15mth Adjusting to Daycare

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:41:42 +0100, Penny Gaines wrote:

toypup wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:29:52 +0100, Penny Gaines wrote:


toypup wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:30:58 +0100, Penny Gaines wrote:

[snip]

The thing is a lot of people who are pro the SAHM model are in favour
of it because it is what traditional societies do. But in traditional
societies, dad is not at the office doing the accounts. Dad is hunting
or farming or building mud huts.


Right, but they are the providers. Men are the providers in the
overwhelming majority of societies. How they provide may differ. I do not
know of any where the men are not normally providers.

I can't see exactly what an accountant is providing. They are getting
paid money (an artificial construct), not actually producing anything
(unlike a hunter or a hut builder).

An accountant makes money for the family, providing money (and therefore
food and clothing) to the family.

But the money itself does not provide any benefits for the family: it is
not a thing they can directly use.

Money provides obvious benefits for most people.

It is only valuable because other
people outside the family think it is, and exchange it for objects of
immediate use.

If an accountant couldn't provide by accounting, then s/he'd be doing
something else. Accounting is valuable to the accountant because s/he can
make moeny doing it and provide for the family.

In article , Banty
wrote:

*Obviously* that's because right thinking, right minded, superior countries do
it that way.

Right wing...

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

In article .com,
Beliavsky wrote:

On Sep 18, 9:43 pm, Chookie wrote:

snip

In which societies, and you are necessarily proposing that it's a majority
of societies, do fathers/men *not* take care of their children?

Black American society (maybe sub-culture is a better word), in which
the majority of children are born out of wedlock . In the U.S., lower
class whites may be heading in the same direction, as described in the
book

Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-
Marital Age (Hardcover)
by Kay S. Hymowitz
Ivan Dee (2006)

Some unmarried fathers do take care of their children, but a much
smaller proportion of them than married fathers will stick around for
two decades.

From what I understand, it is the underclass of your society and mine where
men avoid care of their children as much as possible. The absence of these
relationships is not considered good or right by the rest of the society.

Remember,for your argument to work you will have to convince me that a
majority of societies have this structure. And it simply isn't true.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

On Sep 20, 8:54 am, Banty wrote:

So what does that have to do with current society? Life is longer, only a
little for women is taken up by pregnancy and nursing, relatively few roles of
provision require brawn. And whatever median propensity there may be as far as
wanting to child-mind, both genders have the big brain, both show ambition, so
that's what will be expressed when we don't *have to* take on the old roles.

If all the old role-expectations should magically dissappear, and lo and behold
still 60% of women are the ones more involved with the kids in any given
marriage, that wouldn't really bother me or go against my thinking on this.
It's that the other 40% are told that, based on all of this they should be like
the other 60%, with large consequences including hobbling their ability to
provide themselves in the future, that gets me objecting so strongly. (And that
60% would include a majority who mix roles most probably anyway.)

http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/wor...02-dunham.html
Wall Street Journal
"According to the U.S. Census Bureau's March 2002 Current Population
Survey, among two-parent households, there were 189,000 children with
stay-at-home dads. Though the figure is small next to the 11 million
children with stay-at-home moms, the number of children living with
stay-at-home dads has risen 18% since 1994. (The number of children
living with stay-at-home moms rose 13% between 1994 to 2000.) Career
and family experts say there probably has been a further bump during
the economic downturn because some men who have been laid off have
stayed home while their wives work."

The ratio of SAHM to SAHD in the U.S. is about 60 to 1, and I doubt
that in the absence of irrational expectations it would be anywhere
close to 60 to 40. American society is not so beknighted IMO.

In article . com, Beliavsky
says...

On Sep 20, 8:54 am, Banty wrote:

So what does that have to do with current society? Life is longer, only a
little for women is taken up by pregnancy and nursing, relatively few roles of
provision require brawn. And whatever median propensity there may be as far as
wanting to child-mind, both genders have the big brain, both show ambition, so
that's what will be expressed when we don't *have to* take on the old roles.

If all the old role-expectations should magically dissappear, and lo and behold
still 60% of women are the ones more involved with the kids in any given
marriage, that wouldn't really bother me or go against my thinking on this.
It's that the other 40% are told that, based on all of this they should be like
the other 60%, with large consequences including hobbling their ability to
provide themselves in the future, that gets me objecting so strongly. (And that
60% would include a majority who mix roles most probably anyway.)

http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/wor...02-dunham.html
Wall Street Journal
"According to the U.S. Census Bureau's March 2002 Current Population
Survey, among two-parent households, there were 189,000 children with
stay-at-home dads. Though the figure is small next to the 11 million
children with stay-at-home moms, the number of children living with
stay-at-home dads has risen 18% since 1994. (The number of children
living with stay-at-home moms rose 13% between 1994 to 2000.) Career
and family experts say there probably has been a further bump during
the economic downturn because some men who have been laid off have
stayed home while their wives work."

The ratio of SAHM to SAHD in the U.S. is about 60 to 1, and I doubt
that in the absence of irrational expectations it would be anywhere
close to 60 to 40. American society is not so beknighted IMO.


Well, I'm glad to see that you consider that it would be to be "beknighted"
(sic) not to have more flexibility of the roles, but I think you're still
missing the point.

This SAHD thing is a fairly recent phenomenon, and the changes you're speaking
of haven't ended. Have you paid no attention at all to the many ways the
traditional expectations are reinforced and reinforced (including by yourself)
today as well in the past, and how this affects what roles people take today?

Let alone that you advised an *individual*, not some amorphous average, to stay
home more because she's a mommy.

Banty

toypup wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:41:42 +0100, Penny Gaines wrote:


toypup wrote:
[snip]
An accountant makes money for the family, providing money (and therefore
food and clothing) to the family.

But the money itself does not provide any benefits for the family: it is
not a thing they can directly use.


Money provides obvious benefits for most people.
[snip]

Well, if is paper money, you can burn it to keep warm.

Beyond that, money is only valuable because enough people think
it is valuble.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:09:17 +0100, Penny Gaines wrote:

toypup wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:41:42 +0100, Penny Gaines wrote:


toypup wrote:
[snip]
An accountant makes money for the family, providing money (and therefore
food and clothing) to the family.

But the money itself does not provide any benefits for the family: it is
not a thing they can directly use.


Money provides obvious benefits for most people.
[snip]

Well, if is paper money, you can burn it to keep warm.

Beyond that, money is only valuable because enough people think
it is valuble.

Right, but that is value in itself, because it can be used. If it had no
value at all, we wouldn't work for it.