Verified by 
39COMMENTS
What it sounds like your saying is that money is the only thing that matters in caring for children. But most kids, when asked, would rather have their parents time than their money, especially when they are younger. There's no discussion here of bonding, or being there for or being with children. I'm not saying that women should or shouldn't work outside the home, but pointing out that money isn't the only, or even necessarily the most important, factor in child-rearing.
I will be the first to admit that “Why do mothers care more about their children than fathers?” is not a very pretty question. But, before you answer with an angry “They don’t!”, note that it has been consistently shown that money given to mothers is far more likely to be spent in a way that benefits their children than is money given to fathers.
I raise this uncomfortable question for the following reason: If you care about the well-being of children, then the more that you believe that male and female roles in the family are biologically predetermined, the more you should be willing to support the idea of women working outside of the home. And, alternatively, the more that you believe that women’s caring role has been socially imposed, the more you should be in favor of women staying in the home caring for children.
To see why, let’s start with the belief that greater maternal altruism is purely biological; that women have evolved over human history to care more than men about the welfare of their children.
If women are hardwired to care more about their children than men, then it must be true that children will be better off if their mother has more say in how household resources are distributed within the family. The most effective way for a woman to increase her say in how the family’s income is spent is by actively contributing to household income through waged employment. At the same time, the level of care from their mothers is unchanged relative to if she was not in the workforce, because that level of caring is biologically determined.
It follows that if maternal altruism is biological, freeing women to enter into the workforce should improve child welfare because maternal caring is not reduced and household resources allocated to children increases.
The alternative is that we believe that women demonstrate more altruism toward their children because women have been historically excluded from the workforce; the role of caregiver, as opposed to provider, has been societally imposed on women as a result of gender differences in earning ability.
If maternal altruism is not biological, then there is no reason why a mother who is a provider should care more about her child’s welfare than a father who is a provider. Given what we already know, this implies that children whose mothers are working will not benefit from her additional say in the allocation of household resources; she will be more selfish in her allocation than she would have been had she stayed out of the workforce.
It follows that if maternal altruism is not biological (and only if it is not biological), freeing women to enter the workforce erodes child welfare because maternal caring is reduced and household allocation of resources to the child does not increase.
Ultimately, whether children are made better or worse of when their mother works is not subject to personal opinion nor is the question of why mothers care more than fathers. I am happy to leave the final say on that topic to this excellent paper, The Evolution of Altruistic Preferences: Mothers vs. Fathers, by evolutionary economists Ingela Alger and Donald Cox.
The most important factor in child rearing
Submitted by Marina Adshade Ph.D. on January 13, 2014 - 12:43am
I am not necessarily trying to describe the experience of most kids. I don't doubt that for the many children who have everything they need to lead a healthy and happy childhood that having a mother who is able to allocate more of the families resources in their favour will not improve their welfare. For the children who live in poverty, those who do not have everything they need to have a healthy and happy childhood, the difference between having a mother who can see that their needs are met first and one who can not would make a substantial difference to their welfare.
I would never argue that money is the only thing that matters, but to say that it is doesn't matter is to assume a higher standard of living that many children are experiencing in reality.
Disagree completely
Submitted by Sami Singh on May 6, 2018 - 7:49pm
To generalize a false notion of mothers being more favorable and more loved than fathers is completely false. Seems like you didn’t do any additional research on the level of neglectation that occurs in the house hold as well. They are many so called “mothers” that don’t have no trace of motherly traits. They abandoned their children to either the father or other guardians taking care of them. Fathers don’t just provide. That’s a stereotype. They are many single parent fathers that take of their children not just financially but during the growth process with instilling values and matters. Fathers have the ability to teach children discipline and teach children right from wrong. Mothers have the same traits as well. Fathers are more assertive. An advantage a father has over mothers is being more straight forward and honest about situations that occur in the household. At a early age children decide who they gravitate towards either it’s the mother or father. In my opinion I really think you can’t generalize who’s more desireble in the family because each case is different on a individual level.
Anonymous wrote:
Submitted by Sherry on May 8, 2018 - 3:41pm
Anonymous wrote:To generalize a false notion of mothers being more favorable and more loved than fathers is completely false. Seems like you didn’t do any additional research on the level of neglectation that occurs in the house hold as well. They are many so called “mothers” that don’t have no trace of motherly traits. They abandoned their children to either the father or other guardians taking care of them. Fathers don’t just provide. That’s a stereotype. They are many single parent fathers that take of their children not just financially but during the growth process with instilling values and matters. Fathers have the ability to teach children discipline and teach children right from wrong. Mothers have the same traits as well. Fathers are more assertive. An advantage a father has over mothers is being more straight forward and honest about situations that occur in the household. At a early age children decide who they gravitate towards either it’s the mother or father. In my opinion I really think you can’t generalize who’s more desireble in the family because each case is different on a individual level.
40 weeks and labour
Submitted by Jane on May 7, 2018 - 8:04pm
Perhaps you are one of the good ones. Go through labour or an emergency c section and experience the 40 weeks. Do it three times like I did.
Peace Between Mothers and Fathers
Submitted by Alice on May 7, 2018 - 9:13pm
I too am a mother who had three children and went through labor. I value motherhood, both pregnancy, birth, and the time investment and love-investment that comes afterwards. Equally, I value fatherhood, the time investment and love investment a father puts into supporting his pregnant wife, and also the monetary and emotional investment that comes afterwards. God designed mothers and fathers to work together to bless their children with parents who love each other and grow their families in love. If there are articles out there encouraging mothers and fathers to argue, or to pridefully value their separate contributions above that of their spouse, you can be sure that kind of divisiveness is not coming from God.
Of course. My discussion is
Submitted by Jane on May 8, 2018 - 7:15am
Of course. My discussion is completely based on the fact that Mothers come first with their babies. A good Father is a huge asset in the development of a child as are Grandparents, Aunts and Uncles. Sometimes it is not always the Father who plays a pivotal role. Yes, I valued the biological attachment as well as you. My husband was there beside me holding my hand. When the babies are born where do they normally place the baby? The Dad?
Reply
Submitted by Alice on May 8, 2018 - 11:42am
Hopefully it's not the mother, but the child, whose importance is focused on. This obsession with "first" and "second", "more important" and "less important", is intrinsically unhealthy. It creates a false dichotomy where one has to be "lesser" and one "greater". This line of thinking ultimately divides, and debases one human being. All human beings, we must remember, were first children, none a "mistake" - all containing a soul to be respected, cherished, and the best of which should come out, through all trials and adversities - all tasks - seemingly "unequal" to the outside world, but each trying and developing the soul within. Perhaps each soul is confined within a body of a differing gender, and given different tasks, different ways their contribution is meaningful. Perhaps it is a mother who "first" holds the baby because she has mammaries with which to feed it. But perhaps the only reason that that mother can have food and care during that time is because of the self-less efforts of the father as well, to provide and care for her while she cares for the baby. Is indirect care lesser? If a male soul supports a female soul while the female soul supports a baby soul - is the male soul doing something "lesser"? Did the baby not come from both the union of the male with the female; does someone spontaneously copulate all on their own? Does society, or even children if one wishes to narrow the focus - benefit from hedonistic ally focusing on the importance of one, to the exclusion of another? A house divided cannot stand. Pride, and love of money - are possibly the two worst things in this world, true abominations.
Thank you. So many people
Submitted by Nathaniel D Moore on December 22, 2018 - 11:11am
Thank you. So many people look at these very narrow very flawed studies and surveys and then make sweeping decisions on how the world is/should be. This is not science.
I didn't see anything in the
Submitted by Kim on January 13, 2014 - 2:01am
I didn't see anything in the article that mentioned families in poverty. If a family is in poverty, then whether or not a mom works has nothing to do with being biologically wired or socialized to care more. If they need the money, they need the money.
Deciding whether or not to work based on biology vs. sociology is a decision only people with options get to make. People in poverty don't have those kinds of options.
And for families in poverty, there is a strong possibility that the mom doesn't have enough earning power to afford daycare and have enough left over to contribute substantially to the household income. If she did, they likely wouldn't be in poverty. Very few families will choose poverty when other viable options, (such as mom being able to earn a livable income) are available.
Having been both a married, stay-at-home mom and a single, full-time working mom, and earning just enough to make ends meet in both situations, I do understand how family finances work, how it affects power in a relationship and how it affects children.
There are a lot of
Submitted by Anonymous on January 14, 2014 - 1:55pm
There are a lot of conclusions coming from the reading of this article but I think the bottom line is:
If you are in poverty and have children. The most beneficial thing to do for the children is to have the mother work instead of the father.. Because while both work to bring home $600 a paycheck, the mom will spend $300 of it on her children while the father would more likely only spend $200 on the children - keeping the extra $100 for himself.
It is in the child's best interest to have the least selfish person attaining and allocating the resources because women will be more giving of those resources whereas men would use it as a power play to benefit himself over his offspring.
Honestly, I think some people
Submitted by Kim on January 14, 2014 - 3:26pm
Honestly, I think some people really don't have a clue what poverty looks like or feels like up close. Maybe it's because it's being viewed from a distance. We were never quite in poverty, but always a paycheck or two away from it. The ideas mentioned here and in the article are so far away from the reality of poverty it's almost silly.
People are coming up with ideas off the top of their heads about what they think will cure poverty, with no studies, and nothing to support these ideas that have nothing to do with practical, day-to-day issues.
First of all, what if dad can earn more money than mom? This happens a lot. He may bring home $600, but she only brings home $400. Kids are better off when dad works.
Second, if mom is the more caring one, then she is the better one to spend all day with the kids. The dad who spends money on himself is also going to spend time on himself... in front of the TV or computer, feeding the kids cheetos for lunch. If mom is more caring, she'll be the one more likely to give the kids nutritious meals, make sure they're cleaned up and involved in stimulating activities.
I've been a stay at home Mom and I can tell you, most dads are not going to let their children be hungry or go without things they need. If they do, bigger problems exist in that family than who is biologically wired or socialized a certain way. I also know that, breadwinner or not, most moms will make sure they get their kids what they need and then some. You don't know stay at home moms if you think they can't make it happen.
And it's the at-home parent who needs to control much of the spending, anyway, since they are the one involved in most of those decisions. Stay at home parent is most likely the one buying the shoes, the jackets, the school supplies, the groceries, the snacks. They may want to take the kids on an outing which costs money. Whether that is mom or dad, the other one is going to have to give them money. So, if mom is working and has to give the dad grocery money and spending money, based on this article, how exactly do you think he will spend it? Do you think he is going to stick exactly to the list mom gives him? Do you think she should control all the spending to the point that he has no say in it? That is considered financial abuse, by the way. And if she does give him some control over the finances, as she should, based on this article, he's going to spend that selfishly anyway.
I assure you, most moms will make sure dad gives them money they need. And most dads are not going to withhold money for necessities. And the ones that do withhold for necessities, have much bigger problems to address than the biology vs. socialization issue mentioned here. Anything beyond necessities, moms and dads will squabble over anyway, and has nothing to do with families in poverty.
it seems as if most of this is set up on false pretense and bad
Submitted by Nathaniel D Moore on December 22, 2018 - 11:03am
So many absolutes. So much questionable data. If a mother cares for her children she would make sure resources are allocated to them as they need whether working or not. Same for a father. One thing that might be effecting this is how does the researcher deems in the inyrwat of the children. Is he letting then go hungry, unclothed, sick... or does he not by them as many toys. Is he trying to better himself to find work or a care provider (partner). Or do mothers just more likely to equate spending money with love. Perhaps they are just trying to assuage their guilt for not loving their children enough.
All I am saying to base anything you believe off of such worthless data and equating spending money on your children with love or care. Or even saying if these children were actually longterm better people because of it.
Parental Roles
Submitted by Kenii on January 13, 2014 - 2:52pm
I'm kind of wary of the statement: "It follows that if maternal altruism is biological, freeing women to enter into the workforce should improve child welfare because maternal caring is not reduced and household resources allocated to children increases."
First, is the increase linear, exponential, or logarithmic?
Secondly, do household resources allocated to children increase indefinitely? Because I suspect there are going to be diminishing returns in the long run.
This also depends on how you define: "resource." For example, I consider money to be a resource; but, as with Kim, I also consider time, and love to be resources too. A mother from a family with low income may work to earn more money to increase the overall amount of resources available to their children. Beyond a certain income level; however, and the amount of resources available to children begin to diminish. Those who earn more tend to work longer hours or perform more labour-intensive work. That will consume time and energy that would otherwise be allocated to children and the rest of the family.
Also, I think breaking down parental roles into either being biologically imposed and socially imposed is a false dichotomy. Why can't it be both? If women should work outside the home if parental roles are biologically predetermined, and if women should stay at home if parental roles are socially imposed, then what should happen if it's actually both?
Women are biologically prewired
Submitted by Career mom on a break as Stay at home mom on January 15, 2014 - 1:37am
Why is there even a doubt about that? Even dads will admit that mothers ( working or not) are by biology, made to be the parent most close to the young child. The educated, modern dad is not far behind. But that's only in the richer section of society.
A mom working outside home, may do so out of two reasons: 1. she has no choice in which case this article is pointless. 2. she chooses to. If she does so, then she must really love her job, if that's so, she is happier person when working and will translate to a happier mother. Beyond the very young years ( and those years are crucial and I believe the woman with choice must stay home during that phase), children will do better with a happy-not-at-home mom than a unhappy-stay-home mom.
Bottomline: A woman is biologically pre-wired, but she can also through education, get herself to a position to choose what's best for her family.
my name are andrea loops.and
Submitted by andrea on August 24, 2014 - 2:50pm
my name are andrea loops.and i want to thank dr alexzander for saving my home and making my husband ten times rich than he was before. I was in a relationship where my partner was not paying enough attention to me, never told me that he loves me only when I asked him and I was never a priority in his life. One day I start searching for help and I heared about dr. alexzander Hightemple. He just safe my relationship. He did a spell charm to safe my relationship. Today I'm grateful to dr Alexzander Hightemple who did an amazing work. He safe our relationship and today my partner treat me like a queen. I became everything for him. Don't think too much anymore because god has sent a great spell caster who can do all things,just to see smile on the face of young lovers and family. contact him at alexzanderhightemple@gmail.com . He is the one who will and can help you in what so ever situation you fine yourself into.
once again i say thank you for your deeds dr alexzander me and my family are greatfull to you and your gods.....
This article is sexist.
Submitted by Jonathan Sullivan on April 21, 2016 - 6:48pm
Your next article should be why men are better than women at driving because that no more sexist than Why Do Mothers Care More About Their Children Than Fathers... And I didn't know you could quantify care... point being there are just as many F!@#ed up mothers out there as there are F!@#ed up Fathers.
Sexist
Submitted by dude on August 5, 2016 - 8:30am
I'm sorry to say this but, women are not biologically prewird. fathers can do the same things as mothers do. It just that mothers will go ape s*&% crazy if they don't get praised for doing work that their obligated to do anyway. Most women are Boarder Line Crazy and should stop using information like this to discredit fatherhood. Women have treated men like homer simpson since the dawn of age. I see why men don't want to be fathers. but over all great article. #MGTOW
Garbage
Submitted by JB on April 13, 2017 - 3:52pm
Do they pay you to write this rubbish?
Thanks for the absolute lack of empirical data or scientific references, hack.
Reinforces the idea of psychology as pseudo-science.
So I suppose it doesn't
Submitted by Evie on May 9, 2017 - 9:18am
So I suppose it doesn't matter that the person directly providing childcare cares about the child? Let's farm that out to underpaid workers and send the mother to the office, whether she likes it or not!
I've got a better idea: pay women for childcare. Stop using mothers as unpaid labor simply because they care enough to let themselves be exploited.
Women should have same responsibiities as men
Submitted by Cheryl Knepper on July 11, 2017 - 1:44am
Women need to be responsible about paying their share, just like men, and men need to be responsible about their share of housework and childcare. Plain and simple, nothing should be based on gender. When women keep having children, they are shirking their responsibllity to earn their share.
Some mothers care more
Submitted by Ana on August 9, 2017 - 1:18am
There are some men who are great fathers, who would do anything for their children, and who are very diligent in providing for all their needs. They seem to have a strong bond with their child. Until the divorce. Then they ghost on their kids from a previous marriage. It's like they focus in on their new female interest, put everything into starting another family with her, even up to giving all to her kids from a previous marriage, while they just wish their own "old kids" would just go away. Intuitively, one would think it would be an evolutionary benefit to love and nurture the carriers of your own genes and do what it takes to bring them to successful adulthood, so they could reproduce in turn. But bio fathers just walk away from their own flesh and blood, and deny, deny, deny they are the fathers of their own children. Abandonment and "spreading one's seed" might be a useful reproductive strategy if humans were like fruit flies. But human children are expensive. It takes 9 months to gestate, and 20 years to raise a human child. They need lots of resources for that whole time. Where are the studies on that seeming non sequitur?
fathers
Submitted by Cheryl Knepper on October 18, 2017 - 8:26pm
It's important to choose a husband who is good, kind and who loves his own children so much that he'd do almost anything for them. My father was not loving or close to me emotionally, He was the type of person to abandon me and he did just that. So the relationship between fathers and children should be very close. Also, my father was the main provider and left the childcare to my mom. This in itself was bad.
Source??
Submitted by William Ganness on August 28, 2017 - 4:08pm
"note that it has been consistently shown that money given to mothers is far more likely to be spent in a way that benefits their children than is money given to fathers."
Especially the "consistently" shown. And i hope your sources compare mothers with children vs fathers with children. with similar levels of needs. Because mothers are generally poorer and more dependent on handouts, more of what they spend their handouts on will likely be for food and shelter, than a father who isnt on his a$s expecting a handout.
Data
Submitted by Dustin Long on January 3, 2018 - 8:16am
I am with William, I would love to see this "Source that empirically shows that mothers consistently spend more money on their children than Fathers". This doesn't match up with my "anecdotal" experience nor the "anecdotal" experience of nearly half a million followers of The Fathers Rights Movement. I would love the opportunity to review your source data for this biased opinion piece and offer an official rebuttal from the Vice President of Operations for the Fathers' Rights Movement. Dustin Long VP of Operations TFRM
Some logical lapses here
Submitted by Alice on January 11, 2018 - 3:42pm
Here is the fundamental flaw, even assuming some of the rest of the assumptions were correct, which I'll get to later. The statement "maternal caring is not reduced" bears need for some further explanation here. Is the author saying "mothers continue to care about their children irrespective of whether they work or not?"; I personally believe this to be the case - but I think this statement came with the implication that "maternal caring [that is available and received by her children] is not reduced."
If a mother were living in a remote country, never able to see or communicate with her child, would it make a difference to the child's wellbeing what the mother, far removed and distant, thought in her heart (good or bad)? Possibly no, because the child would be largely unaware of this. Reducing this extreme to, if a mother were working 60 hours a week, and a child had waking exposure to the mother of only an hour a day - would it then deeply affect the child what the mother subjectively intended? I think it would be hard to argue that whomever is with the child the remaining 11 wakeful hours would not have greater influence, and impact how loved the child felt more than the mother in this case.
If one considers that to have a meaningful impact a person must invest time in their children, it logically follows to greatly scrutinize who is spending time with the children. Should it be the mother? The father? A family member? A stranger?
And that brings us to the other points of the article. In most families I know, women are indirectly in charge of the budget. So it is a natural conclusion that they are spending the money their husbands give them, whether or not they also work, to the "needs" of the family, which in a healthy family, are also largely the needs of the kids. Since the women are usually in charge of child's spending, it is quite possible that men are left to spend discretionary income without thinking of the children because their wives have already assumed meaningful responsibility in that area - and if they stay home with their kids, they are best equipped to understand their children's needs, so it would really be something if a man in this situation elected to determine expenditures given the reduced exposure to the day to day needs of the children.
But I feel the article has a subtle twist to it too, in making the assumption that because men spend less on children directly, they somehow care less. It is the usual pitting men against women - making men sound as though they are inherently a detriment to their families and their children and selfish, and encouraging women to seek control at all ends.
The issue with women seeking control, financial or otherwise, is that it encourages them to work against their spouses - which is not a war that will have no winners, but clear losers: their children. The more women and men are pitted against each other, the less love available for children. The more random strangers, who view children as a job - and let's face it - who cares about a job as much as their own kids? - will be left to babysit and fill a void that simply can't be filled - at least for young children.
I don't know honestly who benefits if children do not receive solid parental love from two invested parents. Babysitters perhaps? People looking to sell therapy to them down the line? People with malevolent intent? Perhaps articles like this are published through sheer ignorance and hubris but, the effect is the same - a varying level of child abuse.
And no amount of spending will entirely reverse that.
Here's an uncomfortable question indeed: do we care about children at all in today's society, or only about how we feel subjectively?
There should not be roles
Submitted by Sherry on January 12, 2018 - 2:29pm
There should not be roles based on gender with exception of females having to be pregnant and give birth. These should be treated as medical conditions just like anyone taking off work for any treatments, physical therapy, etc should be treated same and once patient gets medical permission, back to work. I know many women don't want to hear this but it's true. People need to get skills that are not "traditional. For example, men need to learn how to take care of children and not dole out money to women, just because of gender. Cheryl "sherry" Knepper, gender role expert consultant, former hypnotherapist.
There should not be roles
Submitted by Sherry on January 12, 2018 - 2:29pm
There should not be roles based on gender with exception of females having to be pregnant and give birth. These should be treated as medical conditions just like anyone taking off work for any treatments, physical therapy, etc should be treated same and once patient gets medical permission, back to work. I know many women don't want to hear this but it's true. People need to get skills that are not "traditional. For example, men need to learn how to take care of children and not dole out money to women, just because of gender. Cheryl "sherry" Knepper, gender role expert consultant, former hypnotherapist.
Silly
Submitted by Alice on January 12, 2018 - 9:56pm
This is ridiculous from start to finish. But to address the main point "there should not be roles based on gender" - one must respond "says who?" More specifically, why should your opinion override the freedom to choose that people are presently employing? Should we enforce a dictatorship where people are not allowed to choose what they think is best, or have an oligarchy of gender-study specialists decide for them?
Also it should be remembered that a vast majority of the world subscribes, voluntarily possibly a majority of the cases, to beliefs based upon the first few books of the Bible, which are common to both Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Are you saying that all of these people should abdicate their religious freedom to conform to your idea of what happiness entails? That doesn't sound very respectful at all, but rather presumptuous.
I also find it ludicrous to stress the medical nature of birth and delivery; certainly there are medical aspects that should factor in for working women, but correct me if I'm wrong - it seems like you're trying to portray childbearing as some kind of disease requiring corresponding "treatment". Some people might view it instead as a spiritually empowering activity, bringing life into the world and subsequently nurturing it.
Just curious - would the people employed in watching the children of those who choose to leave their children for monetary recompense also need to develop non-traditional skills? Or does that just start to apply when someone reaches the income at which they can afford to employ someone else to take care of their children in their absence?
Gender roles cant be assigned
Submitted by Cheryl Knepper on January 14, 2018 - 7:14pm
It's intelligent to not assign roles based on gender. If people want to be traditional, it's none of my business but I'm tired of having people assume, for example, that the housekeeping of my home is my responsibility, or at least that the condition reflects on me more than my husband. It shouldn't. I really don't want to be associated as being the same as those who believe in traditional roles. This is why LGBTQ is great. Gender roles -- nada (except where the couple wants to assign some traditional role to one person or the other.)
Gender roles cant be assigned
Submitted by Cheryl Knepper on January 14, 2018 - 7:14pm
It's intelligent to not assign roles based on gender. If people want to be traditional, it's none of my business but I'm tired of having people assume, for example, that the housekeeping of my home is my responsibility, or at least that the condition reflects on me more than my husband. It shouldn't. I really don't want to be associated as being the same as those who believe in traditional roles. This is why LGBTQ is great. Gender roles -- nada (except where the couple wants to assign some traditional role to one person or the other.)
Confused
Submitted by Alice on January 14, 2018 - 9:32pm
It strikes me as arrogant to assume that applying traditional gender roles makes people who subscribe to this train of thought "less intelligent"; simply more unfounded ad hominem /shaming personal opinions.
I don't know that anyone cares about the condition of your home outside of possibly a few people, maybe your family. Certainly I don't condone people casting random judgments based upon efficacy in adhering gender roles, or alternatively judging people based upon their domestic performance. I do condone judging people who actively work against gender roles - not for the affect it will have in their own lives, as an expression of personal freedom - but to impose the regime of their beliefs upon others, for malevolent purposes.
On that note, it seems odd to be against traditional gender roles, and at the extreme to side with hedonistic fads, simply out of spite for cleaning one's house. I also feel it trivializes the issue for others.
The attack on traditional gender roles is often an indirect attack on children. This, not housework or inane squabbles is why it should be resisted. Name calling women who choose to invest time in their children is simply a way of trying to artificially pressure mothers to abandon their children, and to normalize this unnatural choice, with the intent of destabilizing their children so that they are more susceptible to external control. I suspect it has far less to do with housework, and far more to do with rupturing the natural bonds that parents in traditional families can hope to establish with their offspring.
Childbearing not necessarily a medical condition
Submitted by Cheryl Knepper on January 14, 2018 - 7:19pm
Pregnancy and childbirth are not normally medical conditions. But the time taken off from the mother's very important employment should be treated the same way -- once she's feeling well enough and gets the go-ahead from her doctor, she can go back to work, same as with a medical condition. Of course childcare may need to be arranged at some point and tat should not fall more on the mother than the father.
Childbearing not necessarily a medical condition
Submitted by Cheryl Knepper on January 14, 2018 - 7:19pm
Pregnancy and childbirth are not normally medical conditions. But the time taken off from the mother's very important employment should be treated the same way -- once she's feeling well enough and gets the go-ahead from her doctor, she can go back to work, same as with a medical condition. Of course childcare may need to be arranged at some point and tat should not fall more on the mother than the father.
Not Well Thought Out
Submitted by Alice on January 14, 2018 - 9:55pm
It seems like this comment has such a focus on a mother and her employment, that the child in the equation is added on as an afterthought, and only with the intent of pointing out some trite balance that should be obtained, to balance some sort of imaginary scales.
If I have not overtly say it, I guess I will venture out to say it. Only a sick marriage is obsessed with "balances", and male vs. female power struggles. These power struggles are some kind of cultural norm, but they are not in any way actually normal to a healthy marriage. In a healthy marriage, both a father and a mother lead with the question "what more can I do for the family?" not "what more can I do for myself / my rights / me / I / my gender?"
The two questions are very divergent, and come from different states of heart. The former strengthens a family, and the latter destroys it, ripping it apart with hedonism, with the poor offspring stuck in between without a solid place to land.
What is this "childcare" you are speak of that will not emotionally damage the child, that is both affordable, safe, and an equal replacement to parental love? What childcare "worker" is going to respond to your baby on the first cry, carry it around, interact with it, LOVE your child, feed it healthy food, and prioritize it over the other 3 or 4 other children their "job" probably entails? When you go to work and work for your employer, are you, at any given moment, as invested in whatever project you are working on as though your own life were on the line - as though it were your child you were working on? Or do you take coffee breaks, sometimes let deadline slips; are you crabby at work ever and say "today I am not doing 100%, I am tired". Are you the perfect worker 100% of the time with an intense emotional investment in your assigned task - often assigned by an impersonal corporation seeking to profit from you - 100% of the time? If you claim you are, forgive me but I think your delusions might run a little deeper than you think. And even if they don't, for the price most nannies and childcare workers are paid - it's highly unlikely that someone with the capacity to hold that kind of focus and level of performance would choose to work to watch your child. At the end of the day your child is their "job" - and because it is their "job" and not a natural, Godly feeling emanating from both the hormones in your body and the bonds between your spirits - the childcare worker cannot perform for the child anywhere near what a mother or father can.
That is the real issue here. Glorify going back to work all you want, but the vast majority of jobs out there - are simply not important enough to warrant a mother leaving her child. Idle words on a page? What are they compared to comforting a child? Moving dollars and cents in a spreadsheet; ultimately valueless compared to building a young life.
Of course there's the entire other issue. While you look down on women whose husbands are "doling" out the budget to them - in a lot of cases women simply report to stranger men at work, who care for them even less than their husbands do. Going to work is not some great utopia or freedom; it's simply reporting to someone who is not a family member, also for money, who also can be grumpy, or slave driving or whatnot - and at great cost.
The great cost is the loss of time with the children. The great cost is very visible when parents dump their children off at daycare and the kids cry and scream for them for sometimes more than an hour. They traumatize their children thinking "it's all OK, I'm being responsible earning an income." You supposedly majored in psychology, so you should know that children manifest their attachment to parents - and at some point, will literally anxiously look about to make sure that their parent hasn't "disappeared"; if attachment fails to properly take place, they are damaged for life. And yet here society is hurrying mothers out the door for the grand prize of sitting them in useless cubicles, writing useless tripe, while their babies are literally crying and forever scarred in the hands of strangers who regard them as nothing more than paychecks.
That's not how it is when a mother is home. When she holds a baby in her arms - she gives that child safety. When she breastfeeds that child, she gives it comfort. When she gives it healthy, well prepared food, she prevents a host of diseases that could later afflict it. When she brings it up in right education, she protects the purity and intellectual acuity of the child. Her home is her fortress, and that child is the future; she protects the future with her investment of love and time. You can reduce that to mere housekeeping all you like, but the truth is there for anyone to experience directly.
And it's Godless to go around trying to fool young people that children aren't a blessing, and that they'd not be missing out at all to just dump them on someone else, or that that's even in their best interest.
I went through three
Submitted by Johann on March 6, 2018 - 8:38am
I went through three pregnancies. It was a beautiful and huge experience that men cannot comprehend except to be a partner in the delivery room. I can't understand how people leave their children with complete strangers for money if they have a partner who works full time. I lived in a small home with not alot of money to spend until I was able to drop my kids off to school. Now I help my daughter with her baby because her husband says 'he can't do it alone'. He is home more than he works. There are limits to how far you can take this discussion. Respect before speculations about making the Mother do even more than she already does. Father stays home. Most of the men I know wouldn't know what to do with themselves at home.
I went through 3 pregnancies too!
Submitted by Alice on March 6, 2018 - 8:55am
Hi Johann, I went through 3 pregnancies too, and while I love parenthood, for me personally, I in no way thought the pregnancies or birth were special or created an amazing bond. However, I have heard other women say this so, I am glad that is true for you! However, I did feel hormonal changes upon receiving the child, and perhaps as a consequence of the pregnancy that activated the pain sectors of my brain if the child were in distress, and reduced my ability to focus on anything but the children. My husband was not effected to the same extreme physically, but he dearly loves and would die for the children so, I am worried that your comment denigrates men and fosters a sense of division between men and women inadvertently. While it is true my husband does not have a lot of patience with the kids as I have developed, I think this is because of the lack of exposure and practice, and the need for him to practice. I don't find myself above him in love for the children, that is all I am trying to say. I really feel the Satanists are trying to get men and women to fight each other, either by eliminating gender roles and causing friction with that, or on the converse getting people on the opposite end of the spectrum to be too proud and divisive in their own roles. To me, yes, it is pitiable in households where there is a single parent - but simply because it is 1 person who can only provide half of what is needed, a masculine, or a feminine half. I would feel a lot of pity also for a woman who did not have a father for her children either, and especially more for the children themselves. I think you brought up a good point about daycare; I view that as supremely evil. The child is attached first to its mother, and then to both parents intensely. It is very cruel to separate the child from those who are built to feel the most pain if they fail to attend to it. I feel that both men and women have an unnatural stress added to their lives by the push to have both parents working, shuffling the kids around from place to place, their kids exposed to non-conducive values in terms (primarily) of materialism, selfishness, and unnatural coldness/ego/pride/rebellion (Satanic values). These kids then bring these values home and stress their already stressed out parents. I view problems and duties entirely as the entire family's responsibility, so, when you say making the Mom work adds more to her, I think it could be expended to "it brings the family to even more stress." It sells them the lie of materialism while robbing them of time, energy, and the peace that comes from a more simple life. I don't believe women alone are victims in this. Their husbands are victims as well in having more stressed out wives, nobody left with the energy to create a relaxing environment at home as who can work a day in the corporate world without bringing that toxicity home? The husband's psychological health has nowhere to recharge with both individuals infected with the hierarchical-ego-system in place. The children just get 2 burned out parents unable to carefully attend to them in love (especially if the parents both work something like 60 hours, and can barely recharge themselves). No super human is going to be able to well clean and organize their home and environment under such kind of stress. Maybe a person can hire a maid or something, but even then, what kind of influence are these kids going to get in the 3 hours they have exposure to the 2 individuals who are gifted with the opportunity to most love them? They must instead fight with 30 other children in a crowded, unloving classroom for morsels of self esteem and sanction. The entire family is poisoned, and the entire family is victim. So that is how I view it but, for what it's worth I respect what you do very much, and I used to work in the corporate world right alongside with my husband! I also respect what my husband puts up with for us. I respect all people, but there are more and less ideal choices, and Satanic social structures never serve the masses.
Dads and Mums
Submitted by Paul Massey on April 23, 2019 - 11:17am
Interesting. All very "Savannah". The problems with this claim are manifold, viz: 1) We are not on the Savannah any more. Women can work, men can care for children, and of course many are. Indeed, in Denmark recently school age children were found to be looked after more by men than women. In essence, we are evolving and that's great
2) There is, also, a recent Swedish (?) study which reveals that, when career barriers are removed, women still gravitate toward 'caring' professions and men towards STEM jobs, That's quite interesting, So there is a real danger in claiming that 'men do this or are better at that' than women, and visa versa. It seems that women, in general, prefer to 'care' and men to 'hunt' - as I say, all very 'Savannah". But the risk is in the generalisation. I can accept that the average woman is better at caring (can you accept that the average man is better at earning?!), but the point is that such a claim is mostly meaningless, because even if women are better carers, on average, there are still a large number of men who are better carers than a large number of women. Most alienated children, for example, are alienated by women against men. A tip-top 'carer' would not do that. Women (and men) who do this are invariably narcissistic-cluster B type personalities - alienators hate their exes more than they love their children.
Was it ever thus?
Submitted by Neo on November 15, 2019 - 2:26am
What I am about to say happened to my father as well as to me.
When men want to assert their parental rights regarding their children, all they do is trigger the Mama Bear response from the mothers. The mother puts herself between the father and his offspring and threatens him with harm -sometimes physical, not just legal- if he dares to do anything that she doesn't approve. She will make sure to denigrate his parenting abilities as well as his perception of the role.
The kids pick up on this, and learn to not respect their fathers because they can see he has no real power. They will start running to Mom to tell her everything that Dad does that they didn't like, and she WILL punish him for his transgression.
I know both sides of this, for as I said above, this happened to my father and I remember how I felt about him then. I recognized when I had triggered that same response over my kids, and I knew how that game was played. I knew that I wouldn't win.
Knowing that I could only lose, I ended up pulling back from my kids to avoid the abuse I'd get for daring to be their father. My role became "Wait until your mother gets home!" when they misbehaved.
While I have a reasonably good relationship with my now-adult offspring, we aren't as close as we might have been. I just wish that I could tell my long-deceased father that I understand his experience so much better, and to apologize for following and participating in his emasculation as a parent.
Post Comment
advertisement
