yguy

Not to your satisfaction, I suspect. It seems obvious to me.

Normal women (not Janet Reno or Molly Yard types) generally have a different sort of energy about them than normal men. That energy is spiritual food to infants, who need their egos to grow. At some point, the ego will inevitably need correction, and a woman's tendency is to coddle rather than correct. That's where the man needs to step in.

Yes, I know there are men and women who don't fit these stereotypes, but I'm speaking in general terms.

Jinto

Then why is it that you're not able to obvious it to the rest of us, hmm?

Please answer these three questions:

1. Can you substantiate at all your assertion that women coddle and men correct? I have seen no evidence of this in my experience.

2. In cases where a person happens to be the "exception," wouldn't it be more appropriate to take on a role in the marriage appropriate to their capabilities rather than their gender?

3. Is there ANY reason why a person should not simply learn to exhibit BOTH types of "love" as the situation requires (assuming that they don't already), rather than manifesting one and only one, thus creating a requirement that a particular person be summoned to deal with a particular request as opposed to whoever happens to be around, eliminates the safety net of redundant skills, and creates an inherent inequality that is likely to cause resentment on both sides of the relationship?

Vylo

I have actually just spent the last month studying aspects of the family including child care. Let me first address your questions.

I would recommend spending the first year with your infant to form bonding. You want to make sure this child knows your concern for it.

Very likely, there have been many instances of children bonding more with childcare workers or nannies then their parents.

This is the terrible paradox into which mothers are forced into today. If they stay home they are often considered to be unproductive, and their lack of employment isolates them and threatens financial stability. If they decide to work, they are ridiculed for not caring for their children.

So in short no, it would not have been a more responsible decision, it would have been a more unrealistic one. It is her responsibility to provide for the child as well, and it will be more difficult for her to do that without a job. She should be sure though to make her time with her child count (This does not mean exclusively playtime! Children need to be socialized by their parents as well.) this way the child knows she is concerned for the child.

The husband should assist her with this child, and she should have discussed these obligations/entitlements with him prior to having a child, it sounds like they may have jumped the gun on parenthood.

This is assuming being a traditional mother is the ideal situation. Many mothers who fit that mold would argue that this is NOT an ideal situation, and that being a working mother is more fulfilling.

Many of us still hold onto 1950's nostalgia, thinking that period of time was somehow superior to current time. Economically this would hold true as you only needed one working parent to be self sufficient. As the economy has shifted (for the worse) families have had trouble maintaining a decent income with only one working parent.

The gender revolution also contributed to this. With the rise of women's equality, more opportunities for female employement were created. Women which had been forced into homekeeping isolation could now "break free" into the society, and many greatly desired this.


If you are looking for a good reference to learn about some of these social aspects I could reccomend a good book for you to check out. However, I'm not sure I am allowed by the board rules to do that, so if anyone wants I can send them a private message containing that information.

Vylo

Mother's are better on average at reading the emotional needs of children (it is believed this is from natural selection, when woman were always the ones left with children), but men can also learn these skills. Your ideas are obselete for this societies structure, and with the sociological shifts we see today, it probably won't be long before men become much more adept at childcare, so long as they are willing to step up to the plate.

Roland98

Ah, so we get to the heart of it. "Normal women?" Guess I must be one of those "Janet Reno" types then, because I prefer my husband and I both to do much more "coddling" than correcting. And you know what? He does too, so I guess neither one of us are "normal." In fact, by your definition, I don't think I know any "normal" people.

Which might be fine if you lived in that narrow window between about 1940 and 1960, when these pathetic stereotypes were held as ideals. Welcome to the 21st century! Jump on in, the water's fine.

Vylo

There are all kinds of problems with this statement. First you are implying that abnormal women (by your standards) are lesser mother or women.

Women don't have a different kind of energy, they simply read their child's emotions better on average then a man.

Women are actually seen more often as the disciplinarian, and fathers as the "fun" parent.

Men should not feel obligated to do all the correction nor all the cuddling (assuming you mispelt) and neither should women. While women do appear to be genetically predisposed to being better caretakers for children, this does not mean men shouldn't at least try to step up to the plate. A father should want to be more equally involved with his child's socialization, and this is more available today then before.

brighid

All I will say on the "normal" woman subject is this: the majority of women that I know that are "normal" (adhere to the traditional SAH mom, or are demanded to do so by their husbands) ... at least in my neighborhood that has a majority of SAHMs ... they are generally unhappy, unfulfilled and want to be something more then cook, child care provider, house keeper, etc. This isn't to say that some SAHM's aren't happy, fulfilled, wonderful parents but by and large my own experience is the opposite.

I was never cut out to be "normal" and thank goodness! The proof is in the pudding and thus far my child is doing better then fine.

Brighid

HelenM

I've seen toddlers not protest that I know are from happy homes. Some of them see toys and run off and play. No problem.

But, your scenario makes no sense to me. How often do you think it is that the very first time a mother leaves her child with anyone else, the child is already a toddler? This is a situation that seems entirely implausible to me.

Helen

yguy

It really is amazing to me that you guys don't get nauseous at the thought of spewing this hackneyed cliche for the 1000th time.

yguy

All I know is, at some point during the child's development, the idea of being separated from mom and in the care of strangers for any length of time is horrifying. Is that correct? If so, what can be said about a child which, when placed in that situation at that developmental stage, shows no emotion? Does that indicate that nothing is wrong?