View Full Version : Should men be given paternity leave?
Kazimiera
10-07-2012, 08:44 PM
I'm not sure how things work in other countries, but in South Africa a woman is given four consecutive months of fully paid maternity leave from the time of 2 weeks before the birth. She may resume work before then if she wants, but it is compulsory that she takes 6 weeks after the birth of the baby.
Paternity leave is another issue, and usually the man is only given a few days, if even that.
Do you think that men should be granted fully paid paternity leave, and for how long?
Sikeliot
10-07-2012, 08:46 PM
The man should get paternity leave but a shorter amount of time than his significant other's maternity leave.
Yes. In fact in an ideal world -I wish-:
Maternity leave up to 18 months, first 12 months paid fully the rest 6 months just 75% of the basic salary.
Paternal leave up to 6 months, first 3 months paid fully, the rest non-paid.
I voted no, a little baby needs his mom first, the children-father relation comes later.
Plus I don't think that's economicaly a good thing.
No. Taking care if children is a woman's job.
The Lawspeaker
10-07-2012, 09:07 PM
Yes. In fact in an ideal world:
Maternity leave up to 18 months, first 12 months paid fully the rest 6 months just 75% of the basic salary.
Paternal leave up to 6 months, first 3 months paid fully, the rest non-paid.
I am in favour of it too:
For the mother 18 months from which 18 fully paid. For the father 9 months, 6 months fully paid and the rest 75 percent of the last earned salary.
But only for the first child. For the second child it will be 18 months for the mother fully paid. And just 6 months for the father (fully paid).
From there on just 18 months from which 12 months fully paid and the other 6 months 75 percent of the salary. None for the father. This should be done in order to ensure that the number of children per family will be kept low (because of our dense population).
The Lawspeaker
10-07-2012, 09:07 PM
I voted no, a little baby needs his mom first, the children-father relation comes later.
Plus I don't think that's economicaly a good thing.
The Swedes and Norwegians have it. And they are Europe's finest economies.
Albion
10-07-2012, 09:25 PM
The Swedes and Norwegians have it. And they are Europe's finest economies.
How would it work for large countries though? Scandinavians haven't got so much as 20 million people between them, NL probably has more people than Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
How would it work in countries of 60 million (France, UK), 80 million (Germany, Turkey?), or ~140 million (Russia)?
I'am very much in favour of paternity leave, but I too am thinking about the economic aspect of it. The first few weeks after the child's birth are the most important as the kid will acclimatise to the world and the people around it. In that time it is better to have the mother and father around it than having the father at work and only seeing it for a few hours each day.
I'd set paternity leave at 2 months paid, 1 month optional extra (unpaid, but father's could take some of it as that years paid holiday).
The Lawspeaker
10-07-2012, 09:35 PM
How would it work for large countries though? Scandinavians haven't got so much as 20 million people between them, NL probably has more people than Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
How would it work in countries of 60 million (France, UK), 80 million (Germany, Turkey?), or ~140 million (Russia)?
Welll: I don't care about the UK, France, Germany or Turkey or Russia but I think that this could actually work in order to bring down the population by creating a balance between work and life. Such a system would celebrate parenthood as the treasure it is but it would also limit the amount of children (by means of the limited amount of parental leave and benefits) one can get. It would work even better when combined with a one-child policy.
Albion
10-07-2012, 09:52 PM
Welll: I don't care about the UK, France, Germany or Turkey or Russia but I think that this could actually work in order to bring down the population by creating a balance between work and life. Such a system would celebrate parenthood as the treasure it is but it would also limit the amount of children (by means of the limited amount of free time and benefits) one can get. It would work even better when combined with a one-child policy.
New Urbanists say that population growth should be tolerated by forcing people into living in ever smaller spaces. The Japanese have reached the stage where their population is too much for the land area. People threat about their ageing population which will be hard to sustain, but a fall in their population will be healthy for the country in the long term.
Some people in the larger Japanese cities are already living in one room "micro apartments" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakagin_Capsule_Tower), so there is a need to control population growth.
http://montaraventures.com/blog/wp-content/2008/06/coffinhotel.jpg
One day all this could be yours! :D
People naturally don't like being told what to do though. A one child policy would have to limit state support to families that have more children, not make it illegal to. And eventually it would have to be abolished so that a stable population at replacement level was maintained (enough being born to replace those that die).
The Lawspeaker
10-07-2012, 09:56 PM
New Urbanists say that population growth should be tolerated by forcing people into living in ever smaller spaces. The Japanese have reached the stage where their population is too much for the land area. People threat about their ageing population which will be hard to sustain, but a fall in their population will be healthy for the country in the long term.
Some people in the larger Japanese cities are already living in one room "micro apartments" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakagin_Capsule_Tower), so there is a need to control population growth.
http://montaraventures.com/blog/wp-content/2008/06/coffinhotel.jpg
One day all this could be yours! :D
People naturally don't like being told what to do though. A one child policy would have to limit state support to families that have more children, not make it illegal to. And eventually it would have to be abolished so that a stable population at replacement level was maintained (enough being born to replace those that die).
And that's why I want to act now. We aren't at that stage just yet but we shouldn't wait another 20 years before acting. For the rest I agree with you that it should not be made illegal but it should have financial and legal repercussions (if the couple is immigrant they should actually lose their rights to stay in the country and all benefits and if they are Dutch they should lose all benefits) . I think that such a policy (in the case of the Netherlands) could be abandoned when the population hits the 10 percent. To be replaced with a two child policy until the population hits 8 million.
Albion
10-07-2012, 10:50 PM
And that's why I want to act now. We aren't at that stage just yet but we shouldn't wait another 20 years before acting. For the rest I agree with you that it should not be made illegal but it should have financial and legal repercussions (if the couple is immigrant they should actually lose their rights to stay in the country and all benefits and if they are Dutch they should lose all benefits) . I think that such a policy (in the case of the Netherlands) could be abandoned when the population hits the 10 percent. To be replaced with a two child policy until the population hits 8 million.
What population size would fit the Netherlands in your opinion? The UK is set to have 70 million people in twenty years, it needs capping at that. Some ministers have proposed it, but most have rejected the idea sadly.
Ideally we'd have a population of around 35 to 40 million. We need to let the population age and drop a bit. This needs to happen across the world though, not just crowded parts of Europe. China and India especially are full and the land won't support many more people.
The more people we add to the earth the more competition there is for resources. People say we can invent our way out of it - engineer GM "super crops" and squeeze people into cities, but there has to be a limit of how many people we can support. If we continue it will mean that the standard of living for everyone goes down.
This is also partly why I support a more mercantilist approach in the west. Instead of helping our competition grow by buying their crap, instead we should be restricting our trade to regional blocs.
Few countries can be truly autarkal, but Europe and North America could provide nearly everything that our nations need if we restricted trade to regional blocs. The EEC (EU+EFTA+others - the European Economic Area) already fulfils this in Europe. We must wean ourselves off globalisation. We have poor regions in Europe to produce our cheap products and richer regions to produce the more sophisticated ones, we don't need China.
Mercantilism is almost regarded as a dirty word amongst today's pro-globalisation economists, but globalisation is leading to our decline. Mercantilism is an economic theory that states that a country / empire and its colonies should seek to function as a collective autarky (or at least, cloe to that). It would have been achievable in the days of the British, French and even Dutch Empires, but only large countries like Russia, America and Brazil could pull it off today.
But this model could be applied to regional blocs, it could be applied to our regional trade areas. I'd be in favour of such policies in Europe. Mercantilism was what drove Europe towards building great empires in the first place.
Mercantilism is the economic doctrine that government control of foreign trade is of paramount importance for ensuring the prosperity and military security of the state. In particular, it demands a positive balance of trade. Mercantilism dominated Western European economic policy and discourse from the 16th to late-18th centuries.
Other policies have included:
Building a network of overseas colonies; [we don't need that, there are many countries in Europe]
Forbidding colonies to trade with other nations; [all countries in the bloc follow restrictions on trade with nations outside the bloc. Only when necessary would outside trade be permitted]
Monopolizing markets with staple ports;
Banning the export of gold and silver, even for payments;
Forbidding trade to be carried in foreign ships; [Not so much needed today, I doubt Chinese ships will just run away with our goods. Then again, the shipping industry should be our own anyway]
Export subsidies;
Promoting manufacturing with research or direct subsidies;
Limiting wages; [disagree, although some bankers deserve a pay cut.]
Maximizing the use of domestic resources; [very much agree, unless it is of inferior quality]
Restricting domestic consumption with non-tariff barriers to trade.
The Austrian lawyer and scholar Philipp Wilhelm von Hornick, in his Austria Over All, If She Only Will of 1684, detailed a nine-point program of what he deemed effective national economy, which sums up the tenets of mercantilism comprehensively:
That every inch of a country's soil be utilized for agriculture, mining or manufacturing. [the land should be put to good use, but the landscape should be taken into account as well]
That all raw materials found in a country be used in domestic manufacture, since finished goods have a higher value than raw materials.
That a large, working population be encouraged.
That all export of gold and silver be prohibited and all domestic money be kept in circulation.
That all imports of foreign goods be discouraged as much as possible.
That where certain imports are indispensable they be obtained at first hand, in exchange for other domestic goods instead of gold and silver.
That as much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that can be finished [in the home country].
That opportunities be constantly sought for selling a country's surplus manufactures to foreigners, so far as necessary, for gold and silver.
That no importation be allowed if such goods are sufficiently and suitably supplied at home.
Adam Smith rejected the mercantilist focus on production, arguing that consumption was paramount to production. He added that mercantilism was popular among merchants because it was what is now called "rent seeking".[36] However John Maynard Keynes argued that encouraging production was just as important as consumption,and he favoured the "new mercantilism". Keynes also noted that in the early modern period the focus on the bullion supplies was reasonable. In an era before paper money, an increase for bullion was one of the few ways to increase the money supply. Keynes said mercantilist policies generally improved both domestic and foreign investment. Domestic because the policies lowered the domestic rate of interest. And it increased investment by foreigners in the nation by tending to create a favorable balance of trade.[37]
Keynes and other economists of the 20th century also realized the balance of payments is an important concern. Since the 1930s, all nations have closely monitored the inflow and outflow of capital, and most economists agree that a favorable balance of trade is desirable.[citation needed] Keynes also supported government intervention in the economy as necessity, as did mercantilism
As of 2010, the word "mercantilism" remains a pejorative term, often used to attack various forms of protectionism.[39] The similarities between Keynesianism, and its successor ideas, with mercantilism have sometimes led critics to call them neo-mercantilism. Indeed, Paul Samuelson, writing within a Keynesian framework, defended mercantilism, writing: "With employment less than full and Net National Product suboptimal, all the debunked mercantilist arguments turn out to be valid."[40]
Some other systems that do copy several mercantilist policies, such as Japan's economic system, are also sometimes called neo-mercantilist.[41] In an essay appearing in the 14 May 2007 issue of Newsweek, business columnist Robert J. Samuelson argued that China was pursuing an essentially mercantilist trade policy that threatened to undermine the post-World War II international economic structure.[42]
Global free trade supporters such as Adam Smith and the Austrian School of economics argue against it. They do so because they don't really care about what happens to a country so long as they can get their stuff cheaper from the developing world.
Notice that all our competitors in Asia and the developing world are adopting Mercantilist policies. They learned from Europe well, only us in the west are being led by selfish globalists. Leaving our economies open and hoping some foreign company will invest is retarded. When they do invest it is usually to steal our research and development or a brand, not because they won't to produce anything in the west.
So Europe and North America will need to look to adapting mercantilism in the future. As competition grows for goods and resources it will make increasing sense to restrict our markets from foreign competition and become more self sustaining.
Sadly the UK political class is very pro-globalisation at the moment (although much of the public are against it).
Hmmmm... this has gone a bit off topic.... :ohwell:
Siberian Cold Breeze
10-08-2012, 12:14 AM
http://imageshack.us/a/img835/732/49259692.jpg
I voted yes,first two weeks or if mother has given birth with cesarean, mother would need a person by herself ,imagine she has no relatives and nurse beside her ..also psychologicaly needs support or just enjoy happy family atmosphere together ,well deserved .
Children-father relation is not one sided. father needs to feel and enjoy that one time pleasure, a new baby in family, it's food for his soul .He is not only bread tree of family but a human
Economy for human ,not human for economy
The Swedes and Norwegians have it. And they are Europe's finest economies.
It's because they can afford, I don't think most European countries could, the question is to preserve mothers maternity leave in it's paid version.
Frigga
10-08-2012, 01:24 AM
I think it would be very nice if a man was able to enjoy 6-8 weeks paternity leave fully paid, so that he can enjoy the new addition to the family. The newborn stage is so fleeting, and to deny that special experience to a man simply because of his gender is unfair. Father/child relationships would probably be much stronger as a general rule if they were allowed more time with their newborn babies to help facilitate the bonding that happens in those first few weeks, bonds which last a lifetime. There are a lot of hormonal interchanges and exchanges that happen between the baby and the parents, and those hormonal interplays are what makes the bonds possible and stronger. If the father is denied that, it makes the process diminished, not only for him, but for his child as well.
Obviously, more time would be ideal, but personally, I think 6 weeks bare minimum is what should be done here in the States. And a woman deserves 16 weeks bare minimum for maternity leave, as opposed to the scanty 6-8 that is standard now. :shakefist
Osprey
10-08-2012, 02:49 AM
3 weeks for a man and 12 for a woman is enough.
Men don't need to play around with the baby for too long.
They need to discipline it, direct it and give him/her a name.
Xenomorph
10-08-2012, 03:00 AM
Yes, but not as long as maternity leave. I couldn't give a definitive period.
Frigga
10-08-2012, 03:22 AM
3 weeks for a man and 12 for a woman is enough.
Men don't need to play around with the baby for too long.
They need to discipline it, direct it and give him/her a name.
You'll feel differently about the rigidity of the fatherly roles you've defined, if you have a child yourself. ;)
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 05:15 AM
Another good reason to come up with longer paternal leave for women (and paternal leave for men) is that companies should learn that the economy should serve the people instead of the people serve the economy. That may sound communistic but the people should not serve big transnational corporations. Instead these corporations should serve them.
Flintlocke
10-08-2012, 07:52 AM
Sure let's get paid for having kids and sit on our asses drinking beers like the muds. :P
You who advocate male paternity leave have not considered that maybe men don't want to take care of kids. The man might feel that it's annoying to deal with kids and decide to leave the woman instead.
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 08:10 AM
You who advocate male paternity leave have not considered that maybe men don't want to take care of kids.
I think you don't know anything about men. And take that from a man.
I think you don't know anything about men. And take that from a man.
I've lived with a man since I was 18. And I actually live with a man and a kid. If my man had to take care of the kid, he would leave me. I think that men having to take care of kids (and household) is a major cause for divorce.
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 08:20 AM
I've lived with a man since I was 18. And I actually live with a man and a kid. If my man had to take care of the kid, he would leave me. I think that men having to take care of kids (and household) is a major cause for divorce.
Forgive me my bluntness (I don't care if you don't) but then you've married a piece of sh...t. Every single man that I know adores his children and loves to spend time with his family.
Forgive me my bluntness (I don't care if you don't) but then you married a piece of human excrement.
No, it's just the reality. Men aren't wired to take care of kids.
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 08:22 AM
No, it's just the reality. Men aren't wired to take care of kids.
Keep telling that to yourself. I see a different picture all around me. Every man that I know is a family man.
Keep telling that to yourself. I see a different picture all around me. Every man that I know is a family man.
What do you mean by family man?
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 08:25 AM
What do you mean by family man?
What do you think I mean with that ? A man that is the head of the family and loves to spend time with them whenever his schedule permits so.
What do you think I mean with that ? A man that is the head of the family and loves to spend time with them whenever his schedule permits so.
As a woman with a kid, I can tell you that I don't want that.
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 08:28 AM
As a woman with a kid, I can tell you that I don't want that.
Thank God I didn't marry you then. :thumb001: But then again, by your own logic, you have no rights, no free will, when your husband wants it he will do it whether you like it or not.
Thank God I didn't marry you then. :thumb001: But then again, by your own logic, you have no rights, no free will, when your husband wants it he will do it whether you like it or not.
Do what? Spend time with the family? :rotfl
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 08:32 AM
Do what? Spend time with the family? :rotfl
Exactly. Like a self-respecting Christian, European man should..
Exactly. Like a self-respecting Christian, European man should..
No. No self-respecting Christian European man will do that. A dork and a creep will do that to get into the woman's panties. No, the man has his role and the woman has her role.
Albion
10-08-2012, 08:40 AM
You who advocate male paternity leave have not considered that maybe men don't want to take care of kids. The man might feel that it's annoying to deal with kids and decide to leave the woman instead.
Why don't you leave us men to speak our own mind?
I've lived with a man since I was 18. And I actually live with a man and a kid. If my man had to take care of the kid, he would leave me.
If you don't have a dick then you don't have an opinion. :bored:
As a woman with a kid, I can tell you that I don't want that.
Why?
Why don't you leave us men to speak our own mind?
Because you are not men, you are dorks.
If you don't have a dick then you don't have an opinion. :bored:
You're a dork, your opinion doesn't count. I'm Mary, my opinion is very interesting.
Why?
Because, that's not something a woman needs, from a man. She needs other stuff from a man.
Vojnik
10-08-2012, 08:47 AM
I think Men should be given a decent amount of time to spend with their newly born child/children. So I think yes, paternity leave should be granted to the father, and the time period of that paid paternity leave should be at least two weeks, a couple of days is not enough.
Vojnik
10-08-2012, 08:56 AM
I've lived with a man since I was 18. And I actually live with a man and a kid. If my man had to take care of the kid, he would leave me. I think that men having to take care of kids (and household) is a major cause for divorce.
When my brother was born, my mother took care of him until he was three months old, and then my father took over the role as stay at home dad because my mother was running a business at the time. My brother is now 16, and my parents are still happily married.
Albion
10-08-2012, 08:58 AM
Because you are not men, you are dorks.
Okay, if you say so. :icon_cheesygrin:
You're a dork, your opinion doesn't count. I'm Mary, my opinion is very interesting.
I'm normal, you're a fruit cake. Your opinion is odd.
Because, that's not something a woman needs, from a man. She needs other stuff from a man.
But isn't it surplus when a man helps look after the kids. Think about it.... you get more from him in addition to what you already get. :lightbul:
But isn't it surplus when a man helps look after the kids. Think about it.... you get more from him in addition to what you already get. :lightbul:
Well, yeah, it's also surplus if a man puts on women's clothing, but it doesn't mean that it's desirable.
This is wrong:
IeY-nDqyQAg
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 09:11 AM
You don't have a dick so you don't have anything to say, Mary. You have no rights: not even to determine whether something is "good" or "bad". That should be left to us men and to God. Because Eve was made out of Adam's rib and Eve ate the apple and gave some to Adam. That's right, Mary, your opinion is void. :cool:
You don't have a dick so you don't have anything to say, Mary. You have no rights: not even to determine whether something is "good" or "bad". That should be left to us men and to God. Because Eve was made out of Adam's rib and Eve ate the apple and gave some to Adam. That's right, Mary, your opinion is void.
We're discussing kids, do you think it's an appropriate topic for men to discuss? Stuff like children and family life is the domain of the woman.
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 09:16 AM
We're discussing kids, do you think it's an appropriate topic for men to discuss? Stuff like children and family life is the domain of the woman.
Everything is appropriate for men to discuss. You women should just be quiet and make sure that dinner is served on time and that our dicks are sucked the proper way. Children too are our domain since we make them: you just receive our seed and serve as a brood chamber. We command, you obey. Clear ? Now get your arse back to the kitchen: men are talking here. .
Vojnik
10-08-2012, 09:19 AM
We're discussing kids, do you think it's an appropriate topic for men to discuss? Stuff like children and family life is the domain of the woman.
Men give the life, Woman just hold it. It is certainly with out a doubt appropriate for men to discuss such matters.
Everything is appropriate for men to discuss. You women should just be quiet and make sure that dinner is served on time and that our dicks are sucked the proper way. We command, you obey. Clear ? Now get your arse back to the kitchen: men are talking here.
Get back in the kitchen yourself. That's where you belong anyway.
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 09:24 AM
Get back in the kitchen yourself. That's where you belong anyway.
A woman with a big mouth. :rolleyes: A good few smacks around the head and acid in the face. That's how the Arabs (your role models) deal with women with too big a mouth.
Men give the life, Woman just hold it. It is certainly with out a doubt appropriate for men to discuss such matters.
Do you discuss panties and stockings too? A man shouldn't get involved with stuff that belongs to the female sphere. That is effeminacy.
A woman with a big mouth. :rolleyes: A good few smacks around the head and acid in the face. That's how the Arabs (your role models) deal with women with too big a mouth.
tLPZmPaHme0
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 09:25 AM
Do you discuss panties and stockings too? A man shouldn't get involved with stuff that belongs to the female sphere. That is effeminacy.
You have no sphere. We command and you obey. Now get your arse back to the kitchen !
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 09:26 AM
I have learned from you, Mary. That's right: I believe that people should get treated the way they deal with others. So you want marriages Arab style ? Then you should be treated the Arab way too. :thumb001:
You have no sphere. We command and you obey. Now get your arse back to the kitchen !
Segregation of the genders is supposed to be very strict. If you're caught discussing stuff that belongs in the female sphere you will no longer be welcome in the male sphere.
I have learned from you, Mary. That's right: I believe that people should get treated the way they deal with others. So you want marriages Arab style ? Then you should be treated the Arab way too. :thumb001:
Maybe you should talk to an actual Arab about this.
Graham
10-08-2012, 09:53 AM
Some of the men at my work, when they have a newborn. They're totally fucked. Come into nightshift/dayshift with no sleep. It's a waste of time being at work & are unproductive. When you're tired, you're going to make mistakes.
Paternity leave. It makes sense.
Some of the men at my work, when they have a newborn. They're totally fucked. Come into nightshift/dayshift with no sleep. It's a waste of time being at work & are unproductive. When you're tired, you're going to make mistakes.
Paternity leave. It makes sense.
Why don't they get sleep?
Graham
10-08-2012, 10:17 AM
Thought that was obvious Mary. Some babies have different sleep patterns.
Thought that was obvious Mary. Some babies have different sleep patterns.
Why would they have a different sleep pattern? It doesn't make sense. There has to be something else to it.
Albion
10-08-2012, 11:29 AM
Why would they have a different sleep pattern? It doesn't make sense. There has to be something else to it.
Thus the parents take it in turns to respond to the baby. You know this Mary, stop pretending to be naive.
Thus the parents take it in turns to respond to the baby. You know this Mary, stop pretending to be naive.
Take turns? No, the woman takes care of the baby all the time. There isn't that much a man can do with a baby.
Albion
10-08-2012, 12:18 PM
Take turns? No, the woman takes care of the baby all the time. There isn't that much a man can do with a baby.
Oh forget it, I don't know why I bother. It's not like you consider anyone's opinion but your own, I'm wasting my time here.
Oh forget it, I don't know why I bother. It's not like you consider anyone's opinion but your own, I'm wasting my time here.
Well my opinion is valid because I actually have a man and a kid.
rhiannon
10-08-2012, 12:31 PM
Forgive me my bluntness (I don't care if you don't) but then you've married a piece of sh...t. Every single man that I know adores his children and loves to spend time with his family.
My hubs is exactly like this...but times TEN:thumb001: He is hugely devoted to spending time with his children and me both:)
rhiannon
10-08-2012, 12:32 PM
No, it's just the reality. Men aren't wired to take care of kids.
Some aren't....this is true. But neither are some women for that matter
rhiannon
10-08-2012, 12:43 PM
Well my opinion is valid because I actually have a man and a kid.
Mary, your opinion is very valid having a man and a kid. However, mine is equally valid as yours using your same reasoning. I tended to do the most when my son was a baby largely because hubs just didn't do things the way I wanted them done. I am somewhat particular about certain things....call it the woman's attention to detail if you want. But, we did share certain duties, and largely because hubs WANTED to. He would have done a lot more if I had allowed him to. I can't speak for your culture, but here in the States, more men and women share Parenting duties as par for the course.
My hubs is also well paid in a highly respected, male-dominated profession. It just so happens that he is a mushbucket who loves children and spending time with them.
Albion
10-08-2012, 12:44 PM
Well my opinion is valid because I actually have a man and a kid.
But I'm a man...
Why do you have a sword anyway? I want one. :D
Mary, your opinion is very valid having a man and a kid. However, mine is equally valid as yours using your same reasoning. I tended to do the most when my son was a baby largely because hubs just didn't do things the way I wanted them done. I am somewhat particular about certain things....call it the woman's attention to detail if you want. But, we did share certain duties, and largely because hubs WANTED to. He would have done a lot more if I had allowed him to. I can't speak for your culture, but here in the States, more men and women share Parenting duties as par for the course.
My hubs is also well paid in a highly respected, male-dominated profession. It just so happens that he is a mushbucket who loves children and spending time with them.
Even if you have a man that wants to take care of a small child it's not appropriate to let him. Because it's not his job to do so.
But I'm a man...
Why do you have a sword anyway? I want one. :D
Yeah, so you don't know what it's like. A woman has an instinct for how to take care of a child, a man doesn't.
Because I like having one. You shouldn't be having a sword you're just going to try to be a knight or something.
rhiannon
10-08-2012, 12:56 PM
Even if you have a man that wants to take care of a small child it's not appropriate to let him. Because it's not his job to do so.
I always did the majority of everything. But, he wanted to help, so I allowed for that too. He is a very loving father, and my son is better for having a good relationship with both his mom AND his dad:)
I don't have children yet, so I guess my opinion is not as valid, but I'm with you Mary.
There is a reason why Nature (God, for spiritual people) put both breasts in woman's body (as opposed to distribute them equally between the man and the woman).
I always did the majority of everything. But, he wanted to help, so I allowed for that too. He is a very loving father, and my son is better for having a good relationship with both him mom AND his dad:)
It's your choice. But I think that people have different roles in the child rearing. The woman does female things, and the man does male things. If you start mixing the two up the child will not have a clear male and female role model.
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 01:07 PM
Maybe you should talk to an actual Arab about this.
You are as good as one. You are a Wahhabi hiding behind the image of "being an Orthodox European".
Albion
10-08-2012, 01:19 PM
Yeah, so you don't know what it's like. A woman has an instinct for how to take care of a child, a man doesn't.
Eh, we're fast learners.
Because I like having one. You shouldn't be having a sword you're just going to try to be a knight or something.
Okay then.
Albion
10-08-2012, 01:23 PM
I don't have children yet, so I guess my opinion is not as valid, but I'm with you Mary.
There is a reason why Nature (God, for spiritual people) put both breasts in woman's body (as opposed to distribute them equally between the man and the woman).
And yet there is no good reason against a man helping out if he feels the need to.
You are as good as one. You are a Wahhabi hiding behind the image of "being an Orthodox European".
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1103314#post1103314
I see it this way:
We, as humans started unspecialized - everyone had to do everything.
Then we discovered that specialization increases efficiency. No one today produces himself/herself all food they eat, all clothes they dress, and so on.
It turns out Nature has discovered this principle far early than us. The body and mind of females are more specialized to take care for children, at least in the very first months of life.
So, let's not throw away the advantages of specialization.
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 01:38 PM
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1103314#post1103314
Mary: I don't give a toss about what lame excuse you come up with. You look like a duck, you have feathers like a duck, you quack like a duck: you are a bloody duck.
Albion
10-08-2012, 01:47 PM
I see it this way:
We, as humans started unspecialized - everyone had to do everything.
Then we discovered that specialization increases efficiency. No one today produces himself/herself all food they eat, all clothes they dress, and so on.
It turns out Nature has discovered this principle far early than us. The body and mind of females are more specialized to take care for children, at least in the very first months of life.
So, let's not throw away the advantages of specialization.
Specialised roles in terms of the economy is very new (post-industrialisation) and leads to a hopeless population. Humans need to be able to carry out a wide variety of tasks. Specialising in a few roles is fine, but modern humanity is restricting itself. This is why rural people mock urbanites - because they can't do anything, they're often quite useless.
Humans success is down to us being able to fulfil a whole range of different roles. In nature there are animals that are specialised for certain habitats, foods and social constructs. Humans can adapt to a wide range of different circumstances because we lack a lot of specialisations.
All of the non-specialised species in the world tend to be the most successful and most adaptable because they can change to suit new conditions.
Humans do have some instincts hard wired into them that are subconsciously followed. I don't think men helping care for kids is going against them. On the contrary, males have an interest in doing so in order to further their own genes (and ultimately, every animal and plant on earth is driven by that).
Mary: I don't give a toss about what lame excuse you come up with. You look like a duck, you have feathers like a duck, you quack like a duck: you are a bloody duck.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1103335#post1103335
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 01:49 PM
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1103335#post1103335
I don't give a toss about your lies.
This is traditional Romanian peasant clothing:
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/3072117.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=45B0EB3381F7834D64C42C6518B7D1257ABFCB57956DCDE4 5223CE6E4BAF89B1
http://0.tqn.com/d/goeasteurope/1/0/O/N/-/-/Bucovina-Romania-Costumes.jpg
http://unirea.org.au/images/3565513669_a1834c0e81_z.jpg
http://0.tqn.com/d/goeasteurope/1/0/T/N/-/-/Romanian-Folk-Dancers.jpg
I don't give a toss about your lies.
This is traditional Romanian peasant clothing:
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/3072117.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=45B0EB3381F7834D64C42C6518B7D1257ABFCB57956DCDE4 5223CE6E4BAF89B1
http://0.tqn.com/d/goeasteurope/1/0/O/N/-/-/Bucovina-Romania-Costumes.jpg
http://unirea.org.au/images/3565513669_a1834c0e81_z.jpg
http://0.tqn.com/d/goeasteurope/1/0/T/N/-/-/Romanian-Folk-Dancers.jpg
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1103343#post1103343
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 01:54 PM
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1103343#post1103343
I don't care about your lies, Mary. You have been rebuked time and time again. Now: hop on the next flight to Mecca. Thank you very much. :thumb001:
You can't deny the advantages of specialization Albion.
Without that, we wouldn't have for example the browser that we're using now. Not only that, but even the programmers involved have to be specialized in different areas, because things have become so complex, that no human brain can master all trades.
Now, think if things have gone wrong (some war just happened), there are no 'biberon' to feed with milk the baby. A woman has always 2 breasts. A man has... nothing.
@Mary I like your picture, but you should show some thigh. They're woman's best part, and they go well with that metal in your hand.
I don't care about your lies, Mary. You have been rebuked time and time again. Now: hop on the next flight to Mecca. Thank you very much. :thumb001:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1103355#post1103355
The Lawspeaker
10-08-2012, 02:19 PM
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1103355#post1103355
You have been rebuked by your own post. :thumb001:
initpaul
11-21-2012, 08:25 PM
Paternity leave makes sense, but then I dislike the current insane focus on working all the hours of day throughout the year, so I would be pleased with any extra holiday any of us can get!
YellowRose
03-16-2013, 02:14 PM
I believe it is up to the new parents. If a man is dedicated enough to want to spend 6 weeks home with his wife and new baby, then I think it is great!
I once new a guy who was a first time father, he was a very dedicated husband and I had no doubts that he was going to be the same as a father. He requested from work that he would like to take "paternity leave" because he felt there should be no discrimination as a father because he said he was just as responsible for bringing their child into the world and it was just as much his responsibility to help his wife with their new baby. He worked for a school district, so he got 6 weeks paid leave.
I am not saying that all employers should have to pay for a whole 6 weeks of leave, but I think they should be supportive of it. I guess the reason why they offer 6 weeks is because it gives the mother (who actually went through the birth) time to re cooperate and allow her body time to get back into order.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.