I mean; equal rights but separate roles!
it’s important to keep certain traditions and roles alive. i personally believe that women should be allowed to work if they have no children (unmarried or married). if they do have children, they should stay at home until they are grown enough (maybe high school age or so) to raise them properly. it is the nature of all mammalian females to raise and teach their babies with the male being the protector and bread winner and teach also. i most certainly believe the whole family needs to contribute in the home, men most certainly should learn to clean and cook. but men do not have breast, neither did they come from their father’s womb. so the woman should stay at home, man should help out in the house and spend time wih his children but not raise them like a woman does (by being a house husband).
also this is just the ideal for me, sometimes circumstances mean both parents, or the single parent, have to work. but i believe the child should be raised by it’s parents before anyone else, including relatives.
@mama outlaw they have the right to be born. period!
I could just as easily ask, “Do you not believe that children deserve to have a loving father to stay at home and care for them?” Sure, the father doesn’t carry the child, but the stay-at-home-and-care-for-your-child bit comes AFTER the child is born, so that’s hardly a reason for the mother to be the one to stay home. A stay-at-home father would even be able to feed the baby breast milk if his wife used a breast pump, if the breastfeeding-is-better-for-babies argument is a big one for you. If children “deserve” a 24/7 mother, why isn’t the argument that they deserve a 24/7 father ever made? It’s because many people have this idea in their heads that parenting is the “role” of the mother, so the argument is often made that she is obligated to go above and beyond anyone else, including the child’s father, with regard to parenting.
Of course, just because “tradition” (Western tradition, at that) defined separate roles for the genders doesn’t mean they’re legitimate. It doesn’t by necessity define an ideal situation, either. What if the primary burden of childcare, at least during the workday, fell to a community of the elders in the family? Would that be better or worse than if an individual woman stayed home every day to care for her child/children? Would either of these be better or worse than if an individual man stayed home every day to care for his child/children? What if both parents shared the time they spent at home to care for their children?
What makes any of the above situations inherently better than the other? Is it the gender of the primary caregiver? The familial relationship of that caregiver to the child? Some combination of the two? Or is it perhaps none of these things? Instead, let’s consider that perhaps none of the above situations are in fact inherently better or worse than others, and that what makes any individual situation better than any other is the quality of care.
Instead, let’s talk about how children deserve to have a caregiver(s) who loves them and cares for them and not conflate the ability to do either of these things with gender, shall we?
Sure. However, every child also deserves to live in a warm and secure environment, never miss a nutritious meal, have clothes and shoes to protect him/her from the elements and enjoy reliable health-care / education available to him/her. And if a father is not able at this day and age to provide all of these very expensive things/services, mother should help out in bread-winning. Working mothers do not whine about their financial difficulties, instead they get off their behinds and go to work to actually help their husband with financial burden of the family. Now, what exactly does that have to do with “equal rights and separate roles”? Successful family is a team, where every member is working hard to help family to survive in this hard economic times.
I see myself as a feminist – and yes, I’d say children need a loving mother at home – but also a loving father. My ideal is that both take care of the child equally. Like e.g. the mother stays at home for like 1,5 years, while the father works and then in the next 1,5 years it’s the other way round. This way both are able to get to know their child. And as soon as the child is in pre-school, the parents might get back into their old lives a little bit more, like e.g. one parent working fulltime, the other one halftime or working from home. And at age 10 at the latest both of the parents should be allowed to work fulltime again.
My parents did it like this and I think I turned out alright. 🙂
Children deserve a loving mother in general; she does not need to stay home with them as long as she has a way to demonstrate her care, and there are plenty of stay-at-home moms who can’t even get that part right.
Yes. With the emphasis on “loving”. Just because a woman is a stay at home mother doesn’t make her a good mother. Unfortunately.
“do you not believe that children deserve to have a loving father to stay at home and care for them?
That used to be the problem and was never fixed. All fathers worked, till the point that they felt the need to drink(some).
Now BOTH parents are stuck working WAYYY to many hours.
Think about it.
i don’t believe it has to be a mother who stays home, as long as she loves her kids. if the father wants to be the one to stay home then i say go for it.
of course they do, but she shouldnt be forced to.
what about fathers? are they not allowed to stay at home and love and look after their children too?
They do indeed. They also have the right to be born to two parents who choose to have them, and who can afford to take care of them.