honeric01:

Wait o.. when you say "chores", can you break this down?

I showed you or you decided to ignore it because it didn't support your views? go back to my previous posts

When i say nurture, what do you understand by the word "nurture"?

TV01:
Research that shows - as you are claiming - that it is the move away from traditional households that is responsible for this "progress". Or research that shows that it is Nigerias family structure that is hindering it's progress/development.


Your ideology forces you to reduce child raising to chores. It's far more than that. Mothers and fathers contribute in different ways to a childs development. The way the articualte, empathise, play, discipline and comfort children all differ. Input from the two is key to a childs optimal development. Nurture =/= Chores.

Making it sound like there is no difference between the input/contribution of mothers and fathers is ideologically led, not evidence based. These differences are biologically re-inforced. Our wiring means men and women have natural capabilities and inclinations which make them better suited for particular roles and bring different input to parenting. So far example, boys raised without a mothers input often lack empathy.

Ideologically you are on the exact same page as the homosexualists. Have the strength of your convictions. Are two fathers or two mothers exactly the same as a mother and a father. Do children only really need mothers at the point of entry?


As above


Again, as above. How will you remember !


And again, as above. That is what is clearly implied by your position. Fathers and mothers are interchangeable and therefore replaceable by each other. Or simply expendable. And again, have the strength of your convictions.


Pix or you wont believe it !


And nobody here is.
Is the "progress" of Western nations due to role-swapping or reversal in traditional families? Is it due to homosexualisation of those nations?
Please show us one "developed" or "progressive" nation where the "traditional family" is not the overwhelming family type.


In your "developed/progressive" nations up to 70% of divorces are instituted by women. Many on the basis of vague notions of "not being happy", and a sense that they'll be happier without the husbands, but with the lions share of the assets he accumulated. What's your point?


Marriage is not miserable by design, neither do children appear without action. Neither of the two are necessary, dependant on each other or an indicator of "progress". What point are you making?


Your point is? Are not teen pregnancies correlated to abortions? Can you have abortions without having pregnancies. Are there no lower class girls in "developed" nations. Are "kids" in developed nations not supplied with contraceptives - without their parents knowledge - and encouraged to explore sex when barely out of kindergarten?

What is the difference between kids having sex and kids of the same age marrying?


They are not as rampant or culturally embedded. They are not socially acceptable and still scorned as opposed to considered cool. That makes Nigeria more progressive no?


Nobody is denying you your preferences, you just can't have your own facts !


Me too. Lots of Germans. They love beach volley, although they were very competitive and way too serious - even on holiday.


TV

Chillisauce:

Those friends might the old enemies with new usernames. Beware of some.
As for me, the longer the enemy the better . Most Nigerians like people wey dey follow them suffer. So my " friends" is limited . Enjoy dear

carefreewannabe:

House chores: laundry, dishes, cleaning, irnoning ....

Nurture: providing food and drinks, showing love, affection and attention ...

carefreewannabe:

I already know that you think this way but WHY are the chores not his primary role but the woman's?



All of this can also be done by the mother.
Why are the chores to his discretion?

I didn't ask you to say what you consider a man's and a woman's roles, I was aware of your convictions.




Nothing makes a woman unable to do house chores and look after her children.

A woman should leave home before her husband and kids and return later when she and her husband agree on such an arrangement because, for example, she has a job that pays better or because she is about to be promoted or because she is temporarily working on an importnat project.

honeric01:

Provision of food to me remains the main job of the man, the woman should only serve as backup and not take up the responsibility equally with the man. the main is to manage what was provided by the main!

Attention is the main thing a woman is expected to give to her kids which kids need while growing up, the main can't give this before at a tender age, kids are more fond of their mom than their dad. how can a woman who leaves home by 5:30am then returns by 9-10pm at night give this?

honeric01:

The reason why the chores are not his primary role have been explained by stating out his primary role.

No, this is why roles and responsibilities come in, let everyone vigorously face the main role and only assist in the other role, women should do what they are good at, nurturing the young ones while the men should do theirs, making sure they remain the role model they are.

Because he should face the main things, why wash plates when you cant even provide the food to be served with the plates?

BTW, i do not even care about the plates, clothes and the rest, there are machines that can do that, i am talking about things that affect the development of the children and the family, not these petty things you are bringing up. (BTW, i wash my clothes myself even though i have at least 4 people that can do them for me)


Then you obviously do not know the real reason a woman was given a womb and 2 beautiful oranges if you think its okay for her to leave home even before the kids are up from bed and also return home when the kids are fast asleep. her primary ROLE is not to chase money but to oversee the development of the kids she carried/breastfed for 9 months.

If you want chasing money and career as your primary goals, i advice you do not give birth to kids you have no time for.

carefreewannabe:

This is your conviction but it remains a conviction, which I respect, but which is not some higher truth that everyone must stick to.

This conviction produces MANY families where women are threatened to be send packing because it is HIS house, she has not earned any money, even though she was working at home all day and all night.

I know why some people here are so eager to prove why a man should hold financial power. It is nice to leave the house, go into the world, work for some 8-10 hours, come home and be treated like a king and threaten the wife to send her packing or with a second wife if she does not do as she is told, even though her job as a house wife and mother does not end after some 8-10 hours but is to be done 24 / 7.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a father staying at home with his children and you do not argue on behalf of a child's well-being, you are just not willing to give up the financial power you hold and the comfort you enjoy.



Attention is also required of fathers. Children are more fond of their mothers because mothers spend more time with them, not because they are "naturally" more fond of mothers.

Who is talking about working hourse from 5:30 - 10?

And who told you that it is ok for fatherS to spend little time with their kids?

And again:

WHY IS A MAN UNABLE TO GIVE HIS OWN CHILDREN ATTENTION AT A TENDER AGE? DOES HE HAVE ANY DISABILITY TO DO SO?

carefreewannabe:

You STILL have NOT given any LOGICAL reason for what a man's primary role should be; same for a woman's primary role.

Don't worry, you will not be able to do so because there is absolutely no LOGICAL reason why the roles cannot be reversed.

AGAIN:

What makes a man UNABLE to stay at home with his children?

carefreewannabe:
I will not go in circles with you when you refuse to answer my questions, so again:
What exactly is a father UNABLE to give to his children at which stage apart from b.r. east-feeding that a mother is?

TV01: Your ideology forces you to reduce child raising to chores. It's far more than that. Mothers and fathers contribute in different ways to a childs development. The way the articulate, empathise, play, discipline and comfort children all differ. Input from the two is key to a childs optimal development. Nurture =/= Chores.
Making it sound like there is no difference between the input/contribution of mothers and fathers is ideologically led, not evidence based. These differences are biologically re-inforced. Our wiring means men and women have natural capabilities and inclinations which make them better suited for particular roles and bring different input to parenting. So far example, boys raised without a mothers input often lack empathy.
Ideologically you are on the exact same page as the homosexualists. Have the strength of your convictions. Are two fathers or two mothers exactly the same as a mother and a father. Do children only really need mothers at the point of entry?

damiso:

Some sort of sacrifice (either way for career or family ) is made when you have kids so to think otherwise is just not being realistic . And yeah most times the mothers tend to be the ones who make the sacrifice.Its not just a Nigerian or African reality.Its a reality for mothers the world over. That's why mothers tend to be the ones who work from home, work part time, work compressed hours, job share etc.

I got passed over for promotion as I was unable to travel at the drop of a hat (and thats even within the UK) which was a sacrifice on my part.We can say my husband could have picked up the slack but we had a routine where he dropped my daughter off as he worked nearer home and could resume after 9.I picked her up as I could go in earlier and leave early (half 3 /4) and pick her up play with her abit cook dinner and tuck her into bed as i left home most times before she woke up.So if I had to be travelling to Hull, Manchester with just a day's notice (clients are king in the business world) who would pick up my daughter from nursery?Is it the same husband that had already negotiated coming in later so he could close later?

I was initially pained but I later said to myself tucking my daughter into bed myself after leaving home most times before she woke up is enough promotion for me.

Like someone else has said its not black and white but truly having kids MIGHT mean you slowing down a bit till an effective rhythm is found that works for your family.

Well written. The highlighted part is very interesting. I don't really know (and I hope my view doesn't change in two years) but I want to be able to tuck my daughter in and also be there for her when she wakes. Ditto to the boys; I'd love to game a lot with them.

As regards your second paragraph, that's very impressive; once upon a time, my mum did something similar. Truth is we have to forgo some alternatives and timing is very important in this. We can't be perfect in family planning and parenting but we can sure give it a hell of a try commitment.

TV01:
Your question has been adequately answered in my last post as quoted below.

It is not a question of what either parents is "unable" to do, it's about the different biological/natural giftings and preparation and the consequently different ways mothers and fathers parent; Bringing a unique and complimentary flavour to child rearing which makes for a balanced well-raised child.

I change nappies just like my wife does, but you'd be surprised that even in this "chore", we have different approaches - based on the natural feminine/masculine balance.

The presence of a mother is best for a new born. All the physiological and psychological changes a woman undergoes prepares her for exactly that. Men do not undergo the same changes. So yes, a man woul dbe able to look after a new born child. Just like zoos bottle feed or hand rear baby animals without mothers. Does that mean it's best and should therefore be adopted as equal/normal. Wild animals have been known to raise human babies. Your concern is not children, their nurture or healthy families. It's equality.



As for claiming I am not answering your questions, you are the one not answering questions, denying what your staements imply or conveniently forgetting things .

Questions;
1. Is child rearing reducible to chores?
2. If as stated there is nothing a mother or father does that the other cannot equally or adequatrely replicate, why are two fathers or two mothers not equivalent to a father and a mother? And as you have pressed for, I am willing to take gestation and breast-feeding out of the equation.
3. Are the vast majority of females naturally inclined to taking a lower status mate which is necessary for a full role reversal or swap which is also implied by your stance. The flip side; are the vast majority of men wired in such a way as to play home maker while the wife provides? Or; does the natural dynamic between males and females make the roles interchangeable for the majority whilst ensuring happy unions?


TV

honeric01:

Are you actually saying this or you just feign blindness? it seems you don't even read what i write, rather just quote.. TYPICAL!

Tannie: I want to be successful, have my own money, contribute my quota to my family but not at the expense of my family. I don't have to work 6-9 to be successful, I can work 7-4 and still be successful. I want to be involve in my children's life, attend sch parties, have a heart to heart talk with them, create an everlasting bond with them and help them in difficult times, that's why I'm their mother.

carefreewannabe:

I am waiting for a CLEAR answer. I will NOT accept avoidance manoeuvres.

What makes a father unable to stay at home with HIS children?

Nonso23: carefreewannabe,
You are arguing ideally ideologically, naively and absent real life experiencically .
While i'm completely indifferent to the dynamics of other people's relationships, I'm still bothered that you are using rare exceptions as a basis for comparison with the obvious 'norm'.

From the onset of development , men and women have been differentiated. Our genes bear similar foundations but also differences that can not be ignored.
Raising the two genders from childhood demand different approaches in order for each of them to enaure they maximize their potentials. Why? Gender as a whole is an outer reflection of the many hidden differences between both genders. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. We have our strength and weaknesses.

We are like two programs written for different purposes. If you input the same data we handle it differently and most often than not, output different results.

Raising a child requires different approaches. A man cannot understand why a child will keep crying even when it appears they are 'comfortable'. Why, after all , logically the child is on a warm bed and propped comfortably? He doesn't read subtle emotional signs. Women on the other hand are intuitive and will keep guessing till they discover the cause for the wailing.
The above is just an instance amongst many others I could keep reeling out.

A woman is a source of emotional attachment to a child.
A man is a source of psychological strength to a child.
Roles are not interchangeable.

Stop using ideal situations to buttress your logic. It's dead on arrival.

BizBloke:
Well written. The highlighted part is very interesting. I don't really know (and I hope my view doesn't change in two years) but I want to be able to tuck my daughter in and also be there for her when she wakes. Ditto to the boys; I'd love to game a lot with them.
As regards your second paragraph, that's very impressive; once upon a time, my mum did something similar. Truth is we have to forgo some alternatives and timing is very important in this. We can't be perfect in family planning and parenting but we can sure give it a hell of a try commitment.

carefreewannabe: To each their own. I can understand why he reasons this way and I am ok with it. I just couldn't get married to a man with this way of thinking but I am sure he will find a woman who is ok with it.

carefreewannabe: To each their own. I can understand why he reasons this way and I am ok with it. I just couldn't get married to a man with this way of thinking but I am sure he will find a woman who is ok with it.

Matthewbriggs:

Hehehe very well said.


This is a really complicated topic and from my observation .. Their is really no right answer or stance, it is not black or white ... the best bet is that one should go for whatever works for him or her and proceed to settle with someone who shares the same ideology.

But as we do so I think it is important to note the following points.

1. Family must come first before career for both couples. They both should be involved in a child's upbringing and more involved in each others life.

2. Both partners would try as much as possible to ensure they aid each other have a fulfilling life and career and should never try to prevent one another from reaching for the stars for egotistical reasons.

3. Nothing is set in stone, your stance may change in the future. The baseline is that both parties should be willing to make compromises when it is called for... To ensure the family never suffers.

4. Its not a crime for a woman to not have any ambition other than be a good house wife, so is it not a crime for a woman to desire to rise to be the CEO of a fortune 500 company. The most crucial thing is never let the home front suffer as a woman. The survival of the family structure is more dependent on you the woman.

5. Is not a crime as man to go for a less ambitious woman or to go for a very ambitious woman. The most important thing is you do your best to ensure you both have a fulfilling married life.

#Justsaying
#Mathew Briggs