Because women are biologically, historically, and culturally the nurturers of infant children. You can pretend it's some other way, but that doesn't make it so.
I'm laying this one on the babies. Mommy handles them, they're all happy. Daddy tries something, suddenly they aren't as happy. Asshole babies!
</joke>
If the parents are worth so much, in my opinion they could both take time out for the kid. Is there a reason why women should take care of newborns full time? Yes, that's what is natural (meaning occurs in nature). Is there any reason her husband shouldn't help her? I don't really see one.
Even the most busy home makers get lots of time in the afternoon and in the late evening.
Besides if you don't have to worry about every tiny bit of financial demands, bills, expenses and you can just demand money and get it. And all you need to do is cook(Which is a great hobby by the way) and take care of kids. I'm all game.
In fact I would love to live a life where everything is other thing is taken care of, and all I have to do is house hold chores and get kids to do home work.
Merely imagining such a thing makes me feel like heaven compared to what I do to make a living. Its the most awesome life you can imagine. Tons of free time for hobbies, playing video games, reading or whatever.
If this is women's empowerment I'm all for it. Let them have all the freedom, responsibilities, work and let them earn all the money for the family and support it. I am ready to be oppressed for a couple of decades at home.
"Tons of free time for hobbies, playing video games, reading or whatever."
Well I certainly recommend having children, but I would never do so for someone wanting more free time..
But you don´t have to trust me (neither I want to be right, to each it´s own), just take care for a WHOLE weekend (with it´s 2 nights), of the toddlers of some friend or relative(if you are planning for a large family, please try at least taking care of 2 kids at the same time). They will be eternally grateful and you´ll have your little MVP.
Then you could decide with some hands-on experience, on the issue of kids and free time.
> Even the most busy home makers get lots of time in the afternoon and in the late evening.
Oh, that's the biggest load of horseshit I've seen here in a long time, and flat out false. You make a lot of unrealistic assumptions, and have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. I swear, if you aren't trolling, then I can only imagine you grew up with some twisted idea of what normal is. Sheltered at the very least.
No, if what you say is what you honestly think happens, they you are either ignorant of reality of simply a twisted person.
I'm going to side with the ignorant part.
> In fact I would love to live a life where everything is other thing is taken care of, and all I have to do is house hold chores and get kids to do home work.
I just have to keep reminding myself that you are ignorant of reality.
> I am ready to be oppressed for a couple of decades at home.
Icing on the cake. Do you honestly believe this tripe you are spewing?
> And I was not the kind of kid who troubled my parents much. I used to keep pretty much to myself as a kid.
Maybe that explains your attitude? Either way, it means nothing.
> I might be wrong,
You are. You are wrong in the sense that an effective way to make a political statement is to crash a few planes into some buildings.
> Besides you haven't given me a single reason as to why I'm wrong.
You've given no reasons to back up your claim, which flies in the face of common sense. So sorry, I just cannot stoop to that level of ignorance. Good parenting takes effort.
Oh, sure. You are right, bad parenting means you get lots of free time. If that's what you are referring to, being a bad parent, sure. Is that what you were talking about?
> Your post seems like a rant out of some frustration in your life.
And your comments seem to come from someone who was treated like you suggest growing up. We generally refer to that as neglect.
And, what if your wife also works? What if she makes, gasp, more money than you?
You know, that's actually a thing, at least in a lot of industrialized countries that allow their female citizens to, you know, vote and learn stuff and drive cars.
Actually you know what all of your talk sounds like? It sounds exactly like someone who hasn't done any of that for more than an hour or two.
There is nothing to gasp about wife making more money. In fact more the better.
Although I agree with you I don't have much experience parenting and staying at home. But just merely comparing job profiles shows a huge comparative advantage. And you don't have to actually experience it to know that.
> Is there a reason why women should take care of newborns full time? Yes, that's what is natural (meaning occurs in nature).
A lot of things happen in nature. But is there a reason a women is required to raise an offspring? Apart from breast-milk, there isn't anything a man can't do.
> Is there any reason her husband shouldn't help her? I don't really see one.
No reason at all. I am more interested in parent's comment about woman required to take care of babies. Let alone helping, I don't see a reason why a man can't raise a baby all by himself.
And this is the whole problem with taking a rational approach to something you know nothing about - you get the wrong answers because you are acting on the wrong information. As pointed out by param, there is a mountain of research on this subject which clearly indicates that a mother is essential to a child's development. A growing body of research shows that a present father is also very important. Nonetheless, we are adapted to the condition of the mother being present during our development, therefore it holds more weight than the father being present. Both parents being present improves things futher.
