In today’s society, we have seen the western world allow freedom amongst both sexes whilst in some quarters, women in Iran, for example, have limited rights and suffer intimidation and violence if they are judged to have broken any laws.

But what do you feel is acceptable?

In modern history, women have the right to vote, work in white collar jobs and have the freedom to debate.

But is it right for women to have these rights? In Iran, under Sharia Law, women have little rights in respect to marriage and divorce, must be covered in public by a veil and many other laws which differ vastly from the US.

The consequences of not abiding by these laws will result in inevitable abuse from whipping to even death.

But what if we were to take a middle ground.? The old fashioned view is that women stayed at home to look after the children and cook for the family whilst the husband worked in hard labour to provide for his family.

Is it so wrong for this kind of family to be in place today? Surely, having a caring mother figure would be beneficial for the children and having one parent to pay careful attention to her children would lessen the risk of them getting into trouble with law and society.

The father would also pass on his working skills to his children and this would be beneficial to them in later years.

The trade and industry skills in the Western part are declining rapidly, which is why countries like the United States are reliant on the immigration of South American labourers as they provide the necessary skills for building and hard labour.

What this debate is about, is for you to decide what you feel is best?

Should women have the same and equal rights as men or should they have less?

Put forward your views and say what you think.

I'm not getting what you're saying...

If what you want to propose is that "women stayed at home to look after the children and cook for the family whilst the husband worked in hard labour to provide for his family", then why do you think that makes them have "less rights"? Are you saying that all the women who choose to be homemakers now have "less rights"? Women who are homemakers can still vote, can't they? Are you proposing that they should not be allowed to vote?

As for whether gender-roles is a good or bad thing...

No, it isn't wrong. What would be wrong is an external person infringing on people's right (not privilege) to decide how they want to use their life.

It is a right because if we look at where these roles came from we'd see that they came from a time when we were quite primitive and people did what they were best at. However, having grown as a society, isn't it obvious that generalizing is dangerous, and now that we are far more educated, gender plays a far less significant part in how we live our life?

Personally, I think that gender discrimination is akin to racial and religious discrimination.


Writing this post reminds me of the Are single gender schools being sexist? thread. I think there were similar debates.

__________________

Hmm this could get rather heated...especially when a couple of the jokers post in here.

First of all, one has to realize that families are just not the same as they once were. The standard two parent, husband and wife family has dropped from being the whopping majority it once was. I do believe that the optimal situation would be for children to grow up with a stay-at-home parent, and I beleive a SAHM is more beneficial to giving children the nurturing that they need...yet society has begun to look down on a woman who chooses to be a SAHM. Why is this? Men still do earn more than women, so this only makes sense that the husband would go out and make a living for the family.

HOWEVER, what must be noted is the growing number of single parents (mothers and fathers). For me, being a SAHM is just not an option. I have (almost) spent my year of maternity leave with my son but will need to put him into childcare come September. This is just what needs to happen, and all single parents wish that they could spend every day with their child...they just cannot. So does this stem these people coming from broken homes themselves? No, it does not. Nearly every single mother that I converse with comes from a regular two parent household, was brought up right, but somewhere along the way made some choices that landed them with a beautiful child all to themselves.

I am not a feminist at all, but I do believe that women and men should have equal rights. The problem with feminism today, however, is that they are no longer pushing for just equal rights -- they are pushing for superiority.

I believe that the role of men has been downplayed over the past few decades. Women are now stronger than ever, and many do not need a man to hold back their fabulous careers and to stop and bear children (ick, who would ever do that?). In fact, albeit I don't have my source right in front of me, university graduation statistics have shifted dramatically over the past 30 years. In the 70s, male graduates made up about 75% of the class....to the 90s where it was about 50%....to currently where female graduates are forming the majority of graduates. Strange statistics, no?

This is just a jumbled mess of my thoughts, but a very interesting debate you have started.

Please let's not have a flame war, counter views with valid arguments, not with "i don't agree" and with "you're stupid" kind of thing, that's not debating. Statistics are helpful, there's plenty of info on the web you can cite.

Have fun.

__________________

I think women are better suited at certain things than men. I believe both men and women are better skilled in certain areas.

My own personal opinion, and it is not discriminatory, I have felt that with my own upbringing that the mother teaches her children how to behave in a better manner than men, and the father teaches key skills that you can’t learn at school in a better way.

It’s a debate on what people feel on women and you can by all means discuss a man’s position in the world.

It’s an open debate.

If its a debate.. why is it in this section of the forum? lolz(:

__________________

-_- wheres the mods......they need to move this XD :P

__________________

Storm is of course right that we should not be reverting back to the meek woman (at least, in appearance) who can only exert any power through her husband. I am quite glad that man + woman and, after a while, inevitably marriage is no longer considered to be the only option, or indeed the norm. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for you if this is a type of situation that you feel happy with. I'm simply glad other options are becoming increasingly common.

Sure, with these new 'freedoms' we have, you get exposed to more visibly unstable relationships, and we all surely know people who have gone through a divorce, if we haven't gone through one ourselves. But let's not idealise the traditional forced marriages either. There were just as many unhappy couples as there are now. At least now they don't become the disgrace of the neighbourhood when they decide to part. Neither situation is ideal for the child, but believe me when I say that sometimes a divorce is better for the child than a relationship between parents that simply does not work.

If it does work, however, I have to say that I'm very much in favour of one person staying at home. Whether this is the actual mother, father, adoptive parent or caretaker, or his or her partner, it does not matter. If a household consists of two adults and a young child, I think having somebody at home is, in most cases, more beneficial to the child. A teacher or a person at a daycare centre can't be expected to take up this task, because this person cannot give such a large amount of kids the attention that they need.

I don't care who this stay-at-home parent/caretaker is, as long as there is someone there to give the child enough attention. Only if you have the luxury of this option, of course.

The problem nowadays is not that women also want a career; the problem is that people nowadays want everything they desire: a good job, a big house, a kid or two, a holiday every year, and the list goes on. Maybe 35 hours in a day would come in handy, somewhere too.

__________________

I'm glad you added that "Only if you have the luxury of this option, of course", because this is not feasible for much of the population. Whether single parenting or parenting with a partner, money is tight. There is no choice but to put a child into childcare. Most of the time, when a child is in daycare, it is because the parent(s) have no other choice. However they would love to have the kid home with them.

Yes, a stay at home parent is the best choice, but it just can't happen anymore in society today. It is simply how our culture has evolved over the years.

I agree with you whole-heartedly though, that a divorced couple is far better for children than an unhappy couple. Statistically, children of single parents do far better when there is no negative contact between the parents -- they're okay if there is positive contact, or no contact at all...but not negative.

Moved to H&D.

IMO both should be given equal opportunities but the government should give (or give funding to charities that can give) adequate advice and education regarding the benefits and drawbacks of either of the parents/partners staying at home or working.

__________________

Hmmm interesting thread David Nugent

__________________

That's a good point, because I've heard often the views that if women are at home, then that means they don't have the same rights as men O_o It's actually quite weird because as society changes more and more, people seem to say, "Oh, I feel sorry for such and such who has to stay at home being a mum all the time".. I know it seems weird, but I've heard it being said several times, sadly.

I completely agree with that... aaaaaaand...


I also agree with that. But at the same time, you also have parents who say "no, I want to go out and work, too. We both want it. Neither of us wants to stay at home" when they have a child. In this situation, I do feel it's bad, because there are cases where one parent is earning enough to live on, but both choose to work because they want to be career people and just want a bit more money because they desire it. Which I don't mind.. but if you're going to have children... I just feel priorities need to be set more accordingly to the child's needs sometimes.

If you're a single parent, then that's a whole other issue. I agree with your statements on that one, Casta. Some single parents have no choice but to put their children in day care, while they go out and work. Especially when you're living in an expensive society, for example. I know the government helps towards that, and people can apply for income support and such (in the UK, anyway), but sometimes even that's not enough to go on, because they are limited to how much they can give to a family.

I believe it can happen. Sometimes people are forced into a situation that they don't like.. but other times I think you can plan your life if you have children (if one parent is working) to make the whole situation work. Okay there will be situations where it's impossible.. but I believe also in some cases with planning, it is possible (I don't mean this to include single parents).

For example, myself and my husband have got a plan sorted for if we're blessed with children. It would mean that only he has to work. Yes, we're living in London at the moment and it's a pretty darn expensive city, but I guess it does also depend on the jobs people hold, too, and how wisely you spend your money. I definitely don't want to be working when and if we're blessed with children. I have no intentions of it, because I believe if a parent can earn enough money to live on, then the other should be at home helping to bring up the child/children. Hopefully that plan will work and nothing terrible happens where we both have to work, because afterall, we can't predict the future. But even if things get tough.. I'd still want to be at home with a child/children. I do believe that being put through tougher trials can still be more fulfilling than neglecting your child (unwillingly or willingly).

I completely agree. It is very sad that people don't WANT to stay home with their children. Having said that though, I can understand how some people would find themselves going stir crazy, as far as intellectual stimulation goes (NOT partying because I feel that should be dropped as soon as you take on the committment of having a child). I myself have been out of the intellectual loop for a year and a half now, and I'm feeling my brain turn to mush. I'm very anxious to get back to school. I know that probably sounds bad, but I think there is a way to get the best of both worlds. Part-time working would be the ultimate option, but again, that won't be plausible for me until I have another half who can help out financially.

I agree with you here too, and even if a pregnancy was unplanned, the greatest care should be taken to work things out in the best interest of the child. "Forced into situations they don't like" may not be the best choice of words...unplanned does not mean unwanted, and although the reality of the situation may be unlikeable at first, it quickly becomes the best thing that could have ever happened to you. :) Single parents or not, you still have to take great care in planning how everything will work out. Just sometimes that planning is done through the 9 months of pregnancy instead of years prior!

This is very true, and it isn't enough to go on. Canada has a pretty good social services system, but I know that I won't be able to keep myself afloat on government cheques alone! Especially since childcare costs upwards of $700 per child per month. But like I said, if it could be done, I would be all for staying at home with my little guy (provided I was able to exercise my brain at the same time...lest play iSketch in the evenings until I knew the wordlists...oh wait, I already do )

In my opinion...

- A couple should make sure they are financially stable and able to support a kid before they decide to start a family.
- The government should give absolutely no funding whatsoever to families; it's none of their business.
- Women do not need the same rights as men. We are two sexes, two genders, and built to do different things and act in different ways. Not only in culture and religion, but biologically women are smaller, weaker, and personally I think the female figure is a true work of art. I'm not gay; I just believe that women are beautiful and fragile, and therefore treated respectively. We are also never truly logical beings, but logic and strength are both leadership qualities usually in men.

That is partly why I think it is so hard to let women speak their minds (for example, voting). I think our thought process is mostly persuaded by our emotions, or emotional events, which is never a consistent or trustworthy quality.

In addition, I really like the concept of a couple living together; the woman stays at home and the man works. If they have a family, then the mother/wife takes care of the child(ren) and her husband continues to work for his family. I'm used to my own mom cooking for our family, doing housework, and helping me with creative projects for school, while my dad does the yardwork, any construction or assembly, and he'd help me with my math or science homework. And they are so happy together. My mom is soo nice and my dad is the one who is strict and actually enforces rules.

I'm just used to it. I think that's how it should be with all families. I like the idea of gender roles. I like makeup and I like fashion and I like having lots of friends, but I don't like math or science and I definitely don't like leading people, plus people yell at me when I state my opinion! Guess that's just what I get from being a girl.

__________________
"Do I believe in the Bible? Hell, I've seen one!"

This is incredibly offensive to me and I am not going to respond.

I agree with lots of what previous posters have said (Storm, Casta, Nay, Nerdy and prolly some more that I can't remember) in that it's probably more desirable for one parent to be able to stay at home, even if it isn't always possible, so I'm not going repeat it all.

I would like to throw in a side point though. Supposing it was possible to revert back to how things were (which it isn't but just use your imagination) and we had a situation now where women stayed at home and men earned the money. It would work out pretty well for the high earners in society, the doctors, the lawyers etc, but where would it leave those who had lower paid jobs? The gap between the upper and lower classes would expand and keep on expanding because it would only be the upper class kids who would be able to afford to go to university and get those 'better' jobs. The government wouldn't be able to help with that cause half the population wouldn't be getting taxed anymore plus they'd have to deal with the inevitable recession caused by such high unemployment figures. Everyone would be scrapping over the highly paid jobs, and the jobs that no-one wants to do would just disappear along with a lot of the industries connected with them. There would be no money in the system anymore for luxuries such as the NHS (if you're living in the UK), pensions, universal free education - all of which came about after women started playing an active role in the jobs market. Is that better for our kids? Or should we just start stuffing them up chimneys again?

Anyway, just something to think about. Women in the job market are vital to modern economics and therefore modern life.

__________________

I think its a choice thing.

No one should be permitted to decide to remove rights from somebody else. We should all start on a level playing field, and then decide for ourselves what we want to do in life.

Some women want to stay at home to look after the house and their families, and can if they want to. As do some men - I've got a couple of mates who are house-husbands. (I could never do that. I am a typical male and am genetically flawed in that I cannot notice untidyness. If it is possible to walk around/over/through the mess, then it does not register in my brain as requiring tidying.)

In many, if not most, cases, I think that both partners in a relationship need to work today - I know my mortgage requires both our salaries to pay. Also there is no way that gf would quit work, even if I was able to support us both - she enjoys working. She's also one of the best people to have around in a fight. Killer right...

Government investment in families helps provide future workers to support the economy. I think government funding plays a vital part in helping families.

I think that there should be stricter rules regarding the abuse of such funding though. I think its too easy to cheat the system.


So yeah, to sum up:
No one should be stripped of any rights or told that the can't/shouldn't do any specific thing. They should make their own choices. Try things: If they can't do something, physically or emotionally or whatever, then at least they had the choice to attempt it, without society dictating how someone should act based purely on gender.

__________________

Mr... Mr Vik?

Seriously though, I agree with what Ches said. Another thing that popped into my head was that I don't actually know ANY woman who puts her career before her kids.

I know plenty of women in Casta Diva's situation where they'd love to be able to stay at home with their child but circumstances unfortunately do not permit it.

I know women who have the luxury to be able to decide to stay at home and either love it, or feel a bit stunted (but do it anyway for the sake of the kids).

But I know no-one who actually has a high flying career and who puts that in first place. It's one of these 'the cousin of a mate of the guy who cleans the windows' situations where very few people personally know of someone who does it. Myth? The only place I've even seen this in fact, is in TV shows on in movies. It's a Sunday and too early to put my feminist hat on with phrases like 'male dominated media propagated myth' but it did strike me as interesting. Maybe I just don't know enough people.

Another thing - the assumption here is that women who stay at home are better mothers. This is not necessatily the case. What about all the drug taking, alcoholic, child-abusing stay at home mums? Seems to me they pretty much equal the number of career first mums in the world! What about these 'problem families' with kids running wild where one or both parents are out of work? Stay at home parents don't seem to be doing the trick there. Seems that those very kids are the ones causing societies problems whereas the nice middle class kids with two working parents are more or less blameless. Maybe we should ban the lower classes from mating? Maybe in order to have a child you have to have a certain income or else you are not allowed? Maybe the government should start to issue 'child licenses'?

Before anyone quotes me and tells me I'm being outrageous, don't worry, this isn't what I really think, it's an example of how it sounds when someone takes away the rights of a proportion of society. The removal of the right to choose is abhorrent. The way to solve societies problems is to find solutions which fit the status quo, not which stifle whole swathes of society. I think it could be made easier for women who choose to do so to stay at home. I don't know how, but it seems right now that a lot of women don't have any real choice in the matter.

The other big problem with removing rights is that if creates a secondary society. The less rights, the less power, the less valuable you are. I don't think anyone here would seriously argue in favour of that. There's all kind of problems associated with it that I'm not going to go into because I've already gone on too long.

So yeah, equal rights, equal choices, reduction of the impossibility factor for the choices that are sometimes not choices at all.

__________________

I hear what you're saying.. but because I was the one that stated it, I just want to make clear that I know of 3 couples who are like this. Personally know them. Sadly, one is also a relative. And that situation is probably the one that makes me most angry. The couple have a son, and both partners are working. If this was a whole mortgage thing in the case of Ches' than it would be different. But the husband alone earns PLENTY to keep the family going, and they have no debts to pay off. And on top of that, the wife is earning much more than him (probably double the amount). But what they've done is that they stuck their child in a day care centre thing FULL TIME from the age of 1. They desperately wanted this child.. so I couldn't work out why both of them wanted to work so badly. In my opinion (and others may disagree), I felt the child's rights were not put in place as a priority. Instead.. money and career was. And therefore, I lost a lot of respect for my cousin. They had the choice where one of them stays at home with the child (they have no money issues at all), and they abused that. I know of couples out there who wish they had stable money like that and one of them could stay at home with their child, but they can't, because money issues are tight.

I think things just get a bit difficult when people want EVERYTHING. I think it was AgentQ that stated it? People want a healthy career and kids (as well as other things). But life isn't perfect, and I feel people should be giving up some things if they're not necessarily needed, to be with their young children. We can't have it all!

Vik - you made some other interesting points in your post. I just haven't had any coffee yet.. heh. Too lazy to reply :( *whacks head* I feel fuzzy this morning. Anyway, good post :)

That's interesting, Nerdy. Maybe it's a UK thing?

OK, another point I thought of is that this thread also presumes that day care is bad.

Why so? With most couples/singles having only 1 or 2 kids on average, the amount of interaction with other children is minimal.

Children learn from other children faster and better than they learn from adults, in certain areas. Any mum who has a toddler who has come into contact with a slightly older child will know that their toddler is fascinated by the other child. They watch, listen, learn, copy. Kids are simply hard-wired to do this. Apart from learning things that other children already know/can do, kids learn social interation from other kids. Child 'A' snatches a toy, child 'B' whacks 'A', child 'A' cries, adult comes and disciplines 'B'. They both learnt a lesson. Don't snatch, don't hit. It sounds a little brutal, but it's going to go into their heads better than mummy saying 'don't take other children's toys, it's not nice' or something.

So, yeah, going into day care where they interact with other children and learn how to behave acceptably is a very valuable thing. Spending time with mum is also a very valuable thing. Finding a balance is important, and that balance is not necessarily impossible to find if mum works.

I personally think some of societies problems are due to discipline issues. For the record, I'm not for corporal punishment, but I do think stronger boundaries need to be set for kids. That's another debate though. It's interesting, but when I think of social problems, I do tend to think of the UK rather than Germany cause here there are fewer problems than I noticed in the UK.

__________________

What, you're trying to say is that people who arnt in a ''financially stable'' position should be discriminated because they had kids?! Your way of thinking is extreamly narrow minded and very offensive to many single parents on here.

The government are there to provide for The People, Elected by the people couples & singles alike so why should'nt the government provide funding to support them and their families?! It IS the governments business when it affects us all.

__________________

But you did respond. And I apologize, Casta_Diva.

As for government funding... Okay, I'm female, and there's one thing I will want to do besides marrying my boyfriend and continuing on my career path as a computer animator. I want to be able to help support me and him financially; I want to do it on our own. If I want funds, I'd rather ask my friends and family than the government, because that is not what I want my future taxes to be going toward. It is the individual's responsibility to support himself; not the government's. This gets into another issue, but it all starts with planned parenthood: If a couple is going to start a family, then they need to know what they're getting into.

Not everybody plans things out, including their own children, but I gotta admit that if it was truly an accident, this couple should be introduced to the idea of abortion... or if it's too late: adoption.

On a personal note, my boyfriend was obviously an accident (OK, so was I). His mom is a single parent and works to support both her and her son. She goes out a lot. She forces him to spend time with her on most weekends. He hates her. She uses him. She uses the excuse that she raised him on her own and all this other B.S. just so she gets whatever she wants from him. I think it's pathetic; he really believes he's had a horrible childhood -- even during some of high school. The only reason his mom ended up giving birth to him (or so she explains) is because she could have been aborted herself, but wasn't. So it was some typical female emotional decision.

Personally, I just think that's wrong. But I love my boyfriend, and his mom claims that she loves her son. She just doesn't treat him that way. People need to realize the options they have. There are already plenty of unwanted babies out there; the world doesn't want more.

__________________
"Do I believe in the Bible? Hell, I've seen one!"

Another thing I was thinking about regarding stay at home mums being the old-fashioned ideal and being good for the family is that there really wasn't ever a time when women really did that. 100 years ago, women had to do the cooking and cleaning the hard way. No washing machines, dryers, microwaves (yuk) etc. No vaccuum cleaners, frozen food, refrigerated food, no super-duper cleaning fluids, well the list goes on. As far as I know from historical records as well as accounts from my own grandparents and even my own parents, kids when they were off school would be shoved out of the door out after breakfast and told not to come back until dinner time and in the meantime go and play with the other kids. About the same as day care except with no adult supervision.

People from all generations hark back to a 'golden age' of around about 50 years before they were born - but I really don't think such good times ever really existed.

Sketches - I do believe that men and woman have their own strengths and weaknesses, but I also think that us women are perfectly capable of thinking logically and with emotional detachment when we need to! Not all female decisions are based on emotional reactions. In fact, I think this is what I would label as maturity in women. And for the record, not all of us are useless as assembly and construction work ;) I think lots of those things, including leadership capabilities, depend on the person just as much as on the gender. If you're brought up (like I was, dad was a carpenter and electrician) to be able to wire a plug and use a hammer, you just take it for granted and use those skills - you don't shy away from doing those things simply because you're female. The female form might imply frailness and vulnerability, but I'm pretty capable and practical. You can have both.

__________________

There are problems with scamming the system, however, it is for the Government to get off their backsides and deal with such problems.

If there is a case of underage sex with consent and the person has a child, then in my own opinion, they should not be entitled to any benefits.

However, if a child is conceived after the age of legal consent, then each case should be observed individually to assess any problems in regards of parenting, housing and such by the local council or authority.

Unfortunately, the Government is very lax in matters like this, but also on other kinds of benefits.

Yes, there is a problem with benefit fraud, but you can't lump every single person who requires benefits into one group.

I happen to get very angry and annoyed with benefit cheats, but I wouldn't mind my taxes being spent on other peoples' benefits.

It'll be like saying not having the dole, and the amount of harm that would to to a significant population will be devastating.

But not everyone on the dole are lazy people who don't wish to look for jobs. There are so many circumstances which make people unemployable. The same goes for single parents.

What would be the best solution is to have each case independently reviewed, which will be time consuming of course, but when you look at how much benefit fraud costs the UK, which I will check up later, it is in the high millions, but think of the amount we'll save if each case was properly reviewed.

This is for the Government to do, so they are as much to blame as the general population.

Edit: article from last year on benefit fraud in UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...igrationpolicy

__________________

Genetically, paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact