Who on here doesn't have children?

[Old Hack]

I what?

I don't think you read that right. Your question makes zero sense.

You have issues with the sexism, in that women stay home, and give up careers, or don't give up work and continue their careers, or men are sole providers, or that they are treated differently as they change their work patterns etc, etc, etc.

It seems to me, that you're just not happy with it all.

[formant]

I don't know the ins and outs of that argument, but the animal kingdom does seem to be an instinctive slant in that direction. Just look at polar bears as a case in extremis.

I wouldn't look in the animal kindom for confirmation in that regard. Animals also don't generally care for their offspring for longer than is absolutely vital for their initial survival. Any paralels you want to draw there may go off into the opposite direction...

[RasputinDude]

Man as the sole provider, woman staying home with the kids. Nothing offensive about it in itself, but the sheer numbers make it a reality of sexism for those dads that are more involved (those taking extended leave, working flexibly to spend time with kids during the week, etc) and those women who aren't ending their career following childbirth.

The thing is, you are pretty disparaging about such a set up and you refer to your partner as 'better' than that. So, you either feel that a traditionalist setup is offensive or sub-standard. I'm curious to know which it is.

For many people, the option of sharing child care just isn't feasible in the way that it is for you. Some people have to work away for long periods of time, others work too far away to be able to do get children to school and pick them up afterward, there are lots of reasons - usually, cold hearted practicality - why a sole-carer and sole worker model are adopted within a family environment. Given that that is the case, I fail to see how you can identify your family model as being 'better'. It's not; it's just different.

[Old Hack]

Okay, so it is not actually a blood relationship which is the deciding factor - I guess I misunderstood you there.

Would it be very different if you raised and nutured a child from birth knowing they were not a blood relative but wanting to be their father anyway?

I don't know, I just don't. I have my own kids. If my wife and I split up and I met someone else with their own kids. I know, from the getgo, I wouldn't love the kids as I love my own, I may grow to, buit I doubt it. I would always, even if subconciously, put them first.

My brother once said this to me, when he was discussing being a father to me, when I wasn't, and I didn't get it. He's an intelligent chap, and I couldn't understand it, and he stopped the discussion saying I would never, ever know, until I had a child, how he felt. I thought it a cop out. But he was right, I couldn't understand his position, as I simply couldn't feel the same way as he did, and there's nothing that could help me feel the way he did, until I had children of my own.

[formant]

You have issues with the sexism, in that women stay home, and give up careers, or don't give up work and continue their careers, or men are sole providers, or that they are treated differently as they change their work patterns etc, etc, etc.

It seems to me, that you're just not happy with it all.

What an awkward and ungrammatical way to paraphrase what you think I said.

I have an issue with a society that's based around the model of the male provider and the female childrearer. I don't have an issue with individual couples' choices of how to live their life, but I do see a problem when something becomes such a de facto majority that it negatively impacts anyone who dares to live their life differently.

I am highly fond of anyone who doesn't conform to that traditionalist gender role distribution - the single or stay-at-home dads, the provider females or career-focused mothers, etc.

[BrilloPad]

If women want equality in the workplace then men need equality in the home.

Currently the North Korean family courts (supported by the government) treat women, by default, as the better person and thus women don't deserve equal rights in the workplace.

HTH

[Old Hack]

What an awkward and ungrammatical way to paraphrase what you think I said.

I have an issue with a society that's based around the model of the male provider and the female childrearer. I don't have an issue with individual couples' choices of how to live their life, but I do see a problem when something becomes such a de facto majority that it negatively impacts anyone who dares to live their life differently.

I am highly fond of anyone who doesn't conform to that traditionalist gender role distribution - the single or stay-at-home dads, the provider females or career-focused mothers, etc.

Oh, get you...

I am rather fond of my wife who gave up her career to raise our children, through he rown choice, not from pressure from tradition, or anything else other than the fact she wanted to be there all day for them as infants. to be there in the mornings and evenings for them when they were at school, and to prepare them for school as toddlers.

Just wait until you hand over your child for the first time to a nursery. Honestly love, you really have no idea of what's coming. Your pontificating about how you feel about children, life with children is a joke, and is all about to be shredded up and changed completely. You have utterly no idea about the train crash thats coming to your life as you know it.

[Doggy Styles]

I wouldn't look in the animal kindom for confirmation in that regard. Animals also don't generally care for their offspring for longer than is absolutely vital for their initial survival. Any paralels you want to draw there may go off into the opposite direction...

I'm not sure on what basis you'd write off such parallels. After all, we share many attributes with the rest of the animal kingdom, among which is the desire to procreate and spread our own genes in the first place.

[formant]

I don't know, I just don't. I have my own kids. If my wife and I split up and I met someone else with their own kids. I know, from the getgo, I wouldn't love the kids as I love my own, I may grow to, buit I doubt it. I would always, even if subconciously, put them first.

You keep talking about these situations about 'putting them first'. Well, what if faced chosing between two of your own then? Who do you put first?

It's an artificial narrative. I put my stepdaughters before any adult because children have greater needs than adults do. There are a few things I would do very differently if I didn't have stepdaughters - such as move to a different town, as I'd feel it may provide my own daughter with more opportunities in life than this place. But we're tied to the region, because every now and then their heartless and indifferent biological mother desires to see them and I'm not going to interfere with that. So I can't put my daughter before them in that instance. And I'm okay with that. If you get involved with someone with 'baggage' (as people like to phrase it), you learn pretty quickly that it's never going to work out unless you align your priorities with that of the biological parent. You just grow into that.

[formant]

I'm not sure on what basis you'd write off such parallels. After all, we share many attributes with the rest of the animal kingdom, among which is the desire to procreate and spread our own genes in the first place.

Oh, feel free to draw the parallels. There are just endless numbers of those to draw and they don't all support the same sides of the (or any) argument. You're just in for a lot of contradiction if you open that can of worms.