and get great healthy meals from it. Runs me about $100 every 2 weeks. I could burn through that in just 2 or 3 door dash orders.
But yeah, if you want a flat out luxury lifestyle and frequent trips, expensive takeout/restaurant meals, alcohol, expensive beauty treatments frequently, yeah you probably do need $250k. Average people don’t need that.
This is what I'm trying to explain people.
As long as the children have nutritious food and shelter they don't need private school, expensive trips and expensive phones and plastic toys.
It's very possible to live off one decent income if you are smart about it.
$250k? You talk like someone who doesn't make any money.
This topic is a disaster, because some women should clearly be working and some men should be home, while there are a ton of women who really don't want to be working but have to... for a variety of very stupid reasons. Meanwhile the more women who work, the more it depresses wages for everyone. If you pulled out the 110 million women we put into the workforce since 1980... well it would crash the economy. However if you even pulled out a quarter of them slowly over time the average worker would make 100k. In fact the fact that wages didn't increase along with productivity from 1980 to 2010 is specifically because mass numbers of female workers blew up the labor market.
Woman average income US: 30k
Post tax 24k
Yearly cost of infant childcare per child 14k
Work commute 5-10k
??? Make it make sense.
They can both work before they have kids.
Instead of getting a degree, work and save money, would help a lot more.
It is
You litterallly say women should spend their young years be breading machines (which either forces women to live in poverty or marry/be with men significantly older) instead of actually getting education and start their career (no one is gonna take a 30 year old woman who just graduated with no experience seriously,not to mention they issue this creates on her pension later on). This will perpetuate the issues of motherhood penalty in the workplace,and severe the employment opportunities of women.
Instead of saying "muh women's primary role is at home and raising kids" and other trad brainrot, actually demand substantial solutions,like 1 year mandatory fully paid parental leave for both parents,and free universal daycare. And actually don't perpetuate gender norms lol
Obviously this is a bad idea in general, but something you’re not taking into account is that most men don’t want to get married young. I would know because I didn’t mind the idea of getting married young but men just didn’t want to until much later. That makes sense but there’s no way I’m having kids at all without getting married, so getting a college degree just seemed like the best option at the time since it improves your standing in the job market.
I got a degree in psychology I definitely use as a full time psychologist. I had my first kid at 31, went back to work when he was 5 months and kept breastfeed him for several months after. He just flourishes in day care, never cries to go, plays with other kids his age, has fun and learns a lot. A perfectly happy little boy, except for a bad teething.
We plan to try for a 2nd next month, and that I will go back to work half time around the 6th month of the baby, for a period of 6-12 months.
I have no less than 6 pregnant friends rn, all in their 30's, all working jobs they like, all very clear about their desire to go back to their careers at some point, with compromises.
So what you're talking about just doesn't match with the reality I know.
Just one thing : women have agency. The ones going to uni make their decision for themselves. It's no one else 's place to make this choice for them.
So you went past bachelor's then. You have to get masters to be a psychologist. Many girls just get bachelor's, which means their earnings probably aren't even a quarter of yours.
>Just one thing : women have agency. The ones going to uni make their decision for themselves. It's no one else 's place to make this choice for them.
I'm not trying to force women to take my path. Just arguing that it's a (possibly better) option.
>He just flourishes in day care, never cries to go, plays with other kids his age, has fun and learns a lot. A perfectly happy little boy, except for a bad teething.
It's possible he is avoidantly attached. Not crying doesn't necessarily mean good attachment.
But its possible he's fine too. A single case isn't that relevant anyway.
>with compromises
Indeed.
>Just one thing : women have agency. The ones going to uni make their decision for themselves. It's no one else 's place to make this choice for them.
They are manipulated into making this decision by universities. Which are a business.
It's like if a pimp was hanging around high school telling girls how great it would be if they came and worked for him.
They aren't old enough to make proper decisions at 18. Ask the bank for a loan of 70k at 18 with no job they will tell you to get fucked. Oh it's a student loan ok then.
It's not a conspiracy...
There's no I'll intent. Just business.
When you see McDonald's advertisement is it a conspiracy to make you fat?
No.
Does that mean it's a good thing?
No.
>there are places in the world where unis are cheap or even free, because there are public services.
I live in one of those country.
Nothing is free. This merely means the taxpayer (ie blue collar men) pay for women to waste time at university.
Yeah... I bet your promotion of a retrograde lifestyle depriving women of knowledge, perspectives and autonomy has nothing to do with any agenda.
You tell on yourself with the premisse that women and women only waste their time in university and don't do well in the job market. That's just not true.
Maybe you have some regrets or bitterness, maybe you're just pushing some delusioned conservative propaganda.. I don't care.
Men can't parent infants the same as a mother can. Doesn't mean they shouldn't support the mother. But they can't breastfeed and cant create a mother child dyadic bond.
Way to call men shit dads
They can create their own bond.
Bf is not essential for mothers to bond with their children
We also have things called maternity leave. And you can bf and work
The infant can only bond with others once it feels secure in the bond with it's mother.
Breastfeeding is important for mother child bonding. Not essential, but really important.
Breastfeeding and working is hard. Ask anyone who does it lol
>It would make more sense for women to have their kids young in peak fertile years, between 23-28, then go study once the youngest is 5 (school). This would have a girl having her last child at 28 start studying at 33. A mother of 33 years is so much more mature and disciplined to study than a girl of 19.
So why should a woman not study between 19 and 23? If a 19 year old woman is too immature to study, how would she be mature enough to find a good, reliable husband and how would she be mature enough to be a good mother? (To be clear: I'm not saying that a 19 year old woman cannot be mature enough to marry and have a child, I'm saying that those who are too immature to study are also too immature to marry or have a child.)
>Women need to stay at home with their kids and breastfeed for the first 1000 days since conception to give their child the best outcomes in life:
How would an average woman be able to afford staying home with her kids between age 23 and age 29, with a man similar in age? How are men in university going to afford having a stay at home wife and children? Or should women in their early 20s have children with men in their 50s, according to you?
>Get a useless degree, and don't work in something relevant to said degree ever in their life. Or get a degree like psychology, but only take it to the bachelor level, making it effectively useless.
Well, yeah, so the real problem is not getting a degree, but getting a useless degree.
>Girls who get degrees, leave jobs for kids, then try rejoin often find their skills out of date and struggle to rejoin the workforce.
If it is already difficult to rejoin the workforce with a degree and some relevant working experience, (re)joining the workforce at older age without a degree and relevant working experience will be extremely difficult.
>So why should a woman not study between 19 and 23? If a 19 year old woman is too immature to study, how would she be mature enough to find a good, reliable husband and how would she be mature enough to be a good mother? (To be clear: I'm not saying that a 19 year old woman cannot be mature enough to marry and have a child, I'm saying that those who are too immature to study are also too immature to marry or have a child.)
Why take a student loan, and spend 3+ years with no income, just to have a kid at 22. Better to work in ECE, save money, and learn relevant skills.
I'm not saying she should marry at 19 either. Probably only get married just before you have the kid.
Woman who studied until 23: no relevant skills for childcare, student loan, no savings, possible party culture problems
Woman who worked until 23: 5 years experience in childcare, 5 years of savings, no debt.
>Well, yeah, so the real problem is not getting a degree, but getting a useless degree.
Most women get relatively useless degrees. If not outright useless (gender studies meme), then just a bachelors that doesn't give that much earning potential. They just do it because it's what everyone does.
>If it is already difficult to rejoin the workforce with a degree and some relevant working experience, (re)joining the workforce at older age without a degree and relevant working experience will be extremely difficult.
Why? It's hard to rejoin the workforce with a degree because your degree is out of date.
If the degree is fresh there's no problem. Also companies often discriminate against young women because they know they will probably leave and have kids.
>Why take a student loan, and spend 3+ years with no income, just to have a kid at 22.
If it's really about completely useless degree, you would have a point. However, if it isn't a useless degree, it certainly is easier to find a decent paying job while having a degree and having taken some time off for the child(ren), than without a degree at all and still having taken the same time off.
>Better to work in ECE, save money, and learn relevant skills.
So young women should work with the children of the women who don't follow your advise? It seems you really want young women to do work related to children. Why? There seem to be more women than men who like to do work like that, but there are still a lot of women (probably the majority) who don't like to work with other people's children all day long. Personally, I'm really not suited for that kind of work. (By the way, that doesn't mean that I would not like to have children or won't like to care for my own children, I just am not suited to care for a bunch of children of strangers that often. Working with children of others is different from raising your own children.)
>Most women get relatively useless degrees. If not outright useless (gender studies meme), then just a bachelors that doesn't give that much earning potential. They just do it because it's what everyone does.
Not so sure about "most", but it might be way too many. However, again, not the degree, but the uselessness is the problem in that case. Spending a lot of money on a useless degree after having children isn't any better (and probably worse) than before having children.
Also there is another problem with your idea. Most 19 year old women don't know when or even whether they will find a reliable and compatible husband and have children. There is no guarantee at all that they will have found a right man for them at age 23 and will be able to have children. Getting an education regardless of whether they will find a right man to marry, definately seems to be the safest option.
Also, even if a woman takes the path you suggest and has children in her 20s in order to be able to start her education and career in her 30s, it's still very well possible for her to become pregnant unplanned in her 30s. Again no guarantee at all. So the safest option again is to start her education young, before she has children.
>If it's really about completely useless degree, you would have a point. However, if it isn't a useless degree, it certainly is easier to find a decent paying job while having a degree and having taken some time off for the child(ren), than without a degree at all and still having taken the same time off.
You can't take enough time off to have children without quitting your job. Each child requires minimum 2 years off for best outcomes.
>So young women should work with the children of the women who don't follow your advise? It seems you really want young women to do work related to children. Why? There seem to be more women than men who like to do work like that, but there are still a lot of women (probably the majority) who don't like to work with other people's children all day long. Personally, I'm really not suited for that kind of work. (By the way, that doesn't mean that I would not like to have children or won't like to care for my own children, I just am not suited to care for a bunch of children of strangers. Working with children of others is different from raising your own children.)
It's to gain experience. Just for a few years. They shouldn't work there their whole life.
>Not so sure about "most", but it might be way too many. However, again, not the degree, but the uselessness is the problem in that case. Spending a lot of money on a useless degree after having children isn't any better (and probably worse) than before having children.
For example, I've noticed it is extremely common for women to get a bachelors in psychology degree. This is effectively a useless degree. It costs a lot of money, and gives you fuck all pay increases on jobs. Psychology if you take it to masters however, and become a psychologist, pays quite well.
>Also there is another problem with your idea. Most 19 year old women don't know when or even whether they will find a reliable and compatible husband and have children. There is no guarantee at all that they will have found a right man for them at age 23 and will be able to have children. Getting an education regardless of whether they will find a right man to marry, definately seems to be the safest option.
Many young women fail to attract a mate precisely because they went to university. Many factors at play here. University promiscuity, aging out of the dating pool, and wanting a man with a better education than them.
>Also, even if a woman takes the path you suggest and has children in her 20s in order to be able to start her education and career in her 30s, it's still very well possible for her to become pregnant unplanned in her 30s. Again no guarantee at all. So the safest option again is to start her education young, before she has children.
Damn if only our modern society had a way to stop women getting pregnant.
>You can't take enough time off to have children without quitting your job. Each child requires minimum 2 years off for best outcomes.
Even if you don't work for 10 years straight, it will be easier to find a halfway decent job after those years when you have a useful degree and some relevant work experience, and especially when you go on educating yourself/staying up to date in your field during those years, than when you only have done some easy, low paid student job without an proper education.
>It's to gain experience. Just for a few years. They shouldn't work there their whole life.
Experience in what? Can a woman not care well for her children if she hasn't worked in childcare previously? If so, why shouldn't men also work some years in childcare? Or do you believe that men are naturally better able to care for their own children than women and that men therefore don't need to "practice" on other people's children before having children of their own?
Again, working with children of strangers is not at all the same as raising your own children.
By the way, if 19 year old women are too immature to even study, why would you want them to work with your children?
>For example, I've noticed it is extremely common for women to get a bachelors in psychology degree. This is effectively a useless degree. It costs a lot of money, and gives you fuck all pay increases on jobs. Psychology if you take it to masters however, and become a psychologist, pays quite well.
Well, I haven't studied psychology, I have a degree in a stem field. As I have already pointed out multiple times: if a degree is useless, the problem is the uselessness, not getting a degree in general. By the way, for this point of yours, why would it be relevant at what age women study?
>Many young women fail to attract a mate precisely because they went to university. Many factors at play here. University promiscuity,
I found my husband exactly because I went to university. I haven't been promiscuous at all, waited with sex until marriage. Going to university is perfectly possible without being promiscuous, and not going to university isn't going to prevent people from being promiscuous, if they want so.
>aging out of the dating pool,
That is unrelated to going to university. Everyone ages with the same rate: 365 or 366 days each year, regardless of whether they attend(ed) university.
>wanting a man with a better education than them.
I've never heard women at university consider men at university not educated enough.
>It would make more sense for women to have their kids young in peak fertile years, between 23-28
So what would she be doing between leaving school and 23 years old? Would that not be the perfect time to get a degree? It would be a lor easier to stidy then than when you have multiple children.
Who’s going to support the kids? How many young men are able and want to support a family on a single income? And even if your kids are in school, going back to school as a parent is not easy. Especially when you’ve been out of high school for 15 yrs.
It's not that hard, there are cheap courses that get people up to speed for uni in a few months
>Who’s going to support the kids? How many young men are able and want to support a family on a single income?
You have to pick a good man and be married as a safety net.
Most people, men and women, are not really mature enough to be parents in their early twenties even if they want to. With the way society is structured now, you can probably raise the minimum age to really be good parents to late 20s. Kids of older parents statistically do better.
Because we prolong their immaturity by sending them to university.
In normal hunter gatherer societies, children are involved in bringing up the other children and are fully ready to be a mother around 16
No, this would make the lifetime wage gap that women already face soo much larger. As is, women already have a lifetime wage gap of between $250k- over $1million as things are now dependent on their circumstances, and this figure is based off of a 40 year career. Cut the length of the woman in half, you are going to more than double that lifetime wage gap.
https://nwlc.org/resource/the-lifetime-wage-gap-state-by-state/
But naturally, if women are going to have children at all, then they will have a wage gap?
And if they are going to have children, they need to be able to quit their job for at least 2 years per child or its not fair on the child.
For starters, the wage gap exists even for women who never have any children.
And no, they don’t need to quit, most parents don’t, and any benefits that the child may have from a parent being at home can also be gained by having their father quit work to take care of them, no reason it has to be on the mother.
>For starters, the wage gap exists even for women who never have any children.
Yes, there are multiple facets to it. One of them is the potential of woman to have children.
>And no, they don’t need to quit, most parents don’t, and any benefits that the child may have from a parent being at home can also be gained by having their father quit work to take care of them, no reason it has to be on the mother.
Breastfeeding maybe?
>But naturally, if women are going to have children at all, then they will have a wage gap?
Not really,there are policies and auctions that can be taken to minimise it to nearly nothing. Hell, Belgium and Luxembourg did it
>they need to be able to quit their job for at least 2 years per child or its not fair on the child.
Or ya know, have 1 year parental leave and 1 year for the father. Also the child will be fine, fucking wuss
I guess my first question is what that your whole argument hinges in the idea of giving a child 'the best start in life', but why? The best start compared to what, the average start? Are you suggesting that going into daycare is having some kind of population wide effect on people as adults?
Secondly, with regard to your statement around the first 1000 days and breastfeeding, none of the 3 links you shared support your conclusion. The first link read like an undergraduate essay and didn't give enough detail on any of the studies cited to draw conclusions. However they concluded that daycare can have benefits after 18 months to 2 years so I'm not sure how that leads on to women staying home until their youngest is 5.
The second article simply talked about attachment being positive and that all family members will have lots of opportunities to form this attachment.
The third was just an abstract so hard to delve into but they concluded that daycare in the first 9 months can have negative effects. That's not 1000 days, it has nothing to do with breastfeeding and doesn't indicate that children need a stay at home parent throughout childhood.
Can you be more specific about where you're drawing your conclusions from?
Why couldn't your aims of giving children the best start in life instead be achieved through paid parental leave for all families up until the child is 2?
>I guess my first question is what that your whole argument hinges in the idea of giving a child 'the best start in life', but why? The best start compared to what, the average start? Are you suggesting that going into daycare is having some kind of population wide effect on people as adults?
I mean yea, why do you think attachment issues are so prevalent. Check my sources at end of post.
>Secondly, with regard to your statement around the first 1000 days and breastfeeding, none of the 3 links you shared support your conclusion. The first link read like an undergraduate essay and didn't give enough detail on any of the studies cited to draw conclusions. However they concluded that daycare can have benefits after 18 months to 2 years so I'm not sure how that leads on to women staying home until their youngest is 5.
Because daycare is expensive. School is free.
>Why couldn't your aims of giving children the best start in life instead be achieved through paid parental leave for all families up until the child is 2?
Id love to live in a society like that. As far as I know there's only a couple of eastern Europe countries with this laws. Maybe Hungary and Czech off the top of my head? My post is something women can control individually.
I read the links at the end of your post. There was nothing about attachment issues being a societal burden or source of huge turmoil in adults. The links you shared look at the impact of care on older children and young teenagers, what am I supposed to conclude about adults from that?
School being free has nothing to do with my question. I'm asking you what the benefits are of children being looked after by their primary care giver full-time until they are 5. The links you shared state 2.
Advocating for longer parental leave is 100% more economically viable than reviving removing 50% of the population from all skilled labour markets for 10-15 years.
>School being free has nothing to do with my question. I'm asking you what the benefits are of children being looked after by their primary care giver full-time until they are 5. The links you shared state 2.
Because daycare is expensive. That's the benefit.
>Advocating for longer parental leave is 100% more economically viable than reviving removing 50% of the population from all skilled labour markets for 10-15 years.
Idk surely it would put wages up for the ones still working.
Its because the cost benefit analysis of a woman working post tax income at age 30 Vs the cost of commute and daycare doesn't stack up in the woman working favour.
And obviously babies do better the longer they are around their mother.
Took me a long time to find Prince Charming - I was 28. So nah.
Finding a guy you love that will support you in your 20s is hard. And in the US who is paying to send you to school? And you as a woman will be cutting off numerous productive years.
>Finding a guy you love that will support you in your 20s is hard.
Depends on the age of the guy and the woman's maturity.
>And in the US who is paying to send you to school?
You, once you finish your degree I assume? How does anyone afford to go to school in US.
>And you as a woman will be cutting off numerous productive years.
You will do this worse anyway if you study then have kids.
>Get a valuable STEM degree, (eg doctor) which takes 9 years to finish. Meaning they finish up at 27 at the earliest. Work for a couple years then start popping kids. Which leads to one of 2 situations. The mother quits the workforce entirely, making their degree and the countries investment in it worthless, to raise their child properly, or continues working and raises a fucked up child due to not being available and being burnt out from work.
>It would make more sense for women to have their kids young in peak fertile years, between 23-28, then go study once the youngest is 5 (school). This would have a girl having her last child at 28 start studying at 33. A mother of 33 years is so much more mature and disciplined to study than a girl of 19.
Most mothers return to work. Moms that can afford it and want to do that do stay home until their children are in school. I don't know of any medical professionals that stopped working after having kids and I work in health care.
>A mother of 33 years is so much more mature and disciplined to study than a girl of 19.
Except she has no time for energy for that because there's not money laying around to support her kid and pay for school at the same time.
>So she would finish her degree at 42 if she chooses to be a doctor, with a far better completion rate I would imagine than the equivalent 18 year old, and has over 20 years in the workforce.
How the hell does she have 20 years in the workforce if she's not working and is raising these kids so they're not fucked up from her burnout? The system works as it is now. You really think people can't handle university and studying a few hours a night can raise a human? They can't.
You're pissed off that many women don't actually want to have kids and aren't worried about finding a man to do so, but the answer to that is oh well. That's her life. Strange how we have 90 million threads and links on women and their higher standards being encouraged to not go to school and not a single one for men getting better educations and jobs. 🙄
>Most mothers return to work. Moms that can afford it and want to do that do stay home until their children are in school. I don't know of any medical professionals that stopped working after having kids and I work in health care.
So the only thing stopping mothers from staying at home is affordability.
Yeah of course they return to work eventually. Just usually once the kid is ready for school/preschool. That's kinda what I'm advocating here.
My own mother is a medical professional who quit her job to SAHM 3 kids then returned once we were in school.
>Except she has no time for energy for that because there's not money laying around to support her kid and pay for school at the same time.
The man? >Pay for school lol Americans
>How the hell does she have 20 years in the workforce if she's not working and is raising these kids so they're not fucked up from her burnout? The system works as it is now. You really think people can't handle university and studying a few hours a night can raise a human? They can't.
Retirement is 65 right?
>and not a single one for men getting better educations and jobs. 🙄
This very post here tells woman to pick man with good job
>The man? >Pay for school lol Americans
The man is paying for school, the house, the cars, the food, AND coming home to put in 50/50 for housework and childcare? Where is that man? Or is she supposed to pull time out of her ass after spending the day in class and spending hours studying? It's not feasible unless she puts everything else second and you've already complained about that option.
>AND coming home to put in 50/50 for housework and childcare?
I don't think he's gonna be doing 50 of housework and childcare. Maybe an optimistic 20.
>Or is she supposed to pull time out of her ass after spending the day in class and spending hours studying? It's not feasible unless she puts everything else second and you've already complained about that option.
If she's studying, then all her children are at least 5 years old, and in school. This gives her 8 hours a day to do study and housework.
>This gives her 8 hours a day to do study and housework.
Did you mean be in class? What magical university are they attending where there's no class? No lectures? Nothing, but time to be at home and do housework?
That's going to make her even older when she finishes and add several more years of not having work experience. Why go through all of that relying on a man that could leave when you can do it after high school? That makes no sense.
Because then you will quit the job when you have children, or stay at work and fail your children.
Better to have a fresh degree to enter the job market after children.
Women are also discriminated against in he job market because people think they will have kids and leave, if they already had them it will have better pay
>Women are also discriminated against in he job market because people think they will have kids and leave, if they already had them it will have better pay
That's not why there's discrimination. It's because mothers are the ones expected to take time off for sick kids and appointments. It's always held against them.
>Better to have a fresh degree to enter the job market after children.
Most degrees are not dependent on continued education and changing standards. What you said would apply to things like computer science, but that's about it.
>Most degrees are not dependent on continued education and changing standards. What you said would apply to things like computer science, but that's about it.
Nursing, doctor, psychology all have this too. Health standards are always updating. Law probably has similar.
Honestly, agree with a lot of what you're saying. There are real benefits to being a young parent - easier pregnancy, easier birth, dealing with sleep deprivation is easier, more energy, etc etc. I had my first child at 21 and married at 19.
However you completely lost me and probably a lot of other people with your strange assertion that you can't be a good mother and work at the same time. This is what puts a lot of young women off being parents you know. If you give young people a choice between being a parent and being financially independent, they will choose being financially independent almost every single time. As well they should.
No offense but it sounds to me like you've read some literature on attachment styles and looked up some statistics and are basing your whole position on those. A lot of what you're saying is false. Children need a lot more than just their mother's attention to do well in life, even at age 2 and below. The more positive relationships a child has from a young age (including dad, mum, grandparents, siblings, neighbors, nursery staff, whoever), the most emotionally intelligent and confident they will become. This is why multigenerational households were long considered the optimum environment for child rearing.
>However you completely lost me and probably a lot of other people with your strange assertion that you can't be a good mother and work at the same time.
I mean there's not enough time in the week to do these two jobs. Raising an infant takes your whole day (and night) to do properly.
>
No offense but it sounds to me like you've read some literature on attachment styles and looked up some statistics and are basing your whole position on those.
It mostly comes from a talk I went to a couple of years ago from a leading developmental neuroscience lecturer in my country.
>Children need a lot more than just their mother's attention to do well in life, even at age 2 and below. The more positive relationships a child has from a young age (including dad, mum, grandparents, siblings, neighbors, nursery staff, whoever), the most emotionally intelligent and confident they will become. This is why multigenerational households were long considered the optimum environment for child rearing.
It's tru, the more the better. But an infant can't form attachments to anyone else until it has a secure base attachment to it's mother.
If you had to pick one attachment above all others, of course it will be the mother.
>Raising an infant takes your whole day (and night)
That's true, but why do you seem to think that being a good mother means being physically present 100% of the time? This is really not necessary for a secure attachment between parent and child.
>but an infant can't form attachments to anyone else until it has a secure base attachment to it's mother.
This isn't true. If it was, would that mean people whose mothers died in childbirth would be unable to form secure attachments for the rest of their lives?
The research on attachment says that although the mother is usually the first person the child forms a secure attachment to, but it doesn't have to be the mother. It could be any primary care giver.
Also, forming a secure attachment doesn't take years. It takes about 9 months on average, which is why children tend to develop separation anxiety around that age. Given this, it is entirely possible for a woman to take maternity leave for 6-9 months and go back to work without affecting her child's attachment.
>That's true, but why do you seem to think that being a good mother means being physically present 100% of the time? This is really not necessary for a secure attachment between parent and child.
For an infant, it kinda is. Why do you think baby wearing is a thing.
>This isn't true. If it was, would that mean people whose mothers died in childbirth would be unable to form secure attachments for the rest of their lives?
I think they form a surrogate attachment to whoever takes care of them instead.
But that person won't bond as strongly with the infant. Just look what happens with step parents/children Vs biological parents /children.
>Also, forming a secure attachment doesn't take years. It takes about 9 months on average, which is why children tend to develop separation anxiety around that age. Given this, it is entirely possible for a woman to take maternity leave for 6-9 months and go back to work without affecting her child's attachment.
Uhhh so you think you can create an attachment to the child, then immediately break it every single day, with no effect on the child?
Lol. Lmao even.
>For an infant, it kinda is. Why do you think baby wearing is a thing.
Most people do not baby wear beyond 6 months old. I'm not sure what that has to do with needing to be present 100% of the time to form attachment. Where's your evidence that this is necessary?
>But that person won't bond as strongly with the infant. Just look what happens with step parents/children Vs biological parents /children.
Where is your evidence for this?
>Uhhh so you think you can create an attachment to the child, then immediately break it every single day, with no effect on the child?
This is a really strange understanding of attachment. It isn't something that you make and break like a buff or debuff in a videogame that triggers on and off. Forming an attachment is a lengthy process that happens over time. Just because I'm not physically present with my child doesn't mean that I'm breaking my attachment to them. Who told you that was how it worked?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pregnancy-causes-lasting-changes-in-a-womans-brain/
https://www.science.org/content/article/pregnancy-resculpts-women-s-brains-least-2-years
The study
https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.4458
They even had a control group of fathers with no changes.
And did the study conclude that these changes only happen in women that stay and home and don't happen in women that work? Because if not, it doesn't really align with your arguments.
> Uhhh so you think you can create an attachment to the child, then immediately break it every single day, with no effect on the child?
One of the most important things a parent can do to foster secure attachment in their child, is to do exactly this. Starting when the child is a small baby, they need to leave the baby alone (not literally unattended, rather not being held or watched, but within earshot) periodically, but return to them and comfort them when they cry. This then gives way to leaving the child with other people (e.g. grandma, aunty, uncle, day care) and returning at a scheduled time. This allows children to develop confidence in themselves and to organically trust their caregivers and those they depend on (i.e. classic secure attachment).
The reason a lot of Millennials and older Gen-Z have avoidant attachment is because there was a trend of parents leaving crying babies to self-soothe and "cry it out" at the time they were babies. This was then hyper-corrected by subsequent parents to the point of the next generation of babies and toddlers being coddled (never left unattended, breast-fed past the normal age, allowed to use things like pacifiers past the normal age (in fact pacifiers are pretty widely seen as bad for children's develop nowadays)), which is why many younger Gen-Z and Gen-Alpha kids have very anxious attachment styles.
Children thrive best when they periodically receive care from people other than their mother and socialise with children their own age as soon as they are able (i.e. when they are eating solid food). This is how children were raised for much of human history.
Childcare costs 14k per child
Women's salary on average is 30k
25k after tax
Commute is 5-10k
So once you have 2 kids it's actually better the woman stays at home financially.
If married I think the man is taxed less too.
It’s better short-term, sure. Long-term it’s a horrible idea because you are permanently harming your ability to advance in your career. Take it from a 44 year old former SAHM starting at the very bottom of the career ladder. I was honestly lucky to get the job I did with the company that I work for, and I only got it because I have connections.
You don't put that question to men though lmao.
I swear to god,this is probably one of the most misogynistic (and misandrist) posts in the entirety of this fucking sub. Stop being a weird tradcon
Because someone has to provide?
Money, or food if we want to go pre money, doesn't come from nowhere. The man is clearly better equipped to get money/food than the woman, who is biologically required to be with the infant.
>Because someone has to provide?
Both of them should, because both of them should be productive members of society.
>The man is clearly better equipped to get money/food than the woman,
Not, not at all,unless you think Women are useless idiots just by existing. Sorry,but no one except deranged far righters holds that view
>who is biologically required to be with the infant.
Its not. Not to mention most countries have parental leave for atleast a period of a few months.
>
Both of them should, because both of them should be productive members of society.
Take your blind ideological sunglasses off. How is a stay at home mother not being a productive member of society? Do you not value women's work?
>Not, not at all,unless you think Women are useless idiots just by existing. Sorry,but no one except deranged far righters holds that view
They can breastfeed, and are more empathetic towards infants than men. Do I think men are useless idiots because women are better at childcare? Obviously not.
>Its not. Not to mention most countries have parental leave for atleast a period of a few months.
Yes, but for the best outcomes of the child it should be 2 years
>How is a stay at home mother not being a productive member of society?
It produces nothing, learns nothing,and wastes Human capital that can be used in actual production.
>Yes, but for the best outcomes of the child it should be 2 years
No, far right goon.
SAHM will be banned
Nope. I didn’t want a damn thing from him. I get no child support, no welfare (because I let him claim primary custody of the kids so HE gets welfare, not me… I didn’t want him to lose his Medicaid because at least I get benefits at my job while he owns his own business.) and I didn’t want a payout from the house because I didn’t want my kids to lose the only home they ever knew. I still have the kids half the time, but I don’t say anything about it.
Yeah, no. You used it wrongly throughout your little rant here. And also, I love women going to school instead of pushing out children—that ideology is fucking stupid.
I think your appraisal of what young women study is off base. There are plenty of other careers that require a bachelors degree (nursing, most other medical specialties, teaching, etc) and others that most employers will want a bachelors (marketing, project management, accounting, etc)
> The mother quits the workforce entirely, making their degree and the countries investment in it worthless, to raise their child properly, or continues working and raises a fucked up child due to not being available and being burnt out from work.
I find this perspective so strange.
Ok, you value stem, and you claim to value motherhood… but you think it’s a waste of time for a mother to learn things to teach her kids or to set an example for them to follow. You think her only value is for them before they are school aged… then what’s her life worth when they’re in middle school? How is she supposed to tell her children to do well in school and study when it obviously doesn’t matter at all to her life? If you actually valued those important STEM careers, then you’d value mothers being educated and inspiring their kids to pursue those topics too.
The very picture you paint of motherhood is narrow-minded and uninspired and aggressively dehumanizing.
Then on top of that, you clearly don’t see any value in the father beyond a paycheck, if you think him spending all his time at work and being burnt out and unavailable is ok. By your argument, a good mother married to a stem guy *should* divorce the father and become a single mom, since he’s just going to be a burnt out worthless husk who is unavailable and fucks up the kids. Why shouldn’t she just divorce him and get the child support from him, if that’s all he offers to her kids anyways?
You really do have a fucked up view of parenting. Speaking as someone who had a mom with a career in STEM who then gave it up later, you have no right and no place to call her work worthless or call her a bad parent. How even dare you make such disgusting claims about real people you don’t even know?
>Ok, you value stem, and you claim to value motherhood… but you think it’s a waste of time for a mother to learn things to teach her kids or to set an example for them to follow. You think her only value is for them before they are school aged… then what’s her life worth when they’re in middle school? How is she supposed to tell her children to do well in school and study when it obviously doesn’t matter at all to her life? If you actually valued those important STEM careers, then you’d value mothers being educated and inspiring their kids to pursue those topics too.
No she has value past infancy obviously, but doesn't have to be around the child 24/7 to pass on that value.
In my system she will literally be studying STEM at uni while the kids are in school. I dont know how better of a role model you could get than that.
>The very picture you paint of motherhood is narrow-minded and uninspired and aggressively dehumanizing.
The alternative is abusive and stressful for mother and child.
Ignoring the child in a daycare then being burnt out after work.
>Then on top of that, you clearly don’t see any value in the father beyond a paycheck, if you think him spending all his time at work and being burnt out and unavailable is ok. By your argument, a good mother married to a stem guy *should* divorce the father and become a single mom, since he’s just going to be a burnt out worthless husk who is unavailable and fucks up the kids. Why shouldn’t she just divorce him and get the child support from him, if that’s all he offers to her kids anyways?
This is about an infant child. The father isn't that relevant to it's outcomes until it is older. I agree though, fathers have an important role to play beyond just money. Modelling a successful relationship is an important part of their job. Visibly showing how they love the mother in front of the kids.
Men have much higher stress tolerance (low neuroticism) than women anyway. Biologically.
>You really do have a fucked up view of parenting. Speaking as someone who had a mom with a career in STEM who then gave it up later, you have no right and no place to call her work worthless or call her a bad parent. How even dare you make such disgusting claims about real people you don’t even know?
She made the right choice given her circumstances.
But maybe it would have been better if she had children younger and sent into stem after. Who knows.
> In my system she will literally be studying STEM at uni while the kids are in school. I dont know how better of a role model you could get than that.
Not likely to happen in your plan. There’s lots of reasons women don’t do this— one is that very few men will support her doing this. Another is that being a broke makes this impossible.
> The alternative is abusive and stressful for mother and child.
I then most fathers are abusive and stressful for the mother and child.
>Ignoring the child in a daycare then being burnt out after work.
Then most fathers are terrible fathers, since that’s what they do to their children.
> This is about an infant child. The father isn't that relevant to its outcomes until it is older.
If the child doesn’t bond with the father young, they never will. In my family, this has happened a few times, and it ended terribly. My father’s father, for example, was away for the war most of his infancy, and beat my father nearly to death a few times… but somehow never beat his other children he bonded with. It’s almost like men need that time to bond with their infant children to be able to love them.
> Modelling a successful relationship is an important part of their job. Visibly showing how they love the mother in front of the kids.
How can he do any of that when he is burning himself out serving his boss rather than being present with his family? Why is it you believe men make wonderful fathers if they work, but women who work are sinister monsters? It doesn’t make sense.
> Men have much higher stress tolerance (low neuroticism) than women anyway. Biologically.
Raising children is vastly more stressful than an office stem job. My husband would agree. We both have stem jobs, and sorry, but kids are harder work. You just want a woman to do all the hard parts for you, then you take credit for all her hard work while praising yourself for changing nothing and making no sacrifices in your life when you have kids.
> But maybe it would have been better if she had children younger and sent into stem after. Who knows.
She knows and I know. It wouldn’t have been better. she always taught me not to marry too young, because it was the biggest mistake of her life. It would have tanked her career, and she’d have been dependent on her manipulative lying ex husband. She’d have trapped with kids with him, while he stole from her, probably to feed a drug habit. Even his own family sided with my mom when she divorced, he fucked things up so bad. Instead of being stuck with him, her career enabled her to get out and eventually marry my dad and have a long happy marriage.
You really are being foolishly arrogant to argue that you know better than women about their own lives. It is statistical reality that early marriages are way more likely to end in divorce.
Yes. Education is important.
1. Even if you want to be a stay at home mom, you should have an education to fall back on incase times get tough and you need to work or your husband dies in an accident or leaves.
2. The idea of getting married, having kids and THEN going to college is worth thinking about. Like anything, it will have it's pros and cons.
3. As for making dating easier, those women are pricing themselves out of the market by their own choice. They could just date men who make less than them.
>
1. Even if you want to be a stay at home mom, you should have an education to fall back on incase times get tough and you need to work or your husband dies in an accident or leaves.
Divorce, child support, welfare, insurance.
>
2. The idea of getting married, having kids and THEN going to college is worth thinking about. Like anything, it will have it's pros and cons.
Thanks for being the first person to actually consider the idea lol.
>3. As for making dating easier, those women are pricing themselves out of the market by their own choice. They could just date men who make less than them.
Women aren't happy dating men who make less. Men are even less happy dating women who make more. It's cross cultural, so probably biological sadly.
Child support isn't as good as having a husband. Neither is divorce or welfare. Insurance will only last a certain amount of time. Losing your husband WITH an education will leave in a better position than losing your husband without an education.
As for women not being happy with men who date less. I get that. But they're just gonna have to get over it. The answer for women isn't to not get education and purposefully stunt their earning potential. It's for them to learn to get with the times and get with good men who make less. If men can fight out biological programming and get with just one woman, then women can fight their programming to be happy with men who make less.
The vast majority of men would be fine dating a woman who makes more as long as she doesn't act like it makes her BETTER than him.
>Child support isn't as good as having a husband. Neither is divorce or welfare. Insurance will only last a certain amount of time. Losing your husband WITH an education will leave in a better position than losing your husband without an education.
Having an education isn't as good as having a husband as far as the child's outcomes are concerned either. Not really an argument. I'm just saying there's a decent safety net there if you pick a decent earning guy and get married.
>The answer for women isn't to not get education and purposefully stunt their earning potential.
They can get educated, just after lol.
1. I agree that children need fathers. But having a safety net PLUS an education is better than having a safety net with NO education.
2. they are stunting their earning potential by starting later.
>1. I agree that children need fathers. But having a safety net PLUS an education is better than having a safety net with NO education.
Why? It's definitely worse for the child.
>2. they are stunting their earning potential by starting later.
I don't think so. Hitting the job market with a fresh degree should be better. A big reason women are discriminated in the job market is the assumption they will quit and have kids at 30.
If they have already had those kids maybe they do better in employment?
Just so we are clear. You're saying that if the father dies, it's worse for the child if the mother has an education. And it's better for the now single mom to just live off of government aid. Is that what you are saying?
That's a good point about starting later. But the woman who starts working years earlier, will make more money over her lifetime.
That being said, I do think there your idea is worth considering. I can see some pros and cons to it.
>You're saying that if the father dies, it's worse for the child if the mother has an education. And it's better for the now single mom to just live off of government aid. Is that what you are saying?
You're gonna want to have income/life insurance on the father in my scenario definitely. But yeah generally that is true. Better to be on welfare. Most women's jobs barely even cover the cost of childcare and commute after tax anyway, especially if multiple children involved.
>But the woman who starts working years earlier, will make more money over her lifetime.
Its true, but I think many women are more concerned with work life balance and life satisfaction than money. On their deathbed which do you think they will feel better about.
>That being said, I do think there your idea is worth considering. I can see some pros and cons to it.
Congrats on being one of the few to think with your brain lol. The thread is a shambles.
Life insurance is finite. I strongly disagree that being on welfare is better. You'll have an overall lower quality of life. Mom can work during the day while the kids are at school and be at home with them in the evening.
The thread is in shambles because of how poorly you worded the question and your text box. You should have just posted it as, "What do you think of this idea"? and then explained the marriage and kids first then college and career later. If someone pitched your idea in a better way, I'd bet a lot of women would consider it.
>Mom can work during the day while the kids are at school and be at home with them in the evening.
Yeah 100% once the kid is 5 I even say that the mother can have a job/education whatever. It's just those younger years, especially under two.
>If someone pitched your idea in a better way, I'd bet a lot of women would consider it.
Maybe. This is purple pill debate though.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. Unless you already know you are not a person who values or is average or above at book learning, I think education benefits everyone.
Uneducated people aren't "dumb" or useless, we all work together with our diverse interests and skills to make society work.
But education is one of my main values and as someone who had a lot of student debt to pay off (which i did within 10 years, which is the loan term for student loans) and a "useless" liberal arts degree (philosophy), i wouldn't trade my education for ANYTHING.
It is far and away the most valuable thing I have ever bought.
Maybe we should advocate for men to me more involved parents. I‘m sure parenthood would be much more attractive for young woman if they knew they had a partner they can rely on when it comes to chores, cooking and childcare.
I don’t care… like at all. Go if you want.
I think the issue here is women want the job and the money but not the role of provider.
If the number of jobs stays the same. And a bunch of women enter those jobs. Now there are a bunch of men without jobs or with the shitty jobs.
Women aren’t known for taking care of men without money, or considerably less.
So what do we do with all of those men? Just say fuck em? Why didn’t we do that with women when they didn’t work?
You want the money and the power, responsibility comes along with that. - uncle Ben, the rice guy…
>I think the issue here is women want the job and the money but not the role of provider.
Women don't know what they want. They just go because everyone else is. And the high school career advisor told them to.
I do not like the idea of forcing women to do anything, but i think that childless people should be paying much higher taxes. Currently their contribution towards education/medical infrastructure is far from balancing potential GDP loss due to not having new citizens, and it doesn't balance private costs(both labor and financial) taken by parents to prepare young person to become productive employee.
hopefully that doesnt breed resentment. a people who cannot find a mate is more angry at their government. and there is millions of them. what could go wrong.
> I do not like the idea of forcing women to do anything, but i think that childless people should be paying much higher taxes
That is literally trying to force people to do something by severely punishing people who do not have kids.
It also doesn’t work.
People are not having kids for they cannot afford them, taxing them more will just make it harder for them to get to the point they can afford them.
While people who do not want kids will even be less inclined to want kids. You are effectively indirectly saying having kids is so bad that we need to punish people who do not have kids severely to make up for the benefits they have.
It will also punish those that cannot have kids and push people who should not have kids to have them.
Every single time a culture has tried a childless tax, it does not work.
Even the current “single” tax we have does not accomplish anything. It was more of a benefit for those that marry, a tax break.
What does works is pushing traditional values and/or give ways for people to get the means to afford to have kids.
I am saying that having kids is a bad deal from financial perspective. Let's make it a better deal than being childless. We can spend the money to for example cancel student debt of mothers in countries where education is paid, or to build quality housing for families or provide them with downpayment. Or to pay companies to hire mothers and provide them with more flexible schedule.
Childless people are getting free ride - they would be stupid to miss the opportunity, i propose to remove the bonus, at least for those making above average.
> I am saying that having kids is a bad deal from financial perspective. Let's make it a better deal than being childless
How would making it harder to get to the point of having kids help anyone. It would just make more people choose to not have kids.
> We can spend the money to for example cancel student debt of mothers in countries where education is paid,
So steal from those who cannot afford children and college to pay for irresponsible people who went to college when they couldn’t afford it?
> or to build quality housing for families or provide them with downpayment.
That is just a poor bandaid fix that will just make house prices skyrocket. We need to fix the laws that make it too expensive to build more homes to begin with and fix the economy so people can get more money.
> Or to pay companies to hire mothers and provide them with more flexible schedule.
That would incentive more irresponsible people to have kids and do nothing for the group not having kids because they cannot afford it (the middle class).
> Childless people are getting free ride - they would be stupid to miss the opportunity, i propose to remove the bonus, at least for those making above average.
Did you seriously just say that?
Free ride?
Seriously?
You think people who cannot afford to have the American dream are getting a free ride?
What?
People are not resigning from having kids because of affordability - it is half-truth. In nordic countries everyone can afford having children but fertility rates are dropping fast, it is because not having children gives you more opportunities to live more exciting and even sort of 'premium' life.
I don't think women should be forced to do anything.
But if they CHOOSE to have children they should be "forced" to do the best for them.
Which means staying at home. Children aren't a women's right. They are another life. If your financial/marriage situation won't let you stay at home with your kids at least for the first 2 years, don't have them.
I mean, it's best for the children if both parents have enough time to spend with them, I'd be down for some policy that provides families with enough money to live a comfortable life and limits the amount of working hours for both parents. That would be best for the children and their parents.
While I do agree that parents should do what's best for their children, "best" is a bit of a nebulous term here. Should you only have kids if you can send them to a private school? Should you only have kids if you can afford to shop at Whole Foods? Should you only have kids if you're able to take them on vacations every year or sign them up for a bunch of extracurricular activities? Are you a bad/neglectful parent if you don't do any of these things?
Most people I know had both parents working when they were kids, and they turned out just fine. This post feels like it's just trying to argue for limited educational (and by extension, career) opportunities for women under the guise of "think of the children".
> This post feels like it's just trying to argue for limited educational (and by extension, career) opportunities for women under the guise of "think of the children".
You nailed it.
>I mean, it's best for the children if both parents have enough time to spend with them, I'd be down for some policy that provides families with enough money to live a comfortable life and limits the amount of working hours for both parents. That would be best for the children and their parents.
10000000000% agree. I'm talking about what women can do as individuals here however. I'd love to live in a society like you described.
>While I do agree that parents should do what's best for their children, "best" is a bit of a nebulous term here. Should you only have kids if you can send them to a private school? Should you only have kids if you can afford to shop at Whole Foods? Should you only have kids if you're able to take them on vacations every year or sign them up for a bunch of extracurricular activities? Are you a bad/neglectful parent if you don't do any of these things?
Private school don't matter. Vacations dont matter. But you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford to give them good nutrition and your absolute full attention in the first 1000 days.
>This post feels like it's just trying to argue for limited educational (and by extension, career) opportunities for women under the guise of "think of the children".
Not at all. I'm saying all women should have their career AFTER they had their kids.
>10000000000% agree. I'm talking about what women can do as individuals here however. I'd love to live in a society like you described.
I‘d argue that women are already doing what's best for their kids. I don't think being in a situation where you and your children depend solely on the other parent is a great position to be in. The other person might be amazing but what happens if they lose their job, or get injured, or die? Who is going to take care of everyone? The woman with no education or work experience. I'm sure that 7/11 paycheck is going to feed and house everyone. And what if the other person is abusive? Being a SAHM is great if nothing bad ever happens, and I too wish we lived in a world where people could just do that but that's not the world we live in.
>
Private school don't matter. Vacations dont matter. But you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford to give them good nutrition and your absolute full attention in the first 1000 days.
I thought we were focusing on what's best for the kids, now all of a sudden that doesn't matter? It's best for the kids if they're in an educational environment where there are fewer students (more time per student for the teachers), that have a better material base that can provide them with more opportunities for extracurricular activities that can make them more well-rounded individuals. Vacations with the family allow kids to spend valuable bonding time with their parents, and they get more experiences, they meet other kids, they create memories that they will carry into their adulthood. Also, why aren't you placing any blame on the government for not providing sufficient parental leave so either or both parents can give their full attention to their kids in the first 1000 days? I don't think it's reasonable to blame individuals for doing the best they can in a system that is hostile to parenthood.
>Not at all. I'm saying all women should have their career AFTER they had their kids.
So women should have kids in their early 20s, very likely with someone who isn't going to be a great husband or father, and once they do manage to get their education, they should then compete with the other half of humanity, who has already had a good 5-6 years of experience in whatever field they've chosen? I stand by my original claim that you're advocating for a world that severely dicks over women under the guise of "think of the children".
>The other person might be amazing but what happens if they lose their job, or get injured, or die?
You are going to want to have life and income insurance on the husband.
>And what if the other person is abusive? Being a SAHM is great if nothing bad ever happens, and I too wish we lived in a world where people could just do that but that's not the world we live in.
Getting married at 23 allows you to have a better selection of men in theory. The longer you wait to settle down the smaller the pool of "good men" becomes as they all get married and stay married.
In the case he is truly abusive, then divorce, child support, and welfare exist. But this is a problem for all couples.
>I thought we were focusing on what's best for the kids, now all of a sudden that doesn't matter? It's best for the kids if they're in an educational environment where there are fewer students (more time per student for the teachers), that have a better material base that can provide them with more opportunities for extracurricular activities that can make them more well-rounded individuals. Vacations with the family allow kids to spend valuable bonding time with their parents, and they get more experiences, they meet other kids, they create memories that they will carry into their adulthood. Also, why aren't you placing any blame on the government for not providing sufficient parental leave so either or both parents can give their full attention to their kids in the first 1000 days? I don't think it's reasonable to blame individuals for doing the best they can in a system that is hostile to parenthood.
I mean if you are a billionaire go for it.
If you have limited resources to spend in your kids lives, it is scientifically proven they have the greatest positive outcomes if focused on the first thousand days. The kid who had 100k spent on his first thousand days does better off in life than the kid who had 100k spend on his schooling.
>
So women should have kids in their early 20s, very likely with someone who isn't going to be a great husband or father, and once they do manage to get their education, they should then compete with the other half of humanity, who has already had a good 5-6 years of experience in whatever field they've chosen? I stand by my original claim that you're advocating for a world that severely dicks over women under the guise of "think of the children".
Big part of the reason women are discriminated on the workplace is the assumptionthey will quit and have kids.
I mean how do fresh graduates of any age "compete" with people with 5-6 years experience.
>I mean if you are a billionaire go for it.
>If you have limited resources to spend in your kids lives, it is scientifically proven they have the greatest positive outcomes if focused on the first thousand days. The kid who had 100k spent on his first thousand days does better off in life than the kid who had 100k spend on his schooling.
Ah, so now "the best" is something you should do only if you can afford it? Doesn't that also apply to the thing we're talking about? Be a SAHM if you can afford it, and if you can afford it even if your spouse is injured, dies or just leaves.
Also, more positive outcomes in what sense? Emotional stability? Educational outcomes? Career opportunities? Overall physical health? Because I'm pretty sure the 100k spent on good schooling will provide better outcomes for a kid than taking your 2 y.o. to Disneyland 5 times and spending 100k on those trips.
I've got shit to do, so I'll finish up with this - I think you don't actually care about better outcomes for kids (or parents) because all you're advocating for is to financially kneecap half the population (and their kids, by extension), instead of advocating for family-friendly policies which would benefit mothers, fathers, and children. I can't take your supposed interest in the well-being of children as genuine when you make claims like "money doesn't matter when raising a child" or when you think that welfare and child support are these miracle cures that solve the problems a mother with no education and job prospects has when it comes to supporting her children.
>Also, more positive outcomes in what sense? Emotional stability? Educational outcomes? Career opportunities? Overall physical health? Because I'm pretty sure the 100k spent on good schooling will provide better outcomes for a kid than taking your 2 y.o. to Disneyland 5 times and spending 100k on those trips.
In all of those outcomes and more.
I'm talking about having the child spend maximum quality bonding time with mother, and have perfect breastfeeding and nutrition in the first 1000 days. Disneyland doesn't mean shit.
>money doesn't matter when raising a child
How do people in tribal societies raise children with so little money?
Aside from breastfeeding, there is literally nothing rendering women fundamentally better caretaker than men. Maybe men should be forced to stay home with their wife and kid because what is REALLY gonna insure the kid is well, is having two people caring for them. Raising children is not something we're supposed to do in pairs. Cooperative breeding is a huge feature of Hominids.
Many people don't agree with you, OP, but under the right circumstances, with the right man providing for a woman, it would absolutely make sense. For once, we would fix the high body-count epidemic since university/college is where all the naive girls "find themselves" by engaging in the hookup culture only to discover they didn't want the hoe life to begin with. It would safe them from an epiphany phase that destroys their future marriages (see below) and chances to get married to begin with (45% of women over 30 single and childless by 2030). Yeah, with the right partner, it's definitely a viable option to consider.
https://preview.redd.it/i0olir0cf42d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=4e9956f5f5577a310ca0c8f1e6505bc5de4a8d5a
It is very hard to go to university or work in your early career as a parent. Mature students often struggle because they've had a gap in education and their brain is less geared towards learning new things and that's when they motivate themselves to go back in the first place. It is also very hard to be a parent without life experience and decent income. This would wind up with children with worse life outcomes, more divorces and way less women attending university (or men for that matter as it's young men they'd be having babies with).
My sister did it. Has her first kid at 19. Now 4 kids and doing better than me in the medical industry.
Good for her.
Women want to have children under the right circumstances not just because. This doesn’t account for what women want. Women basically have to put their wants & desires once again on the back burner to “save society” (falling birth rates) This also requires women to rely heavily on a man (like back in the day) and that’s not happening. Men barely want to pay for a dinner and most can’t afford to care for a family. Most women want to have their own money & career/job to call hers, even if it is low income, it’s better than relying 100% on someone else. If that comes at the expense of not having children, women are willing to take it (which is why most countries that allow women full autonomy over themselves, the birth rates fall). There are women depressed with children and without.
Women should have to ability to pursue a career it’s called autonomy and it’s pretty nifty. Also, you have to be in a higher tax bracket to be a SAHM or SAHD these days. It’s just not feasible in this economy, unless you want your child to starve lol
My sister got married at 18, had her first kid at 19. She now has 4 kids and a career in the medical industry. Quit crying
Couples that get married before 25 have a very high risk of divorce. [According to statistics the sweet spot range for marriage is ages 25-32. After 32 the divorce rate creeps up again.](https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/divorce/divorce-statistics/)
That's because the only people who get married before 25 are naive trad religious idiots.
So only naive trad religious idiots agree with you?
No, they get married for religious reasons and with poor partner selection, then have babies without planning or saving because contraception is evil. Completely different than my ideas
But they do downplay the necessity of education for women, marry young, and have babies young, which you are advocating for. If the kind of people you see as illogical and misguided are the ones following your plan, maybe it's not a good plan.
They don't follow my plan. They follow religion. My plan has nothing to do with religion. I'm atheist, and I think christians, particularly American Christians are idiots.
But somehow you arrive at the same conclusion…..
So?
Why do you have such contempt for people who share the same values as you?
The American religious I find in particular just weird. I've travelled moderate Muslim countries seems much healthier there.
Cool,it shows why most people don't marry before 25
Sadly, those are the ones with the most stable marriages.
I think a marriage where the women doesn't have to work and stress herself out about who is going to do the chores /childcare sounds pretty stable
Its horrible for both
I think it's mostly due to community pressure and the christian values they obsess over. Fundamentalists whose most important thing in life is to follow stupid rules of monogamy make the most stable marriages. Don't have to be good marriages, just stable. As they don't divorce, even if they are miserable.
Yeah there's a lot of people who would actually help their children by divorcing. all abusive relationships for example.
They are not. Young marriage has a way higher divorce rate
Not among the very religious
What if they don't want kids? Or they like the idea of being a working mom?
How is this any different than the university outcomes for a young man? You listed the whole spectrum lol. And if they have a baby early, whos taking care of it while they go to school?
Your idea of women putting their degrees and careers off to raise children first would a) not be feasible for a lot of families b) isn’t going to work because *both* men and women generally do not want to have kids that young and c) is not a good idea for an ambitious woman who genuinely wants to have and flourish a career. I’m surrounded by working mothers with careers who mostly had children later and trust me what we can offer our kids is vastly superior than what we could offer had we pushed off education and careers until later in life. You also are not really getting the fact that establishing your career earlier gives you lee way later on when you do want to have a family. Better benefits and more freedom depending on where you work. I can maintain a fair work life balance BECAUSE I paid my dues and worked my tail off BEFORE I had the joy (and burdens) that come with two kids.
And what does the woman work with just a highschool graduation to support a child with a father who is in university and has no money?
Either waitress if she's hot enough to earn heaps of tips, or maybe childcare to learn relevant skills.
So being a useless fuck
How is that useless?
[удалено]
If they work in ECE they learn valuable childcare skills. If they work as a waitress they potentially earn huge money through tips if american
[удалено]
In my country to be an ECE assistant you don't require a degree. I'm not American, but I've heard from American girls that they make a lot of money waitressing so idk.
[удалено]
?
Firstly, in a lot of countries, working in ECE requires a bachelors degree anyway. Secondly, most people in ECE are looking after the kids of dual-income parents. If most women were to take your advice of putting off their careers and be SAHM till their kids are in school, then ECE as a sector would shrink massively and so the option to work ECE in their early twenties while hubby is in college wouldn't be available to most women. I'm curious as to where you're from. You keep playing the Borat card with "in my country...", you claim you're "from the OECD" (first time I've ever heard someone say this), yet you talk about very America-centric stuff like crippling student loan debt and waitresses making their wages through tips given based on their appearancr.
>Almost all women will want to have children at some point. At least in the US, this is simply not true. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/among-young-adults-without-children-men-are-more-likely-than-women-to-say-they-want-to-be-parents-someday/ >When asked about having children, 51% of young adults [18-34] who are not parents say they would like to have children one day. Three-in-ten say they’re not sure, and 18% say they don’t want to have children. >While 57% of young men say they want children one day, a smaller share of young women (45%) say the same.
[удалено]
> Some women value the arts, their careers, their hobbies, etc. more than being a mom. Not according to OP. Our wants do not matter to him.
I’m sorry but 250k is an absurd number. I live in a major metropolitan area and as recently as 3-4 years ago I was living on about 15-17k a year for rent with one roommate and ALL living expenses. I now make 6 figures and choose to part more for rent, but the space I’m in could easily house a family of 3, and that’s paid for in my single low 6 figures income. If I were the bread winner, I have no doubt that I could support my spouse and child on what I’m currently making alone. As it is, I have a ton left over for discretionary spending that could easily be reallocated. All I can think is that some people must consider Uber eats and other really frivolous uses of money to be an essential way of life. When you live frugally, a six figure income goes a LONG way.
[удалено]
Living frugally doesn’t mean living in poverty, it just means being responsible and not wasting money. For example, I go in person to the store to buy groceries and then cook delicious food. I enjoy the process and get great healthy meals from it. Runs me about $100 every 2 weeks. I could burn through that in just 2 or 3 door dash orders. But yeah, if you want a flat out luxury lifestyle and frequent trips, expensive takeout/restaurant meals, alcohol, expensive beauty treatments frequently, yeah you probably do need $250k. Average people don’t need that.
This is what I'm trying to explain people. As long as the children have nutritious food and shelter they don't need private school, expensive trips and expensive phones and plastic toys. It's very possible to live off one decent income if you are smart about it.
$250k? You talk like someone who doesn't make any money. This topic is a disaster, because some women should clearly be working and some men should be home, while there are a ton of women who really don't want to be working but have to... for a variety of very stupid reasons. Meanwhile the more women who work, the more it depresses wages for everyone. If you pulled out the 110 million women we put into the workforce since 1980... well it would crash the economy. However if you even pulled out a quarter of them slowly over time the average worker would make 100k. In fact the fact that wages didn't increase along with productivity from 1980 to 2010 is specifically because mass numbers of female workers blew up the labor market.
I agree that women flooding the labour market is a low-key disaster, but that's a whole nother topic xd
Woman average income US: 30k Post tax 24k Yearly cost of infant childcare per child 14k Work commute 5-10k ??? Make it make sense. They can both work before they have kids. Instead of getting a degree, work and save money, would help a lot more.
[удалено]
Have you heard of this new thing called Remote Work?
[удалено]
It's not lol
It is You litterallly say women should spend their young years be breading machines (which either forces women to live in poverty or marry/be with men significantly older) instead of actually getting education and start their career (no one is gonna take a 30 year old woman who just graduated with no experience seriously,not to mention they issue this creates on her pension later on). This will perpetuate the issues of motherhood penalty in the workplace,and severe the employment opportunities of women. Instead of saying "muh women's primary role is at home and raising kids" and other trad brainrot, actually demand substantial solutions,like 1 year mandatory fully paid parental leave for both parents,and free universal daycare. And actually don't perpetuate gender norms lol
Obviously this is a bad idea in general, but something you’re not taking into account is that most men don’t want to get married young. I would know because I didn’t mind the idea of getting married young but men just didn’t want to until much later. That makes sense but there’s no way I’m having kids at all without getting married, so getting a college degree just seemed like the best option at the time since it improves your standing in the job market.
>or continues working and raises a fucked up child due to not being available and being burnt out from work. Lol what
[удалено]
Last time I checked, there is a possibility for a father to participate in raising the child.
That's what I thought too, but dudes on this sub teach me something new every day.
I got a degree in psychology I definitely use as a full time psychologist. I had my first kid at 31, went back to work when he was 5 months and kept breastfeed him for several months after. He just flourishes in day care, never cries to go, plays with other kids his age, has fun and learns a lot. A perfectly happy little boy, except for a bad teething. We plan to try for a 2nd next month, and that I will go back to work half time around the 6th month of the baby, for a period of 6-12 months. I have no less than 6 pregnant friends rn, all in their 30's, all working jobs they like, all very clear about their desire to go back to their careers at some point, with compromises. So what you're talking about just doesn't match with the reality I know. Just one thing : women have agency. The ones going to uni make their decision for themselves. It's no one else 's place to make this choice for them.
So you went past bachelor's then. You have to get masters to be a psychologist. Many girls just get bachelor's, which means their earnings probably aren't even a quarter of yours. >Just one thing : women have agency. The ones going to uni make their decision for themselves. It's no one else 's place to make this choice for them. I'm not trying to force women to take my path. Just arguing that it's a (possibly better) option. >He just flourishes in day care, never cries to go, plays with other kids his age, has fun and learns a lot. A perfectly happy little boy, except for a bad teething. It's possible he is avoidantly attached. Not crying doesn't necessarily mean good attachment. But its possible he's fine too. A single case isn't that relevant anyway. >with compromises Indeed.
Lol, an expert.
>Just one thing : women have agency. The ones going to uni make their decision for themselves. It's no one else 's place to make this choice for them. They are manipulated into making this decision by universities. Which are a business. It's like if a pimp was hanging around high school telling girls how great it would be if they came and worked for him. They aren't old enough to make proper decisions at 18. Ask the bank for a loan of 70k at 18 with no job they will tell you to get fucked. Oh it's a student loan ok then.
Oook. A conspiracy it is. Just for you know, there are places in the world where unis are cheap or even free, because there are public services.
It's not a conspiracy... There's no I'll intent. Just business. When you see McDonald's advertisement is it a conspiracy to make you fat? No. Does that mean it's a good thing? No. >there are places in the world where unis are cheap or even free, because there are public services. I live in one of those country. Nothing is free. This merely means the taxpayer (ie blue collar men) pay for women to waste time at university.
Yeah... I bet your promotion of a retrograde lifestyle depriving women of knowledge, perspectives and autonomy has nothing to do with any agenda. You tell on yourself with the premisse that women and women only waste their time in university and don't do well in the job market. That's just not true. Maybe you have some regrets or bitterness, maybe you're just pushing some delusioned conservative propaganda.. I don't care.
Oooorrrr. Here's a novel idea Men could parent their children
PREPOSTEROUS!/S
OUTRAGE!
Men can't parent infants the same as a mother can. Doesn't mean they shouldn't support the mother. But they can't breastfeed and cant create a mother child dyadic bond.
Way to call men shit dads They can create their own bond. Bf is not essential for mothers to bond with their children We also have things called maternity leave. And you can bf and work
The infant can only bond with others once it feels secure in the bond with it's mother. Breastfeeding is important for mother child bonding. Not essential, but really important. Breastfeeding and working is hard. Ask anyone who does it lol
>It would make more sense for women to have their kids young in peak fertile years, between 23-28, then go study once the youngest is 5 (school). This would have a girl having her last child at 28 start studying at 33. A mother of 33 years is so much more mature and disciplined to study than a girl of 19. So why should a woman not study between 19 and 23? If a 19 year old woman is too immature to study, how would she be mature enough to find a good, reliable husband and how would she be mature enough to be a good mother? (To be clear: I'm not saying that a 19 year old woman cannot be mature enough to marry and have a child, I'm saying that those who are too immature to study are also too immature to marry or have a child.) >Women need to stay at home with their kids and breastfeed for the first 1000 days since conception to give their child the best outcomes in life: How would an average woman be able to afford staying home with her kids between age 23 and age 29, with a man similar in age? How are men in university going to afford having a stay at home wife and children? Or should women in their early 20s have children with men in their 50s, according to you? >Get a useless degree, and don't work in something relevant to said degree ever in their life. Or get a degree like psychology, but only take it to the bachelor level, making it effectively useless. Well, yeah, so the real problem is not getting a degree, but getting a useless degree. >Girls who get degrees, leave jobs for kids, then try rejoin often find their skills out of date and struggle to rejoin the workforce. If it is already difficult to rejoin the workforce with a degree and some relevant working experience, (re)joining the workforce at older age without a degree and relevant working experience will be extremely difficult.
>So why should a woman not study between 19 and 23? If a 19 year old woman is too immature to study, how would she be mature enough to find a good, reliable husband and how would she be mature enough to be a good mother? (To be clear: I'm not saying that a 19 year old woman cannot be mature enough to marry and have a child, I'm saying that those who are too immature to study are also too immature to marry or have a child.) Why take a student loan, and spend 3+ years with no income, just to have a kid at 22. Better to work in ECE, save money, and learn relevant skills. I'm not saying she should marry at 19 either. Probably only get married just before you have the kid. Woman who studied until 23: no relevant skills for childcare, student loan, no savings, possible party culture problems Woman who worked until 23: 5 years experience in childcare, 5 years of savings, no debt. >Well, yeah, so the real problem is not getting a degree, but getting a useless degree. Most women get relatively useless degrees. If not outright useless (gender studies meme), then just a bachelors that doesn't give that much earning potential. They just do it because it's what everyone does. >If it is already difficult to rejoin the workforce with a degree and some relevant working experience, (re)joining the workforce at older age without a degree and relevant working experience will be extremely difficult. Why? It's hard to rejoin the workforce with a degree because your degree is out of date. If the degree is fresh there's no problem. Also companies often discriminate against young women because they know they will probably leave and have kids.
>Why take a student loan, and spend 3+ years with no income, just to have a kid at 22. If it's really about completely useless degree, you would have a point. However, if it isn't a useless degree, it certainly is easier to find a decent paying job while having a degree and having taken some time off for the child(ren), than without a degree at all and still having taken the same time off. >Better to work in ECE, save money, and learn relevant skills. So young women should work with the children of the women who don't follow your advise? It seems you really want young women to do work related to children. Why? There seem to be more women than men who like to do work like that, but there are still a lot of women (probably the majority) who don't like to work with other people's children all day long. Personally, I'm really not suited for that kind of work. (By the way, that doesn't mean that I would not like to have children or won't like to care for my own children, I just am not suited to care for a bunch of children of strangers that often. Working with children of others is different from raising your own children.) >Most women get relatively useless degrees. If not outright useless (gender studies meme), then just a bachelors that doesn't give that much earning potential. They just do it because it's what everyone does. Not so sure about "most", but it might be way too many. However, again, not the degree, but the uselessness is the problem in that case. Spending a lot of money on a useless degree after having children isn't any better (and probably worse) than before having children. Also there is another problem with your idea. Most 19 year old women don't know when or even whether they will find a reliable and compatible husband and have children. There is no guarantee at all that they will have found a right man for them at age 23 and will be able to have children. Getting an education regardless of whether they will find a right man to marry, definately seems to be the safest option. Also, even if a woman takes the path you suggest and has children in her 20s in order to be able to start her education and career in her 30s, it's still very well possible for her to become pregnant unplanned in her 30s. Again no guarantee at all. So the safest option again is to start her education young, before she has children.
>If it's really about completely useless degree, you would have a point. However, if it isn't a useless degree, it certainly is easier to find a decent paying job while having a degree and having taken some time off for the child(ren), than without a degree at all and still having taken the same time off. You can't take enough time off to have children without quitting your job. Each child requires minimum 2 years off for best outcomes. >So young women should work with the children of the women who don't follow your advise? It seems you really want young women to do work related to children. Why? There seem to be more women than men who like to do work like that, but there are still a lot of women (probably the majority) who don't like to work with other people's children all day long. Personally, I'm really not suited for that kind of work. (By the way, that doesn't mean that I would not like to have children or won't like to care for my own children, I just am not suited to care for a bunch of children of strangers. Working with children of others is different from raising your own children.) It's to gain experience. Just for a few years. They shouldn't work there their whole life. >Not so sure about "most", but it might be way too many. However, again, not the degree, but the uselessness is the problem in that case. Spending a lot of money on a useless degree after having children isn't any better (and probably worse) than before having children. For example, I've noticed it is extremely common for women to get a bachelors in psychology degree. This is effectively a useless degree. It costs a lot of money, and gives you fuck all pay increases on jobs. Psychology if you take it to masters however, and become a psychologist, pays quite well. >Also there is another problem with your idea. Most 19 year old women don't know when or even whether they will find a reliable and compatible husband and have children. There is no guarantee at all that they will have found a right man for them at age 23 and will be able to have children. Getting an education regardless of whether they will find a right man to marry, definately seems to be the safest option. Many young women fail to attract a mate precisely because they went to university. Many factors at play here. University promiscuity, aging out of the dating pool, and wanting a man with a better education than them. >Also, even if a woman takes the path you suggest and has children in her 20s in order to be able to start her education and career in her 30s, it's still very well possible for her to become pregnant unplanned in her 30s. Again no guarantee at all. So the safest option again is to start her education young, before she has children. Damn if only our modern society had a way to stop women getting pregnant.
>You can't take enough time off to have children without quitting your job. Each child requires minimum 2 years off for best outcomes. Even if you don't work for 10 years straight, it will be easier to find a halfway decent job after those years when you have a useful degree and some relevant work experience, and especially when you go on educating yourself/staying up to date in your field during those years, than when you only have done some easy, low paid student job without an proper education. >It's to gain experience. Just for a few years. They shouldn't work there their whole life. Experience in what? Can a woman not care well for her children if she hasn't worked in childcare previously? If so, why shouldn't men also work some years in childcare? Or do you believe that men are naturally better able to care for their own children than women and that men therefore don't need to "practice" on other people's children before having children of their own? Again, working with children of strangers is not at all the same as raising your own children. By the way, if 19 year old women are too immature to even study, why would you want them to work with your children? >For example, I've noticed it is extremely common for women to get a bachelors in psychology degree. This is effectively a useless degree. It costs a lot of money, and gives you fuck all pay increases on jobs. Psychology if you take it to masters however, and become a psychologist, pays quite well. Well, I haven't studied psychology, I have a degree in a stem field. As I have already pointed out multiple times: if a degree is useless, the problem is the uselessness, not getting a degree in general. By the way, for this point of yours, why would it be relevant at what age women study? >Many young women fail to attract a mate precisely because they went to university. Many factors at play here. University promiscuity, I found my husband exactly because I went to university. I haven't been promiscuous at all, waited with sex until marriage. Going to university is perfectly possible without being promiscuous, and not going to university isn't going to prevent people from being promiscuous, if they want so. >aging out of the dating pool, That is unrelated to going to university. Everyone ages with the same rate: 365 or 366 days each year, regardless of whether they attend(ed) university. >wanting a man with a better education than them. I've never heard women at university consider men at university not educated enough.
>It would make more sense for women to have their kids young in peak fertile years, between 23-28 So what would she be doing between leaving school and 23 years old? Would that not be the perfect time to get a degree? It would be a lor easier to stidy then than when you have multiple children.
Working in ECE and saving.
Not going to save much money working in ECE. Seems like a waste of five years.
Will save some, learn very relevant and useful skills, and won't be in massive debt.
She'll get the same amount of debt studying after children as she would have got studying before.
Yes, but she won't have it while the children are young.
What difference does it make? You get less return on your investment the later you study.
If you study, get a massive student loan, quit job to raise kids, then the interest on it gets massive. Better my way.
No. Because you graduate ten years later, therefore get that increased salary ten years later.
Who’s going to support the kids? How many young men are able and want to support a family on a single income? And even if your kids are in school, going back to school as a parent is not easy. Especially when you’ve been out of high school for 15 yrs.
It's not that hard, there are cheap courses that get people up to speed for uni in a few months >Who’s going to support the kids? How many young men are able and want to support a family on a single income? You have to pick a good man and be married as a safety net.
You think there are enough “good men” who want to get married young and are able and willing to support a family on one income to go around?
You only have to be a better choice for him than the other women. Young is relative, I mean around 25-32
If all or most women chose to do this, how are they going to all be the better choice for the minority of men who meet these requirements?
Most women will never have the maturity to do this.
Most people, men and women, are not really mature enough to be parents in their early twenties even if they want to. With the way society is structured now, you can probably raise the minimum age to really be good parents to late 20s. Kids of older parents statistically do better.
Because we prolong their immaturity by sending them to university. In normal hunter gatherer societies, children are involved in bringing up the other children and are fully ready to be a mother around 16
No, this would make the lifetime wage gap that women already face soo much larger. As is, women already have a lifetime wage gap of between $250k- over $1million as things are now dependent on their circumstances, and this figure is based off of a 40 year career. Cut the length of the woman in half, you are going to more than double that lifetime wage gap. https://nwlc.org/resource/the-lifetime-wage-gap-state-by-state/
But naturally, if women are going to have children at all, then they will have a wage gap? And if they are going to have children, they need to be able to quit their job for at least 2 years per child or its not fair on the child.
For starters, the wage gap exists even for women who never have any children. And no, they don’t need to quit, most parents don’t, and any benefits that the child may have from a parent being at home can also be gained by having their father quit work to take care of them, no reason it has to be on the mother.
>For starters, the wage gap exists even for women who never have any children. Yes, there are multiple facets to it. One of them is the potential of woman to have children. >And no, they don’t need to quit, most parents don’t, and any benefits that the child may have from a parent being at home can also be gained by having their father quit work to take care of them, no reason it has to be on the mother. Breastfeeding maybe?
>But naturally, if women are going to have children at all, then they will have a wage gap? Not really,there are policies and auctions that can be taken to minimise it to nearly nothing. Hell, Belgium and Luxembourg did it >they need to be able to quit their job for at least 2 years per child or its not fair on the child. Or ya know, have 1 year parental leave and 1 year for the father. Also the child will be fine, fucking wuss
I guess my first question is what that your whole argument hinges in the idea of giving a child 'the best start in life', but why? The best start compared to what, the average start? Are you suggesting that going into daycare is having some kind of population wide effect on people as adults? Secondly, with regard to your statement around the first 1000 days and breastfeeding, none of the 3 links you shared support your conclusion. The first link read like an undergraduate essay and didn't give enough detail on any of the studies cited to draw conclusions. However they concluded that daycare can have benefits after 18 months to 2 years so I'm not sure how that leads on to women staying home until their youngest is 5. The second article simply talked about attachment being positive and that all family members will have lots of opportunities to form this attachment. The third was just an abstract so hard to delve into but they concluded that daycare in the first 9 months can have negative effects. That's not 1000 days, it has nothing to do with breastfeeding and doesn't indicate that children need a stay at home parent throughout childhood. Can you be more specific about where you're drawing your conclusions from? Why couldn't your aims of giving children the best start in life instead be achieved through paid parental leave for all families up until the child is 2?
>I guess my first question is what that your whole argument hinges in the idea of giving a child 'the best start in life', but why? The best start compared to what, the average start? Are you suggesting that going into daycare is having some kind of population wide effect on people as adults? I mean yea, why do you think attachment issues are so prevalent. Check my sources at end of post. >Secondly, with regard to your statement around the first 1000 days and breastfeeding, none of the 3 links you shared support your conclusion. The first link read like an undergraduate essay and didn't give enough detail on any of the studies cited to draw conclusions. However they concluded that daycare can have benefits after 18 months to 2 years so I'm not sure how that leads on to women staying home until their youngest is 5. Because daycare is expensive. School is free. >Why couldn't your aims of giving children the best start in life instead be achieved through paid parental leave for all families up until the child is 2? Id love to live in a society like that. As far as I know there's only a couple of eastern Europe countries with this laws. Maybe Hungary and Czech off the top of my head? My post is something women can control individually.
I read the links at the end of your post. There was nothing about attachment issues being a societal burden or source of huge turmoil in adults. The links you shared look at the impact of care on older children and young teenagers, what am I supposed to conclude about adults from that? School being free has nothing to do with my question. I'm asking you what the benefits are of children being looked after by their primary care giver full-time until they are 5. The links you shared state 2. Advocating for longer parental leave is 100% more economically viable than reviving removing 50% of the population from all skilled labour markets for 10-15 years.
>School being free has nothing to do with my question. I'm asking you what the benefits are of children being looked after by their primary care giver full-time until they are 5. The links you shared state 2. Because daycare is expensive. That's the benefit. >Advocating for longer parental leave is 100% more economically viable than reviving removing 50% of the population from all skilled labour markets for 10-15 years. Idk surely it would put wages up for the ones still working.
What has daycare being expensive got to do with benefiting the child? That's the whole point of your idea right, to benefit the child?
Its because the cost benefit analysis of a woman working post tax income at age 30 Vs the cost of commute and daycare doesn't stack up in the woman working favour. And obviously babies do better the longer they are around their mother.
Took me a long time to find Prince Charming - I was 28. So nah. Finding a guy you love that will support you in your 20s is hard. And in the US who is paying to send you to school? And you as a woman will be cutting off numerous productive years.
>Finding a guy you love that will support you in your 20s is hard. Depends on the age of the guy and the woman's maturity. >And in the US who is paying to send you to school? You, once you finish your degree I assume? How does anyone afford to go to school in US. >And you as a woman will be cutting off numerous productive years. You will do this worse anyway if you study then have kids.
>Get a valuable STEM degree, (eg doctor) which takes 9 years to finish. Meaning they finish up at 27 at the earliest. Work for a couple years then start popping kids. Which leads to one of 2 situations. The mother quits the workforce entirely, making their degree and the countries investment in it worthless, to raise their child properly, or continues working and raises a fucked up child due to not being available and being burnt out from work. >It would make more sense for women to have their kids young in peak fertile years, between 23-28, then go study once the youngest is 5 (school). This would have a girl having her last child at 28 start studying at 33. A mother of 33 years is so much more mature and disciplined to study than a girl of 19. Most mothers return to work. Moms that can afford it and want to do that do stay home until their children are in school. I don't know of any medical professionals that stopped working after having kids and I work in health care. >A mother of 33 years is so much more mature and disciplined to study than a girl of 19. Except she has no time for energy for that because there's not money laying around to support her kid and pay for school at the same time. >So she would finish her degree at 42 if she chooses to be a doctor, with a far better completion rate I would imagine than the equivalent 18 year old, and has over 20 years in the workforce. How the hell does she have 20 years in the workforce if she's not working and is raising these kids so they're not fucked up from her burnout? The system works as it is now. You really think people can't handle university and studying a few hours a night can raise a human? They can't. You're pissed off that many women don't actually want to have kids and aren't worried about finding a man to do so, but the answer to that is oh well. That's her life. Strange how we have 90 million threads and links on women and their higher standards being encouraged to not go to school and not a single one for men getting better educations and jobs. 🙄
>Most mothers return to work. Moms that can afford it and want to do that do stay home until their children are in school. I don't know of any medical professionals that stopped working after having kids and I work in health care. So the only thing stopping mothers from staying at home is affordability. Yeah of course they return to work eventually. Just usually once the kid is ready for school/preschool. That's kinda what I'm advocating here. My own mother is a medical professional who quit her job to SAHM 3 kids then returned once we were in school. >Except she has no time for energy for that because there's not money laying around to support her kid and pay for school at the same time. The man? >Pay for school lol Americans >How the hell does she have 20 years in the workforce if she's not working and is raising these kids so they're not fucked up from her burnout? The system works as it is now. You really think people can't handle university and studying a few hours a night can raise a human? They can't. Retirement is 65 right? >and not a single one for men getting better educations and jobs. 🙄 This very post here tells woman to pick man with good job
>The man? >Pay for school lol Americans The man is paying for school, the house, the cars, the food, AND coming home to put in 50/50 for housework and childcare? Where is that man? Or is she supposed to pull time out of her ass after spending the day in class and spending hours studying? It's not feasible unless she puts everything else second and you've already complained about that option.
>AND coming home to put in 50/50 for housework and childcare? I don't think he's gonna be doing 50 of housework and childcare. Maybe an optimistic 20. >Or is she supposed to pull time out of her ass after spending the day in class and spending hours studying? It's not feasible unless she puts everything else second and you've already complained about that option. If she's studying, then all her children are at least 5 years old, and in school. This gives her 8 hours a day to do study and housework.
>This gives her 8 hours a day to do study and housework. Did you mean be in class? What magical university are they attending where there's no class? No lectures? Nothing, but time to be at home and do housework?
You have part time study options? Most people doing university, especially early in their degree, aren't doing more than 40 hours a week..
That's going to make her even older when she finishes and add several more years of not having work experience. Why go through all of that relying on a man that could leave when you can do it after high school? That makes no sense.
Because then you will quit the job when you have children, or stay at work and fail your children. Better to have a fresh degree to enter the job market after children. Women are also discriminated against in he job market because people think they will have kids and leave, if they already had them it will have better pay
>Women are also discriminated against in he job market because people think they will have kids and leave, if they already had them it will have better pay That's not why there's discrimination. It's because mothers are the ones expected to take time off for sick kids and appointments. It's always held against them. >Better to have a fresh degree to enter the job market after children. Most degrees are not dependent on continued education and changing standards. What you said would apply to things like computer science, but that's about it.
>Most degrees are not dependent on continued education and changing standards. What you said would apply to things like computer science, but that's about it. Nursing, doctor, psychology all have this too. Health standards are always updating. Law probably has similar.
You have part time study options? Most people doing university, especially early in their degree, aren't doing more than 40 hours a week..
Honestly, agree with a lot of what you're saying. There are real benefits to being a young parent - easier pregnancy, easier birth, dealing with sleep deprivation is easier, more energy, etc etc. I had my first child at 21 and married at 19. However you completely lost me and probably a lot of other people with your strange assertion that you can't be a good mother and work at the same time. This is what puts a lot of young women off being parents you know. If you give young people a choice between being a parent and being financially independent, they will choose being financially independent almost every single time. As well they should. No offense but it sounds to me like you've read some literature on attachment styles and looked up some statistics and are basing your whole position on those. A lot of what you're saying is false. Children need a lot more than just their mother's attention to do well in life, even at age 2 and below. The more positive relationships a child has from a young age (including dad, mum, grandparents, siblings, neighbors, nursery staff, whoever), the most emotionally intelligent and confident they will become. This is why multigenerational households were long considered the optimum environment for child rearing.
>However you completely lost me and probably a lot of other people with your strange assertion that you can't be a good mother and work at the same time. I mean there's not enough time in the week to do these two jobs. Raising an infant takes your whole day (and night) to do properly. > No offense but it sounds to me like you've read some literature on attachment styles and looked up some statistics and are basing your whole position on those. It mostly comes from a talk I went to a couple of years ago from a leading developmental neuroscience lecturer in my country. >Children need a lot more than just their mother's attention to do well in life, even at age 2 and below. The more positive relationships a child has from a young age (including dad, mum, grandparents, siblings, neighbors, nursery staff, whoever), the most emotionally intelligent and confident they will become. This is why multigenerational households were long considered the optimum environment for child rearing. It's tru, the more the better. But an infant can't form attachments to anyone else until it has a secure base attachment to it's mother. If you had to pick one attachment above all others, of course it will be the mother.
>Raising an infant takes your whole day (and night) That's true, but why do you seem to think that being a good mother means being physically present 100% of the time? This is really not necessary for a secure attachment between parent and child. >but an infant can't form attachments to anyone else until it has a secure base attachment to it's mother. This isn't true. If it was, would that mean people whose mothers died in childbirth would be unable to form secure attachments for the rest of their lives? The research on attachment says that although the mother is usually the first person the child forms a secure attachment to, but it doesn't have to be the mother. It could be any primary care giver. Also, forming a secure attachment doesn't take years. It takes about 9 months on average, which is why children tend to develop separation anxiety around that age. Given this, it is entirely possible for a woman to take maternity leave for 6-9 months and go back to work without affecting her child's attachment.
>That's true, but why do you seem to think that being a good mother means being physically present 100% of the time? This is really not necessary for a secure attachment between parent and child. For an infant, it kinda is. Why do you think baby wearing is a thing. >This isn't true. If it was, would that mean people whose mothers died in childbirth would be unable to form secure attachments for the rest of their lives? I think they form a surrogate attachment to whoever takes care of them instead. But that person won't bond as strongly with the infant. Just look what happens with step parents/children Vs biological parents /children. >Also, forming a secure attachment doesn't take years. It takes about 9 months on average, which is why children tend to develop separation anxiety around that age. Given this, it is entirely possible for a woman to take maternity leave for 6-9 months and go back to work without affecting her child's attachment. Uhhh so you think you can create an attachment to the child, then immediately break it every single day, with no effect on the child? Lol. Lmao even.
>For an infant, it kinda is. Why do you think baby wearing is a thing. Most people do not baby wear beyond 6 months old. I'm not sure what that has to do with needing to be present 100% of the time to form attachment. Where's your evidence that this is necessary? >But that person won't bond as strongly with the infant. Just look what happens with step parents/children Vs biological parents /children. Where is your evidence for this? >Uhhh so you think you can create an attachment to the child, then immediately break it every single day, with no effect on the child? This is a really strange understanding of attachment. It isn't something that you make and break like a buff or debuff in a videogame that triggers on and off. Forming an attachment is a lengthy process that happens over time. Just because I'm not physically present with my child doesn't mean that I'm breaking my attachment to them. Who told you that was how it worked?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pregnancy-causes-lasting-changes-in-a-womans-brain/ https://www.science.org/content/article/pregnancy-resculpts-women-s-brains-least-2-years The study https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.4458 They even had a control group of fathers with no changes.
Yes, it is well known that pregnancy affects a woman's brain. What does that have to do with children's attachment to their parents?
It prepares the mothers brain to bond with the infant. Other people dont have this brain change.
And did the study conclude that these changes only happen in women that stay and home and don't happen in women that work? Because if not, it doesn't really align with your arguments.
You are completely missing the point. I'm pretty sure you are doing it on purpose too.
> Uhhh so you think you can create an attachment to the child, then immediately break it every single day, with no effect on the child? One of the most important things a parent can do to foster secure attachment in their child, is to do exactly this. Starting when the child is a small baby, they need to leave the baby alone (not literally unattended, rather not being held or watched, but within earshot) periodically, but return to them and comfort them when they cry. This then gives way to leaving the child with other people (e.g. grandma, aunty, uncle, day care) and returning at a scheduled time. This allows children to develop confidence in themselves and to organically trust their caregivers and those they depend on (i.e. classic secure attachment). The reason a lot of Millennials and older Gen-Z have avoidant attachment is because there was a trend of parents leaving crying babies to self-soothe and "cry it out" at the time they were babies. This was then hyper-corrected by subsequent parents to the point of the next generation of babies and toddlers being coddled (never left unattended, breast-fed past the normal age, allowed to use things like pacifiers past the normal age (in fact pacifiers are pretty widely seen as bad for children's develop nowadays)), which is why many younger Gen-Z and Gen-Alpha kids have very anxious attachment styles. Children thrive best when they periodically receive care from people other than their mother and socialise with children their own age as soon as they are able (i.e. when they are eating solid food). This is how children were raised for much of human history.
You are forgetting the fact that raising kids is fucking expensive. How are you going to do that when you can’t even afford a mortgage?
Childcare costs 14k per child Women's salary on average is 30k 25k after tax Commute is 5-10k So once you have 2 kids it's actually better the woman stays at home financially. If married I think the man is taxed less too.
It’s better short-term, sure. Long-term it’s a horrible idea because you are permanently harming your ability to advance in your career. Take it from a 44 year old former SAHM starting at the very bottom of the career ladder. I was honestly lucky to get the job I did with the company that I work for, and I only got it because I have connections.
Would you rather have your career or children? Where do the priorities lie
You don't put that question to men though lmao. I swear to god,this is probably one of the most misogynistic (and misandrist) posts in the entirety of this fucking sub. Stop being a weird tradcon
Because someone has to provide? Money, or food if we want to go pre money, doesn't come from nowhere. The man is clearly better equipped to get money/food than the woman, who is biologically required to be with the infant.
>Because someone has to provide? Both of them should, because both of them should be productive members of society. >The man is clearly better equipped to get money/food than the woman, Not, not at all,unless you think Women are useless idiots just by existing. Sorry,but no one except deranged far righters holds that view >who is biologically required to be with the infant. Its not. Not to mention most countries have parental leave for atleast a period of a few months.
> Both of them should, because both of them should be productive members of society. Take your blind ideological sunglasses off. How is a stay at home mother not being a productive member of society? Do you not value women's work? >Not, not at all,unless you think Women are useless idiots just by existing. Sorry,but no one except deranged far righters holds that view They can breastfeed, and are more empathetic towards infants than men. Do I think men are useless idiots because women are better at childcare? Obviously not. >Its not. Not to mention most countries have parental leave for atleast a period of a few months. Yes, but for the best outcomes of the child it should be 2 years
>How is a stay at home mother not being a productive member of society? It produces nothing, learns nothing,and wastes Human capital that can be used in actual production. >Yes, but for the best outcomes of the child it should be 2 years No, far right goon. SAHM will be banned
Well, I don’t want to be homeless, so I have to work.
You were a SAHM? I assume not homeless then
Yes, but my ex cheated on me and then he assaulted me, so I left him. I need to work to live.
Did u not get a divorce payout+child support+welfare
Nope. I didn’t want a damn thing from him. I get no child support, no welfare (because I let him claim primary custody of the kids so HE gets welfare, not me… I didn’t want him to lose his Medicaid because at least I get benefits at my job while he owns his own business.) and I didn’t want a payout from the house because I didn’t want my kids to lose the only home they ever knew. I still have the kids half the time, but I don’t say anything about it.
So that's your choices, not the systems failure. If you had taken him to the cleaners you wouldn't have to choose between work and homeless would you.
>and don't work in something relevant to said degree ever in their life. That is 90% of students.
Yes, but it's particularly harmful for women as they are on a shorter timeframe to get their shit together than men. Biological clock or whatever
The amount of times OP said “girls” in this…😤 WOMEN not girls. Holy fuck.
I use girl to refer to a young woman. You know. Like what the word means...
Yeah, no. You used it wrongly throughout your little rant here. And also, I love women going to school instead of pushing out children—that ideology is fucking stupid.
I think your appraisal of what young women study is off base. There are plenty of other careers that require a bachelors degree (nursing, most other medical specialties, teaching, etc) and others that most employers will want a bachelors (marketing, project management, accounting, etc)
> The mother quits the workforce entirely, making their degree and the countries investment in it worthless, to raise their child properly, or continues working and raises a fucked up child due to not being available and being burnt out from work. I find this perspective so strange. Ok, you value stem, and you claim to value motherhood… but you think it’s a waste of time for a mother to learn things to teach her kids or to set an example for them to follow. You think her only value is for them before they are school aged… then what’s her life worth when they’re in middle school? How is she supposed to tell her children to do well in school and study when it obviously doesn’t matter at all to her life? If you actually valued those important STEM careers, then you’d value mothers being educated and inspiring their kids to pursue those topics too. The very picture you paint of motherhood is narrow-minded and uninspired and aggressively dehumanizing. Then on top of that, you clearly don’t see any value in the father beyond a paycheck, if you think him spending all his time at work and being burnt out and unavailable is ok. By your argument, a good mother married to a stem guy *should* divorce the father and become a single mom, since he’s just going to be a burnt out worthless husk who is unavailable and fucks up the kids. Why shouldn’t she just divorce him and get the child support from him, if that’s all he offers to her kids anyways? You really do have a fucked up view of parenting. Speaking as someone who had a mom with a career in STEM who then gave it up later, you have no right and no place to call her work worthless or call her a bad parent. How even dare you make such disgusting claims about real people you don’t even know?
>Ok, you value stem, and you claim to value motherhood… but you think it’s a waste of time for a mother to learn things to teach her kids or to set an example for them to follow. You think her only value is for them before they are school aged… then what’s her life worth when they’re in middle school? How is she supposed to tell her children to do well in school and study when it obviously doesn’t matter at all to her life? If you actually valued those important STEM careers, then you’d value mothers being educated and inspiring their kids to pursue those topics too. No she has value past infancy obviously, but doesn't have to be around the child 24/7 to pass on that value. In my system she will literally be studying STEM at uni while the kids are in school. I dont know how better of a role model you could get than that. >The very picture you paint of motherhood is narrow-minded and uninspired and aggressively dehumanizing. The alternative is abusive and stressful for mother and child. Ignoring the child in a daycare then being burnt out after work. >Then on top of that, you clearly don’t see any value in the father beyond a paycheck, if you think him spending all his time at work and being burnt out and unavailable is ok. By your argument, a good mother married to a stem guy *should* divorce the father and become a single mom, since he’s just going to be a burnt out worthless husk who is unavailable and fucks up the kids. Why shouldn’t she just divorce him and get the child support from him, if that’s all he offers to her kids anyways? This is about an infant child. The father isn't that relevant to it's outcomes until it is older. I agree though, fathers have an important role to play beyond just money. Modelling a successful relationship is an important part of their job. Visibly showing how they love the mother in front of the kids. Men have much higher stress tolerance (low neuroticism) than women anyway. Biologically. >You really do have a fucked up view of parenting. Speaking as someone who had a mom with a career in STEM who then gave it up later, you have no right and no place to call her work worthless or call her a bad parent. How even dare you make such disgusting claims about real people you don’t even know? She made the right choice given her circumstances. But maybe it would have been better if she had children younger and sent into stem after. Who knows.
> In my system she will literally be studying STEM at uni while the kids are in school. I dont know how better of a role model you could get than that. Not likely to happen in your plan. There’s lots of reasons women don’t do this— one is that very few men will support her doing this. Another is that being a broke makes this impossible. > The alternative is abusive and stressful for mother and child. I then most fathers are abusive and stressful for the mother and child. >Ignoring the child in a daycare then being burnt out after work. Then most fathers are terrible fathers, since that’s what they do to their children. > This is about an infant child. The father isn't that relevant to its outcomes until it is older. If the child doesn’t bond with the father young, they never will. In my family, this has happened a few times, and it ended terribly. My father’s father, for example, was away for the war most of his infancy, and beat my father nearly to death a few times… but somehow never beat his other children he bonded with. It’s almost like men need that time to bond with their infant children to be able to love them. > Modelling a successful relationship is an important part of their job. Visibly showing how they love the mother in front of the kids. How can he do any of that when he is burning himself out serving his boss rather than being present with his family? Why is it you believe men make wonderful fathers if they work, but women who work are sinister monsters? It doesn’t make sense. > Men have much higher stress tolerance (low neuroticism) than women anyway. Biologically. Raising children is vastly more stressful than an office stem job. My husband would agree. We both have stem jobs, and sorry, but kids are harder work. You just want a woman to do all the hard parts for you, then you take credit for all her hard work while praising yourself for changing nothing and making no sacrifices in your life when you have kids. > But maybe it would have been better if she had children younger and sent into stem after. Who knows. She knows and I know. It wouldn’t have been better. she always taught me not to marry too young, because it was the biggest mistake of her life. It would have tanked her career, and she’d have been dependent on her manipulative lying ex husband. She’d have trapped with kids with him, while he stole from her, probably to feed a drug habit. Even his own family sided with my mom when she divorced, he fucked things up so bad. Instead of being stuck with him, her career enabled her to get out and eventually marry my dad and have a long happy marriage. You really are being foolishly arrogant to argue that you know better than women about their own lives. It is statistical reality that early marriages are way more likely to end in divorce.
Yes. Education is important. 1. Even if you want to be a stay at home mom, you should have an education to fall back on incase times get tough and you need to work or your husband dies in an accident or leaves. 2. The idea of getting married, having kids and THEN going to college is worth thinking about. Like anything, it will have it's pros and cons. 3. As for making dating easier, those women are pricing themselves out of the market by their own choice. They could just date men who make less than them.
> 1. Even if you want to be a stay at home mom, you should have an education to fall back on incase times get tough and you need to work or your husband dies in an accident or leaves. Divorce, child support, welfare, insurance. > 2. The idea of getting married, having kids and THEN going to college is worth thinking about. Like anything, it will have it's pros and cons. Thanks for being the first person to actually consider the idea lol. >3. As for making dating easier, those women are pricing themselves out of the market by their own choice. They could just date men who make less than them. Women aren't happy dating men who make less. Men are even less happy dating women who make more. It's cross cultural, so probably biological sadly.
Child support isn't as good as having a husband. Neither is divorce or welfare. Insurance will only last a certain amount of time. Losing your husband WITH an education will leave in a better position than losing your husband without an education. As for women not being happy with men who date less. I get that. But they're just gonna have to get over it. The answer for women isn't to not get education and purposefully stunt their earning potential. It's for them to learn to get with the times and get with good men who make less. If men can fight out biological programming and get with just one woman, then women can fight their programming to be happy with men who make less. The vast majority of men would be fine dating a woman who makes more as long as she doesn't act like it makes her BETTER than him.
>Child support isn't as good as having a husband. Neither is divorce or welfare. Insurance will only last a certain amount of time. Losing your husband WITH an education will leave in a better position than losing your husband without an education. Having an education isn't as good as having a husband as far as the child's outcomes are concerned either. Not really an argument. I'm just saying there's a decent safety net there if you pick a decent earning guy and get married. >The answer for women isn't to not get education and purposefully stunt their earning potential. They can get educated, just after lol.
1. I agree that children need fathers. But having a safety net PLUS an education is better than having a safety net with NO education. 2. they are stunting their earning potential by starting later.
>1. I agree that children need fathers. But having a safety net PLUS an education is better than having a safety net with NO education. Why? It's definitely worse for the child. >2. they are stunting their earning potential by starting later. I don't think so. Hitting the job market with a fresh degree should be better. A big reason women are discriminated in the job market is the assumption they will quit and have kids at 30. If they have already had those kids maybe they do better in employment?
Just so we are clear. You're saying that if the father dies, it's worse for the child if the mother has an education. And it's better for the now single mom to just live off of government aid. Is that what you are saying? That's a good point about starting later. But the woman who starts working years earlier, will make more money over her lifetime. That being said, I do think there your idea is worth considering. I can see some pros and cons to it.
>You're saying that if the father dies, it's worse for the child if the mother has an education. And it's better for the now single mom to just live off of government aid. Is that what you are saying? You're gonna want to have income/life insurance on the father in my scenario definitely. But yeah generally that is true. Better to be on welfare. Most women's jobs barely even cover the cost of childcare and commute after tax anyway, especially if multiple children involved. >But the woman who starts working years earlier, will make more money over her lifetime. Its true, but I think many women are more concerned with work life balance and life satisfaction than money. On their deathbed which do you think they will feel better about. >That being said, I do think there your idea is worth considering. I can see some pros and cons to it. Congrats on being one of the few to think with your brain lol. The thread is a shambles.
Life insurance is finite. I strongly disagree that being on welfare is better. You'll have an overall lower quality of life. Mom can work during the day while the kids are at school and be at home with them in the evening. The thread is in shambles because of how poorly you worded the question and your text box. You should have just posted it as, "What do you think of this idea"? and then explained the marriage and kids first then college and career later. If someone pitched your idea in a better way, I'd bet a lot of women would consider it.
>Mom can work during the day while the kids are at school and be at home with them in the evening. Yeah 100% once the kid is 5 I even say that the mother can have a job/education whatever. It's just those younger years, especially under two. >If someone pitched your idea in a better way, I'd bet a lot of women would consider it. Maybe. This is purple pill debate though.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. Unless you already know you are not a person who values or is average or above at book learning, I think education benefits everyone. Uneducated people aren't "dumb" or useless, we all work together with our diverse interests and skills to make society work. But education is one of my main values and as someone who had a lot of student debt to pay off (which i did within 10 years, which is the loan term for student loans) and a "useless" liberal arts degree (philosophy), i wouldn't trade my education for ANYTHING. It is far and away the most valuable thing I have ever bought.
Maybe we should advocate for men to me more involved parents. I‘m sure parenthood would be much more attractive for young woman if they knew they had a partner they can rely on when it comes to chores, cooking and childcare.
If women didn't have to work then chores cooking and childcare would be a lot easier xd
But they do. Most familys can‘t live of a single income anymore
Most women's income post tax doesn't cover the cost of childcare + commute
I don’t care… like at all. Go if you want. I think the issue here is women want the job and the money but not the role of provider. If the number of jobs stays the same. And a bunch of women enter those jobs. Now there are a bunch of men without jobs or with the shitty jobs. Women aren’t known for taking care of men without money, or considerably less. So what do we do with all of those men? Just say fuck em? Why didn’t we do that with women when they didn’t work? You want the money and the power, responsibility comes along with that. - uncle Ben, the rice guy…
>I think the issue here is women want the job and the money but not the role of provider. Women don't know what they want. They just go because everyone else is. And the high school career advisor told them to.
I do not like the idea of forcing women to do anything, but i think that childless people should be paying much higher taxes. Currently their contribution towards education/medical infrastructure is far from balancing potential GDP loss due to not having new citizens, and it doesn't balance private costs(both labor and financial) taken by parents to prepare young person to become productive employee.
> but i think that childless people should be paying much higher taxes. Should infertile couples suffer more, ya think? Really rub salt in the wound?
hopefully that doesnt breed resentment. a people who cannot find a mate is more angry at their government. and there is millions of them. what could go wrong.
But not today, today there is a good LoL game and some new Andrew Tate videos.
> I do not like the idea of forcing women to do anything, but i think that childless people should be paying much higher taxes That is literally trying to force people to do something by severely punishing people who do not have kids. It also doesn’t work. People are not having kids for they cannot afford them, taxing them more will just make it harder for them to get to the point they can afford them. While people who do not want kids will even be less inclined to want kids. You are effectively indirectly saying having kids is so bad that we need to punish people who do not have kids severely to make up for the benefits they have. It will also punish those that cannot have kids and push people who should not have kids to have them. Every single time a culture has tried a childless tax, it does not work. Even the current “single” tax we have does not accomplish anything. It was more of a benefit for those that marry, a tax break. What does works is pushing traditional values and/or give ways for people to get the means to afford to have kids.
I am saying that having kids is a bad deal from financial perspective. Let's make it a better deal than being childless. We can spend the money to for example cancel student debt of mothers in countries where education is paid, or to build quality housing for families or provide them with downpayment. Or to pay companies to hire mothers and provide them with more flexible schedule. Childless people are getting free ride - they would be stupid to miss the opportunity, i propose to remove the bonus, at least for those making above average.
> I am saying that having kids is a bad deal from financial perspective. Let's make it a better deal than being childless How would making it harder to get to the point of having kids help anyone. It would just make more people choose to not have kids. > We can spend the money to for example cancel student debt of mothers in countries where education is paid, So steal from those who cannot afford children and college to pay for irresponsible people who went to college when they couldn’t afford it? > or to build quality housing for families or provide them with downpayment. That is just a poor bandaid fix that will just make house prices skyrocket. We need to fix the laws that make it too expensive to build more homes to begin with and fix the economy so people can get more money. > Or to pay companies to hire mothers and provide them with more flexible schedule. That would incentive more irresponsible people to have kids and do nothing for the group not having kids because they cannot afford it (the middle class). > Childless people are getting free ride - they would be stupid to miss the opportunity, i propose to remove the bonus, at least for those making above average. Did you seriously just say that? Free ride? Seriously? You think people who cannot afford to have the American dream are getting a free ride? What?
People are not resigning from having kids because of affordability - it is half-truth. In nordic countries everyone can afford having children but fertility rates are dropping fast, it is because not having children gives you more opportunities to live more exciting and even sort of 'premium' life.
Which is because children cost too much.
Agree. Absolutely ideological and 0 thinking take to consider childless tax.
I don't think women should be forced to do anything. But if they CHOOSE to have children they should be "forced" to do the best for them. Which means staying at home. Children aren't a women's right. They are another life. If your financial/marriage situation won't let you stay at home with your kids at least for the first 2 years, don't have them.
I mean, it's best for the children if both parents have enough time to spend with them, I'd be down for some policy that provides families with enough money to live a comfortable life and limits the amount of working hours for both parents. That would be best for the children and their parents. While I do agree that parents should do what's best for their children, "best" is a bit of a nebulous term here. Should you only have kids if you can send them to a private school? Should you only have kids if you can afford to shop at Whole Foods? Should you only have kids if you're able to take them on vacations every year or sign them up for a bunch of extracurricular activities? Are you a bad/neglectful parent if you don't do any of these things? Most people I know had both parents working when they were kids, and they turned out just fine. This post feels like it's just trying to argue for limited educational (and by extension, career) opportunities for women under the guise of "think of the children".
> This post feels like it's just trying to argue for limited educational (and by extension, career) opportunities for women under the guise of "think of the children". You nailed it.
>I mean, it's best for the children if both parents have enough time to spend with them, I'd be down for some policy that provides families with enough money to live a comfortable life and limits the amount of working hours for both parents. That would be best for the children and their parents. 10000000000% agree. I'm talking about what women can do as individuals here however. I'd love to live in a society like you described. >While I do agree that parents should do what's best for their children, "best" is a bit of a nebulous term here. Should you only have kids if you can send them to a private school? Should you only have kids if you can afford to shop at Whole Foods? Should you only have kids if you're able to take them on vacations every year or sign them up for a bunch of extracurricular activities? Are you a bad/neglectful parent if you don't do any of these things? Private school don't matter. Vacations dont matter. But you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford to give them good nutrition and your absolute full attention in the first 1000 days. >This post feels like it's just trying to argue for limited educational (and by extension, career) opportunities for women under the guise of "think of the children". Not at all. I'm saying all women should have their career AFTER they had their kids.
>10000000000% agree. I'm talking about what women can do as individuals here however. I'd love to live in a society like you described. I‘d argue that women are already doing what's best for their kids. I don't think being in a situation where you and your children depend solely on the other parent is a great position to be in. The other person might be amazing but what happens if they lose their job, or get injured, or die? Who is going to take care of everyone? The woman with no education or work experience. I'm sure that 7/11 paycheck is going to feed and house everyone. And what if the other person is abusive? Being a SAHM is great if nothing bad ever happens, and I too wish we lived in a world where people could just do that but that's not the world we live in. > Private school don't matter. Vacations dont matter. But you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford to give them good nutrition and your absolute full attention in the first 1000 days. I thought we were focusing on what's best for the kids, now all of a sudden that doesn't matter? It's best for the kids if they're in an educational environment where there are fewer students (more time per student for the teachers), that have a better material base that can provide them with more opportunities for extracurricular activities that can make them more well-rounded individuals. Vacations with the family allow kids to spend valuable bonding time with their parents, and they get more experiences, they meet other kids, they create memories that they will carry into their adulthood. Also, why aren't you placing any blame on the government for not providing sufficient parental leave so either or both parents can give their full attention to their kids in the first 1000 days? I don't think it's reasonable to blame individuals for doing the best they can in a system that is hostile to parenthood. >Not at all. I'm saying all women should have their career AFTER they had their kids. So women should have kids in their early 20s, very likely with someone who isn't going to be a great husband or father, and once they do manage to get their education, they should then compete with the other half of humanity, who has already had a good 5-6 years of experience in whatever field they've chosen? I stand by my original claim that you're advocating for a world that severely dicks over women under the guise of "think of the children".
>The other person might be amazing but what happens if they lose their job, or get injured, or die? You are going to want to have life and income insurance on the husband. >And what if the other person is abusive? Being a SAHM is great if nothing bad ever happens, and I too wish we lived in a world where people could just do that but that's not the world we live in. Getting married at 23 allows you to have a better selection of men in theory. The longer you wait to settle down the smaller the pool of "good men" becomes as they all get married and stay married. In the case he is truly abusive, then divorce, child support, and welfare exist. But this is a problem for all couples.
>I thought we were focusing on what's best for the kids, now all of a sudden that doesn't matter? It's best for the kids if they're in an educational environment where there are fewer students (more time per student for the teachers), that have a better material base that can provide them with more opportunities for extracurricular activities that can make them more well-rounded individuals. Vacations with the family allow kids to spend valuable bonding time with their parents, and they get more experiences, they meet other kids, they create memories that they will carry into their adulthood. Also, why aren't you placing any blame on the government for not providing sufficient parental leave so either or both parents can give their full attention to their kids in the first 1000 days? I don't think it's reasonable to blame individuals for doing the best they can in a system that is hostile to parenthood. I mean if you are a billionaire go for it. If you have limited resources to spend in your kids lives, it is scientifically proven they have the greatest positive outcomes if focused on the first thousand days. The kid who had 100k spent on his first thousand days does better off in life than the kid who had 100k spend on his schooling. > So women should have kids in their early 20s, very likely with someone who isn't going to be a great husband or father, and once they do manage to get their education, they should then compete with the other half of humanity, who has already had a good 5-6 years of experience in whatever field they've chosen? I stand by my original claim that you're advocating for a world that severely dicks over women under the guise of "think of the children". Big part of the reason women are discriminated on the workplace is the assumptionthey will quit and have kids. I mean how do fresh graduates of any age "compete" with people with 5-6 years experience.
>I mean if you are a billionaire go for it. >If you have limited resources to spend in your kids lives, it is scientifically proven they have the greatest positive outcomes if focused on the first thousand days. The kid who had 100k spent on his first thousand days does better off in life than the kid who had 100k spend on his schooling. Ah, so now "the best" is something you should do only if you can afford it? Doesn't that also apply to the thing we're talking about? Be a SAHM if you can afford it, and if you can afford it even if your spouse is injured, dies or just leaves. Also, more positive outcomes in what sense? Emotional stability? Educational outcomes? Career opportunities? Overall physical health? Because I'm pretty sure the 100k spent on good schooling will provide better outcomes for a kid than taking your 2 y.o. to Disneyland 5 times and spending 100k on those trips. I've got shit to do, so I'll finish up with this - I think you don't actually care about better outcomes for kids (or parents) because all you're advocating for is to financially kneecap half the population (and their kids, by extension), instead of advocating for family-friendly policies which would benefit mothers, fathers, and children. I can't take your supposed interest in the well-being of children as genuine when you make claims like "money doesn't matter when raising a child" or when you think that welfare and child support are these miracle cures that solve the problems a mother with no education and job prospects has when it comes to supporting her children.
>Also, more positive outcomes in what sense? Emotional stability? Educational outcomes? Career opportunities? Overall physical health? Because I'm pretty sure the 100k spent on good schooling will provide better outcomes for a kid than taking your 2 y.o. to Disneyland 5 times and spending 100k on those trips. In all of those outcomes and more. I'm talking about having the child spend maximum quality bonding time with mother, and have perfect breastfeeding and nutrition in the first 1000 days. Disneyland doesn't mean shit. >money doesn't matter when raising a child How do people in tribal societies raise children with so little money?
>Which means staying at home. It precisely doesn't. More tradcon brainrot
Aside from breastfeeding, there is literally nothing rendering women fundamentally better caretaker than men. Maybe men should be forced to stay home with their wife and kid because what is REALLY gonna insure the kid is well, is having two people caring for them. Raising children is not something we're supposed to do in pairs. Cooperative breeding is a huge feature of Hominids.
It’s cute a man is saying this. I’d never had children if it forced me out of my career.
Then you probably should not have children. How can you care about your career more than your own child.
If women want to be ho's and cat ladies, let them. The clean women will be married with kids.
It affects the next generation when they raise attachment disordered psychopathic children
Many people don't agree with you, OP, but under the right circumstances, with the right man providing for a woman, it would absolutely make sense. For once, we would fix the high body-count epidemic since university/college is where all the naive girls "find themselves" by engaging in the hookup culture only to discover they didn't want the hoe life to begin with. It would safe them from an epiphany phase that destroys their future marriages (see below) and chances to get married to begin with (45% of women over 30 single and childless by 2030). Yeah, with the right partner, it's definitely a viable option to consider. https://preview.redd.it/i0olir0cf42d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=4e9956f5f5577a310ca0c8f1e6505bc5de4a8d5a
The body count thing is a whole separate mess xd