Deadbeat Dads?

[Vasilisa]

I agree that farthers should have a paternal leave to support their wives, help them and bond with a baby, but not for a YEAR.

[robc]

Originally Posted by jonarmis

Ok, men are not entitled to maternal leave as most people say, but in other countries paternal leaves are granted to male spouses. This is for men to be able to render assistance to their women or the wife. That covers regular or normal childbirths and even miscarriages. The role of men has evolved thru the years. But let not the deadbeat dad be the prevailing norm that we should stick to.

Sorry I'm mentioning Canada so much, it's what I know because I live in this country. Don't quote but I'm pretty sure it works like this, women get something like 7-8 months maternity leave, a man is entitled to 4-5 months paternal leave but what is common is that we give up our paternal leave and give that time to our wives who extend their maternity leave to a full year - it's actually a pretty good system: most couples will get the full 12 months for the mother but some will split the maternity leave/paternity leave so that the mother can re-enter the workforce and free herself from the stress of taking care of newborns 24/7 and it allows the husband/father time to bond with the newborn and take on more responsibility as a parent.

Either way it's a win/win because the maternity/paternity leave is paid for by the government, it's like going on unemployment insurance, something like 55% of your gross income for a full year so even when you're on mat leave you still are bringing in income which is helpful considering that this a very expensive time what with all the new things that need to be purchased for babies and ongoing care items as well (diapers, formula, clothes, strollers, beds, cribs, furniture, etc.) - it all adds up.

I also think we've veered off the main topic by quite a bit but it's still an interesting discussion to be sure. I'm hoping we can all agree (or most of us anyways) that deadbeat dad isn't a great label, just like deadbeat mom wouldn't be a great label if it was ever used.

I am noticing that family law is changing with the times and it's good because it has to stay current to reflect what's happening in society. Men having to pay spousal support forever because of a divorce that they didn't choose to have is ridiculous. Child support doesn't have to be exhorbitant either and from what I've read if the father does want to have joint custody of the children, the courts are looking at the situation from the child's benefit perspective: children don't ask to be born and both parents should play an equal role in raising their children. Joint custody also means not having to pay any or very little child support which means less stress for the father who gets to have equal access to his children. It also means that women are being held more accountable and to the high standards they helped to set. That means women are expected to find gainful full-time employment to support themselves and can't expect their ex-husband to support them indefinitely. It also means that in situations where the wife was the higher wage earner, a man can request spousal support from his wife just the same way a wife would expect it from him. The problem is that society frowns upon that situation even though men & women are supposed to be regarded as equals, it's almost expected that a wife pursue spousal support but when the situation is reversed, people will frown upon the man for doing the same thing, the same old stigma, "be a man, don't ask for money from your wife to support you", you are made to feel bad to ask for equal treatment.

Personally in the event of divorces, unless the marriage is being ended because of some abuse issues, the person initiating the divorce should pay a hefty premium and should probably cover all court costs on top of that. If that's what you want you should pay for it, especially when the other spouse doesn't want the divorce and is willing to work things out and pursue counselling. Marriage is so disposable nowadays, everyone is so quick to pull that trigger - that's why it should cost you alot of money to get a divorce, a lesson to be taught to you for not keeping your word & your committment. When you make that choice, there should be consequences. Others will argue that this impedes your free will & freedom in general - it doesn't impede anything, it just makes you accountable for your actions and there is nothing wrong with accountability. Marriage used to be the most sacred institution and now it's nearly the opposity - divorce statistics prove this; relationships and matters of the heart mean nothing when it's so easy to drop the old and get with something new. I think you could look at it from the other side as well, you should have to pay a hefty premium and get certified to get married, this would mean going to school and learning about relationships and how to deal with conflict, problems, difficult times, etc. to better prepare you for marriage and pay a decent amount of $$$ for a wedding license. This would weed out most of the "riff raff" from getting married, you would only have serious people getting married, limiting dysfunctional relationships and issues of spousal support, child support and how these divorces ultimately affect the children the most.

I'm sure God never intended marriage to become a big joke and to have such little value that people found it too easy to end one marriage and start another. Too bad we can't see the wisdom in repairing relationships rather than ending them only to start new ones that are bound to fail because we never took the time to learn our mistakes from the previous ones. That is the pattern of behavior that is in effect and no one seems to get it.

Or even worse, no one seems to care.

[missing]

Originally Posted by Vasilisa

Missing, its' silly to give men a year maternal leave. First of all it's a woman who gives birth to a baby and needs time for recovery (believe me, it's a shock for the body). Second, a man can not nurse a child.
May be if men want maternal leave, they will figure out the way to be pregnant, give birth for kids and nurse?

you are missing (no pun) the point which is that single people shouldn't be forced to subsidize breeders, male or female. The only fair solution, IMO is to give everyone a year off, to take at any time. How they use that time is up to them. Make it so that spouses can give their leave time so men can give their leave time to their wives, if they want. That's two years, which should be good for two children. If you use that time up, or if you want more kids, tough. Do it on your own time/$$$. Really a year may be too much, six months might be better (which would be good for one kid). And I'm sure even that's not sustainable. But again we have feminism to thank for driving women into the workforce and creating this dilemma. I hate to sound like a broken record on this, but most women don't see (or don't want to acknowledge) the connection here. If I was female and wanted kids, I'd be pretty pissed off.

[robc]

Originally Posted by missing

you are missing (no pun) the point which is that single people shouldn't be forced to subsidize breeders, male or female. The only fair solution, IMO is to give everyone a year off, to take at any time. How they use that time is up to them. Make it so that spouses can give their leave time so men can give their leave time to their wives, if they want. That's two years, which should be good for two children. If you use that time up, or if you want more kids, tough. Do it on your own time/$$$. Really a year may be too much, six months might be better (which would be good for one kid). And I'm sure even that's not sustainable. But again we have feminism to thank for driving women into the workforce and creating this dilemma. I hate to sound like a broken record on this, but most women don't see (or don't want to acknowledge) the connection here. If I was female and wanted kids, I'd be pretty pissed off.

You're right, single people shouldn't be forced to subsidize the "breeders", but the idea is that single people might become married & have children at one point so they are actually paying into a system they might use in the future. But until you have a system in place where you actually pay for the services you use and not for those that you don't, I don't think we'll ever see it done another way.

You're not a broken record, I hear alot of what you're saying and I agree with most if not all of it. The problem is you are trying to convince people of something that is so contrary to the beliefs that they've grown up with that it's hard/impossible for them to accept another reality as being possible.

Part of what this site is about is to accept the possibility that what we've learned up until this point may not necessarily be correct and learning to change ourselves & our abilities to grow & improve require embracing new ideas and thoughts which will be contrary to what we've been taught growing up. Some "truths" are harder to de-program than others.

I'll finish this off with something I read on the net recently which was kind of funny but relative to this discussion too:

"....It takes 4 years to get a plumbers or electrician's license and a few months to get a drivers license but there is no training required to get in a relationship or to get married and have children."

When you look at it this way, why aren't we required to get training & schooling on relationships, marriage & having children. You would think that the most important aspects of our lives would require the most training & education possible and yet no one ever stops to question this.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by missing

But again we have feminism to thank for driving women into the workforce and creating this dilemma. I hate to sound like a broken record on this, but most women don't see (or don't want to acknowledge) the connection here. If I was female and wanted kids, I'd be pretty pissed off.

So, I am wondering what the solution is? Are you saying that women shouldn't be in the work force? We should just be at home where we belong, barefoot and pregnant? I am asking because that's really how it sounds to me.

[Vasilisa]

I think knowledge about realtionships should come naturally when a person, growing up, socializes with peers and older people.
Of course, if a child was sheltered from communicating with a lot of people then he needs to learn it through other sources later.
And in young years we are supposed to get an experience in socializing with and dating opposite sex.
Even if those "marriage classes" existed, it wouldn't guarantee anything. Human relationships are so comlex, that it's impossible to learn about them only in theory, it's going to be different in practice anyway. The only thing to learn is trying to feel people you are with, to concentrate on their feelings and needs.
About "maternal leave"... Don't blame feminism and working women for everything. In other countries women work as well, but mothers are protected by society much better than in States.
I said about a short maternal leave as an example, that women are in a tough situation too, it's not like life is all roses for them either.

[missing]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

So, I am wondering what the solution is? Are you saying that women shouldn't be in the work force? We should just be at home where we belong, barefoot and pregnant? I am asking because that's really how it sounds to me.

well than you'd better re-read my posts cause I don't believe I've ever suggested such a thing. If I did it was a mistake.

as for solutions, well first you need to define a problem. If the problem is how do women have both children and careers, well they don't. They pick one or the other, or I suppose if they want they can try both (generally irresponsible and unfair to the kids, IMO) but I don't see why it should be up to the government to help them.

of course one can argue "how will the next generation of kids be born without society's support?" The answer to which I could care less. We're on the downslope as a society anyway. We have no future, so why burden another generation with our mess? So really at this point I'd prefer women keep their careers.. for the children's sake. But I suppose many of them (and their men) are going to be selfish and try to "have it all" anyways... such is life.

and Vasilisa, I'm not "blaming" feminism so much as stating cause and effect. My position is not a popular position but so far as I can tell it's pretty accurate. Go ahead and disagree if you want. And yes, "women do have problems"... I get it. Got it the first time you said it. I still don't think they should be subsidized for breeding because their life "isn't roses".

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by missing

well than you'd better re-read my posts cause I don't believe I've ever suggested such a thing. If I did it was a mistake.

To me it sounded like you thought it was a problem that women are in the work force and that feminism is to blame for this problem.

Originally Posted by missing

as for solutions, well first you need to define a problem. If the problem is how do women have both children and careers, well they don't. They pick one or the other, or I suppose if they want they can try both (generally irresponsible and unfair to the kids, IMO)

Why can't women have both children and careers? Men have been doing it since the dawn of time (or at least the dawn of careers). What I think I don't understand is your reasoning that only women have to pick and choose. Why not say either a man can have children or a career, not both. Maybe you do believe that. I can't tell.

The issue of maternity/paternity leave is something I really am not sure of my opinion on. It's in our best interest as a country and as a world to have children raised as well as possible. It benefits everyone. I can see why someone who doesn't want kids wouldn't want to pay for it, but I pay school taxes even though I don't have children and I don't mind because I'd rather have an educated populace than an uneducated one.

I guess each of us is looking at it from our own side, but I feel a real disdain for women in a lot of these post and also a feeling that they've "gotten out of their place." It may not be what you are trying to say, but it comes off that way.

[Erki]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Why can't women have both children and careers? Men have been doing it since the dawn of time (or at least the dawn of careers). What I think I don't understand is your reasoning that only women have to pick and choose. Why not say either a man can have children or a career, not both. Maybe you do believe that. I can't tell.

Men have a full career and half or less children. Which parent is more dedicated to their children, mother or father? 99.8% of times it's mother. It's kind of a given that men go work the whole day and bring the bacon home while woman keeps the house tidy and raises children and so on. Maybe people subconsciously want the children in this world have at least one proper parent. But as women are told to be the masters at multitasking... who knows.

I personally feel a lot that I as a male am not able to care as much as a female is. Well, even just physically, a child needs her mother, but she doesn't need her father. As Vasilisa said earlier, men can't nurse. In fact, men pretty much can't do squat when it comes to children - they can be helpers at most. All kinds of studies go on about how women have developed abilities to tell what a child needs and that they have some special instincts, etc. While men are better at judging the speed of moving objects (hunting).

I'm just frustrated because my caring ability is non-existent compared to women. (And children are quite irrelevant in this matter really.)

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Erki

Men have a full career and half or less children. Which parent is more dedicated to their children, mother or father? 99.8% of times it's mother. It's kind of a given that men go work the whole day and bring the bacon home while woman keeps the house tidy and raises children and so on. Maybe people subconsciously want the children in this world have at least one proper parent. But as women are told to be the masters at multitasking... who knows.

I don't think having a job or not says anything about your dedication to your children.

Also, you say it's "a given" that men work and women take care of the house and children. What? Just because it's been that way doesn't mean it's right for everyone. Again, a lot of these posts come across to me as saying that if woman wants to have children she should stay home where she belongs. What about if both parents work in careers that make them really happy and equally split household duties and child rearing. Would that be worse than having one "proper parent" -- whatever that means. I know people who stay home with their kids who are horrible parents and many two-career households where it's a partnership and the kids are loved, well taken care of and wonderful.

[Erki]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

I don't think having a job or not says anything about your dedication to your children.

Also, you say it's "a given" that men work and women take care of the house and children. What? Just because it's been that way doesn't mean it's right for everyone. Again, a lot of these posts come across to me as saying that if woman wants to have children she should stay home where she belongs. What about if both parents work in careers that make them really happy and equally split household duties and child rearing. Would that be worse than having one "proper parent" -- whatever that means. I know people who stay home with their kids who are horrible parents and many two-career households where it's a partnership and the kids are loved, well taken care of and wonderful.

I think I had a little brain fade when I posted that.

What I meant is that women are naturally supposed to be meant to care for children, men are not. Men are providers, women are carers. Emphasis on "supposed".

[Vasilisa]

I understand in our day and age it's not a popular opinion, but for me there is no question, that a man should be a provider and a woman should take care of her kids and household. Of course, a man can help in the house and should be a good male figure for his kids, but it's not his main area.
The same - a woman can work if she needs to or wants, but if it messes up her kids she should put her kids ahead of her career.
It's kind of more natural this way. It was like that for many centures, why people decided that they can invent something better - I don't know.
But on the other hand there are some good things in the modern society for women. As Missing or Robc said the quantity of men who are suitable for marriage has grown and a woman has a choice and not a man's property anymore. And many good opportunities appeared for active, career-oriented women.
So, there is some good in all those changes too.
But I can understand why some men can feel a bit bitter in the situation.

[missing]

To me it sounded like you thought it was a problem that women are in the work force and that feminism is to blame for this problem.

well like I said to vasalisa it's more about cause and effect than blame. I would say women entering the workforce has caused our economic troubles today. It's certainly not the only factor, but it's huge nonetheless and often ignored. Some think that we don't need to discuss it because we "figured it out" but really we've just pushed the problems elsewhere and we'll keep doing that until there is nowhere left to push them. So how far did the dollar drop in value today?

I suppose you could try and go back before feminism to see what prompted it (completely different topic) but I don't see how one can argue feminism didn't throw a wrench into our economy, one that we've never seriously dealt with.

Why can't women have both children and careers? Men have been doing it since the dawn of time (or at least the dawn of careers).

I think I covered this in a different post with you but men have been working crappy jobs since the dawn of time in order to support a family and be the head of a house hold. THAT is where fulfillment came, not from the work. All of a sudden, women enter the workforce and we get this strange idea that making a living is supposed to be "fun" and "fulfilling" for everyone. IMO it's a bad idea that puts unrealistic expectations on people, which can only leave most disappointed in the end. Unless we somehow subsidize all those fulfilling careers in an unsustainable system. Which has been our solution thus far, but it can't go on forever.

What I think I don't understand is your reasoning that only women have to pick and choose. Why not say either a man can have children or a career, not both. Maybe you do believe that. I can't tell.

men can pick just the same, or he can make six figures plus while the wife stays home (or vice versa which is probably so rare an occurrence we probably shouldn't even consider it). A couple x-factors though, are that men have no reproductive choice where women can often have a baby at will. Also, I rarely hear men complain about the pressure to "do both", even though they face the same challenges. I think most either acknowledge that it's impossible and move on to something else, or they go along with what their wife/girlfriend wants (very lame and irresponsible of them, IMO).

The issue of maternity/paternity leave is something I really am not sure of my opinion on. It's in our best interest as a country and as a world to have children raised as well as possible. It benefits everyone. I can see why someone who doesn't want kids wouldn't want to pay for it, but I pay school taxes even though I don't have children and I don't mind because I'd rather have an educated populace than an uneducated one.

I don't think the school issue is a good comparison, but that's cause I think our school system is a disaster.

as to saying raising the children well "benefit's everyone" well hmm, let's think about that. If people are going to be irresponsible and have kids they can't afford (and poor people have lots more kids), why is it society's responsibility to pick up the tab? Oh, so we don't have roving gangs of delinquent youth running around (too late). So basically since we can't control the breeders, they have us hostage. So I guess we should continue to reward them with our tax dollars so we don't have their spawn threatening us on the street. Sounds like a great deal to me!

I guess each of us is looking at it from our own side, but I feel a real disdain for women in a lot of these post and also a feeling that they've "gotten out of their place." It may not be what you are trying to say, but it comes off that way.

Just be thankful the men here are smart enough (and not yet too economically depressed) to externalize this stuff verbally and recognize that individual women may not be to blame. Others may subconsciously know what's going on, but not consciously understand, and might inadvertently take their problems out on you. Of course judging from your posts you may have already run into this (maybe not though).

[Vasilisa]

Missing, I can't say that I didn't hear what you are saying in your posts before from other men, but I don't agree that feminism should be blamed for everything. As I've said before in other countries women work as well, but they have much better social system and more stable economy (for now).
I think economical problems are more related to war right now, than anything else. Goverment spends such a monstrous amount of money in that war, that no wonder economy is so bad.
Honestly, I am not a financist, but as I understand all this credit-mortgage system also has to do something with inflation and etc. And US doesn't produce much right now. I don't know exactly how outsourcing influences economy, but I don't think that in a good way. Look, how China is thriving (and most of their women are working).

So, it's not the feminism to blame.
But I understand, that it's better for kids if Mom is staying home and taking care of them instead of working. On the other hand if the country had a better social and educational system, it wouldn't be so bad.
When I was growing up in Russia, both of my parents were working all the time. But the educational system was good and free. Plus, neighbours and relatives cooperated and helped each other out with kids. So, most of us grew into normal adults, not some kind of delinquents.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

It sounds like we are coming from two diametrically opposed mindsets (not only on this issue, but pretty much about everything it seems). As I guess we discovered in the other thread, I doubt we'll ever agree.

You say that "individual women may not be to blame" and I of course don't think they are. Nor do I think women as a collective are to blame. Also I don't think men are to blame. There are a lot of issues that hurt and affect both sides and we all have a responsibility for them.

[missing]

well first of vasilia, I'm no expert either but it doesn't take a phd in economics to figure that doubling the workforce almost overnight is going to cause problems. You are correct that the US doesn't produce anything of tangible value, and I think it's no coincidence that this decline occurred soon after women started working. Around that time we cleverly shifted into our fake "service economy" to hide that fact that we don't produce anything. Now feminism or not this would have been a problem eventually, but what "women's lib" did was speed up and simultaneously mask the problem to make it easier for us to not deal with it.

As to the war, I agree it's wasteful but almost irrelevant to the economy. We don't have the money we are spending over there anyway, so what does the debt matter? Whose going to make us pay it back? (maybe China but.. hold that thought). Incidentally, it's our military might that allows places like Europe and Canada such cushy, quasi-socialist places to live, maternity leave and all. If not for the US military, you'd all be speaking arabic and finding out what real female oppression is like.

re: credit mortgage stuff, that largely occurred after the fact, a result of inflation not a cause. In addition to stuff already mentioned unregulated printing of currency and oil depletion (another reason for the war) have been more direct causes, IMO. So no you cannot blame it all on feminism, but I think it did a lot more to hurt us than help.

and China well, that's a completely new phenomenon, and nobody knows how that one will play out, though I think if peak oil is real, it could cripple them big time in a hurry.

ah isn't it fun how this has turned into "world affairs"...

but to corral this back on topic (sort of) you are dreaming if you think this culture is anything other than toxic for raising kids outside of very special circumstances. Nothing will change that which isn't a band aid. Which is probably what helped create the environment you did ok in. But you can't apply a band aid forever, without tending to the wound.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by missing

If not for the US military, you'd all be speaking arabic and finding out what real female oppression is like.

First, that's a really sensational statement for which I don't see a basis in fact.

Second, just because worse oppression exists somewhere else in the world, doesn't mean anyone should just lay down and accept "lesser" oppression in their own sphere.

But again, I'm going off topic. I think that if Amadeus is not happy about his impending divorce and the possiblity of being called a deadbeat dad that he can do a couple of things: try to really understand his wife's reasons for initiating the divorce (not the reasons he "knows" but the real reasons -- using NVC would probably be useful) and see if he is able to remedy any of them that relate to him; make a commitment to his daughter to be as involved as possible in her life; working within the legal system to protect his rights as a father (even though it has never sounded like his wife intends to try to restrict his time with her, etc.).

I don't think that he will just get lumped into the deadbeat dad category simply by virtue of being divorced. It's his responsibility to see that his relationship with his daughter remains intact. Since he seems to be amicable with his wife I would encourage him to talk to her about the importance of his role and how dedicated he is to being an excellent father. It seems she'd support and encourage this.

[missing]

well you just picked out the most extreme statement in my post. I was going to add it was an obvious exaggeration, but decided not to for simplicity's sake. My mistake.

but I also don't think western women are "oppressed" in any real sense (no more than men anyway). but what do I know?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Sorry, can't always tell when one is exaggerating. I think it's been mentioned before that women here have it so much better than anywhere else that we really shouldn't complain.

That's why it didn't seem so obvious an ex