I'm with You when parents always away what's the point
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
American Millenials More Likely to Say A Woman's Place is in the Home
- Thread starter Syriel
- Start date
- Status
I'm with You when parents always away what's the point
……forgetit
Member
As a millennial I'm not shocked by this. For all of our tolerance and advances against racism and homophobia I've witnessed some gross sexism in my generation.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
They're saying it's better, not that they can afford it.
From my experience those numbers look even lower than I would expect, almost all young women adults that I know believe the same. Their ideal future is having kids and not having a job, just side gigs from home. And that's the women, guys will usually say it's up to the woman.
From my experience those numbers look even lower than I would expect, almost all young women adults that I know believe the same. Their ideal future is having kids and not having a job, just side gigs from home. And that's the women, guys will usually say it's up to the woman.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
With regards to the increase in female millenials saying they'd prefer for the man to be a breadwinner, that could mean different things.
I don't think you're sexist for saying you'd prefer for your partner to make good money. If you want to have the life you thought you were entitled to growing up (a family, kids, husband, dog and picket fence, yearly vacations a fulfilling job and enough time to do zumba, rollerblading, baking cookies and enjoying life) you really would need a partner with a comfortable income.
Your quality of life is substantially different depending on if you slave from month t month, and you need to push out a baby because your bological clock is running out and you're financial situation is not in order for it, meanwhile it potentially stiffles your career prospects compared to men and other women who choose not to have a kid, and who are hungry when you're getting a baby.
Is there room to look at the situation like this, and have empathy with young women being justified or at least understood in money of a romantic partner being a factor? - It's very easy to call these women sexist, gold diggers or toxic feminists, but at least by the way the survey is worded, saying you're prefer the man to be the breadwinner, is not the same as saying that a mans income is how his value is judged.
There are most def women who sees other men as free food and a currency dispenser, just like many men treat women like little more than a pretty fleshlight with legs.
I don't know if this falls under the moniker of economic anxiety, or if it's just enemblic of stagnating wages and lowered possibilities for the vast majority of people resulting in a degressive mode of behavior as peoples happiness decreases as they continue to work longer hours for less wages (stagnation versus inflation).
Life becomes less, their work life is less value, and they will spend less time realizing themselves and living their lives outside of work.
Women are so disadvantaged due to their biological clock.
Men have a biological clock to, but it's not as punishing, and I can tell you that even here in Scandinavia, employers discriminate against women 25-35 years old without kids, because employers are afraid of being forced to pay for their maternity leave.
It's a difficult problem to solve, but what has helped has been to allow the maternity leave to be split between the father and the mother, so every couple can decide how t do it, and so the father can also bond with the baby and spend some time off, which increases his value and responsibility, but also takes off the workload of the mothers employer, and puts some stress on the fathers employer.
The greatness of being a good couple is if one can work as a team and get their economic situation fixed so you're stronger together.
There are many advantages to it, but as finding a good kindergarden and school gets more and more difficult in many places, and since people just dont have the income for babysitters, or have people they can rely on to babysit, couples end up becoming miserable and stressed and that can kill the marriage. It's not unreasonable to think some couples go into a stay-at-home mode while having young children for reasons like this, and so maybe, the partners income become more of a thing.
MRAs will say that this is just women being hypocrtical gold diggers who care about nothing but money, but I am convinced this is not true (obviously).
Those women are there, but those women are broken. not the default face of women just trying to give themselves a good life. If I was a woman, I'd imagine I'd see a man who was well off as a ticket to a better life.
Of course this is bad news for all us men who're at the low end of the economic spectrum, but this is not the fault of women.
This is just a sign of that society is not as bountiful as we had hoped growing up. I wish these people who claim to stand up for boys and men, would stop blaming women for the problems in society. Men and women are shaped by the societal constructs in good and bad ways.
They should look at the root cause
It's not feminism who take mens opportunity and decreasing prosperity away. That's just the same false flag that conservatives are aiming at minorities and immigrants. It's baming easy targets, and it's a goddamn shame that so many people get trapped into these false beliefs. That they cannot see or comprehend the illogical mode of thinking!
I don't think you're sexist for saying you'd prefer for your partner to make good money. If you want to have the life you thought you were entitled to growing up (a family, kids, husband, dog and picket fence, yearly vacations a fulfilling job and enough time to do zumba, rollerblading, baking cookies and enjoying life) you really would need a partner with a comfortable income.
Your quality of life is substantially different depending on if you slave from month t month, and you need to push out a baby because your bological clock is running out and you're financial situation is not in order for it, meanwhile it potentially stiffles your career prospects compared to men and other women who choose not to have a kid, and who are hungry when you're getting a baby.
Is there room to look at the situation like this, and have empathy with young women being justified or at least understood in money of a romantic partner being a factor? - It's very easy to call these women sexist, gold diggers or toxic feminists, but at least by the way the survey is worded, saying you're prefer the man to be the breadwinner, is not the same as saying that a mans income is how his value is judged.
There are most def women who sees other men as free food and a currency dispenser, just like many men treat women like little more than a pretty fleshlight with legs.
I don't know if this falls under the moniker of economic anxiety, or if it's just enemblic of stagnating wages and lowered possibilities for the vast majority of people resulting in a degressive mode of behavior as peoples happiness decreases as they continue to work longer hours for less wages (stagnation versus inflation).
Life becomes less, their work life is less value, and they will spend less time realizing themselves and living their lives outside of work.
Women are so disadvantaged due to their biological clock.
Men have a biological clock to, but it's not as punishing, and I can tell you that even here in Scandinavia, employers discriminate against women 25-35 years old without kids, because employers are afraid of being forced to pay for their maternity leave.
It's a difficult problem to solve, but what has helped has been to allow the maternity leave to be split between the father and the mother, so every couple can decide how t do it, and so the father can also bond with the baby and spend some time off, which increases his value and responsibility, but also takes off the workload of the mothers employer, and puts some stress on the fathers employer.
The greatness of being a good couple is if one can work as a team and get their economic situation fixed so you're stronger together.
There are many advantages to it, but as finding a good kindergarden and school gets more and more difficult in many places, and since people just dont have the income for babysitters, or have people they can rely on to babysit, couples end up becoming miserable and stressed and that can kill the marriage. It's not unreasonable to think some couples go into a stay-at-home mode while having young children for reasons like this, and so maybe, the partners income become more of a thing.
MRAs will say that this is just women being hypocrtical gold diggers who care about nothing but money, but I am convinced this is not true (obviously).
Those women are there, but those women are broken. not the default face of women just trying to give themselves a good life. If I was a woman, I'd imagine I'd see a man who was well off as a ticket to a better life.
Of course this is bad news for all us men who're at the low end of the economic spectrum, but this is not the fault of women.
This is just a sign of that society is not as bountiful as we had hoped growing up. I wish these people who claim to stand up for boys and men, would stop blaming women for the problems in society. Men and women are shaped by the societal constructs in good and bad ways.
They should look at the root cause
It's not feminism who take mens opportunity and decreasing prosperity away. That's just the same false flag that conservatives are aiming at minorities and immigrants. It's baming easy targets, and it's a goddamn shame that so many people get trapped into these false beliefs. That they cannot see or comprehend the illogical mode of thinking!
jono51
Banned
Well, full time childcare costs would be probably more than a typical 25-35 could afford, or rather makes working a job pointless. So it makes sense when kids are too young for school for a parent to stay home and look after the kiddo. I'm pretty sure women are statistically better educated than men but still earn less, so again it also makes sense for the smart one that makes less $$ to grow up the kids.
And_Gignac
Member
Lol at economic anxiety being a boogeyman.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
The butchering of statistics is I can get from this.
I guess enough to make headline.
I guess enough to make headline.
I grew up with two parents focused on career and work. I'd much preffered one of them to stay home or atleast only work 50%. I think many of our family issues and the divorce can be traced back to the poor work/home balance. I don't really care if it's the father or mother who is the breadwinner, I just think it's irresponsible to have kids and at the same time work a combined 16-20 hours per day sans weekends. I wouldn't mind living in a worse place with less stuff for that to work out.
Abstrusity
Member
Less a boogeyman and more like the pile of peas in the middle of your plate that infects the mashed potatoes, the steak, the cranberry sauce, and you want to keep separating them because that's the way you like it, but every time you try, the mashed potatoes start screaming about white genocide. A sizeable portion of Trump voters are uneducated and believe that the Republican way is the right way when it's the other way around, on almost every issue.A sizeable amount of Trump voters deal with opiate addiction and illicit drug abuse, poverty, food deserts, and/or dying communities, personally or within their immediate family. All of these things have economic causes, from poor job growth due to the cultural impact of easy, no-education-required jobs being the primary means of breadwinning until those jobs evaporated, to the pain caused by overreliance and overwork on those jobs, leading to opiate use and addiction, to the deregulation of pharmaceuticals leading to its overprescription, the defunding or ignoring of programs designed to treat any of this...
Make no mistake, the Rust belt is the way it is due primarily to economic factors that, while not beyond our control, need specially built programs to fix.
We certainly tried, but Republicans stopped everything we tried to do for 6 years, and the Rust belt remembered how Obama did nothing for them -- even though it wasn't Obama's fault, or the Democrats.
A sizeable portion are also racist, sexist scum, too. It's the biggest indicator! But economic anxiety is not just some meme, it's an actual thing for almost half of his supporters.
And when that's the case, people tend to work two jobs, parents both work. Child care is an afterthought. The best way to care for your child at that point is to make sure they have food and a roof over their head -- raising them is secondary. And that has effects on relationships throughout the entire family. Kids don't do so well in school because they have nobody praising the effort they've put into it, life begins to look ever more like a zero-sum game. They cook their own food, generally poorly nutritious things, because nobody is there to do it for them. This makes it increasingly likely for them to believe that they're self-sufficient and always have been, which is then lorded over others...
There's a lot of data points that can explain these problems, but the most prescient from my standpoint is economic-social-familial, or, how poor economic policy and the suffering that comes with it shape how people develop socially. Your world view is created during your adolescence, and if you're never given the opportunity to broaden it, it's likely to fall in a static manner in the same community. This further effects how you vote, how you conduct business, how you treat people when nobody is watching or cares.
Clearly, there's work to be done on this subject.
Phoenix RISING
Banned
This was our plan too.
But then we wouldn't have been able to buy the house we wanted and would have had to settle.
Also, childcare cost is outrageous.
I think Millenials are the first generation of women to realize, no, we can't have it all the way men do. At least, not the way things are now. We should be pushing for more support in the work place and more support at home, to allow balance and actual options, but those things take time and frankly, we're all tired. We have to get the kids to daycare, pack lunches, clean the house, prepare meals, get to the office by 8, meet our work deadlines, give the kids baths and story time, etc. The only solution to not working two full time jobs around the clock, is to stop working outside the home.
Of course, then the pendulum will swing the other way, when more and more women are financially dependent on men and find themselves without financial security, if they divorce...
I fear that women will always be stuck with their only options being: (1) Work yourself to death; or (2) Give up your freedom.
Yellowflashdude
Member
Nobody cares about what gen x'ers think. /s
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Yeah but I think there's a fine distinction between that and millenials agreeing that it should be the women that stay home. All my guy friends wish they could not work and stay home too. I mean not working is pretty much everyone's ideal.
I'd like to see a movement to make being a stay at home husband socially acceptable, this would simultaneously alleviate the issues you mentioned.
entremet
Member
This is a great point. Elizabeth Warren detailed this in The Two Income Trap.
I'm not a woman nor do I have kids, but I'm beat after work! I can't imagine the energy needed to deal with work stresses, especially white collar work stress and then be present for another growing human than needs your presence constantly.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
Or option 3 which you didn't list which is the way in my house: I, the husband, share in the household duties instead of just letting my wife do all of that.
That way she doesn't burn out. There's no reason men shouldn't be doing house work even if they are fully employed. Women balance all of that, we need to too.
It's a start, but it's not a complete solution. There needs to be a focus on shifting more of the responsibility for the home and children on working men, too. There also needs to be a focus on establishing better support networks for working parents - Paid leave and easier access to child care.
Well, that's the dream. Although, in my experience, even the husbands who want to help or who think they equally contribute to the home, end up doing less...It needs to be more than just "I'll help out a bit." I'm not saying this is you, but I think it's true for a lot of men and I think it's because men just aren't under the same pressures to be perfect at everything, to justify trying to do everything. Men just get to do everything. Women have to prove that they can be good mothers while working, or people start to think they shouldn't be trying to do both...
Canes to post this.
Though seriously, I'm starting to wonder just what the cut-off for the millennial generation is exactly. Are kids in high school now still considered millennials? Seems like a stretch.
ThePrequelsSuck
Banned
edit
This is officially what it's supposed to be. But yes, millennial has sort of become a buzzword for "young person." People who are teens right now aren't millennials, they're Gen Z.
There's always a blurry line between where one begins and one ends though. Some people define "mini generations" between the larger ones, like "Generation Jones" occurring between Baby Boomers and Gen X (Barack Obama would fit in there for instance). People born in the late 70's are sometimes lopped into the millennial group but are sometimes split into something called "Cold Y" -- members of Gen Y who remember the last years of the Cold War. Some split Gen Y and millennials into two different generations that overlap, with Gen Y extending into the late 70's and then afterwards occurring concurrently with millennials.
Reread the chart.People who are 18-25 couldn't have been born in 2000. Someone born in 2000 would only be 16 or 17 today.
The chat ends at 2014, so the youngest Millennial represented would have been born in 1996.
Yeah. I was just pointing out the argument someone else said was happening on twitter in response to this story. It's as if two different sets of Millennials are taking this story in opposite ways.
Haven't read the research, but this person disagrees with finding of this poll (due to poor methodology):
https://scatter.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/adventures-in-garbage-millennial-confirmation-bias/
Does someone who knows more about statistics want to comment? Was data tortured to get these results or are these complaints unjustified?
https://scatter.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/adventures-in-garbage-millennial-confirmation-bias/
Does someone who knows more about statistics want to comment? Was data tortured to get these results or are these complaints unjustified?
ThePrequelsSuck
Banned
Anecdotal: when I talk with people born in the early-to-mid 80s, they seem to be offended when one lumps them in with Millennials, perhaps because they're very much "on the cusp" of Gen X, or rather their childhood/teen years were sort of a Gen X-lite. For instance many of them were too old for Pokemon when it came out.
But then I talk to people born in the late 80s, and they don't seem to mind being Millennials at all. Perhaps because they fit the bill better.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
That's not true at all. America is uniquely religious in the angloverse, for one.
The issue is that it's a generation split in two. Half remembers 9/11 and a world pre-internet.
ThePrequelsSuck
Banned
edit
It's the one we should be using, unfortunately, people like the "20 year" thing even though it's highly inappropriate here.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Yeah except that again most young women I know would PREFER to "stay at home" (which is really a bullshit term), not because "the man should earn the money" but because they prefer dedicating themselves to giving all the attention their kids need and work autonomously on their own terms than spend 40 hours a week working in a call center trying to sell credit cards. Who wouldn't prefer being able to live well without having to work on someone else's terms 40 hours a week?
And who says the husband isn't sharing in the household duties in that scenario? I know a few women who do exactly the above, and when the kids are in school they're doing their own thing, be it managing some properties, making and selling art, planning family trips/activities, etc., and spend very little time "doing the dishes and the laundry" if any more than the man. They'll even pay a maid to clean up the house while they do other things.
edit: And coincidentally or not, all of them have strong marriages and the families appear far happier than the rest of us.
I think the results of the finding aren't surprising and the idea it means millennials are sexist is dumb.
Society significantly benefits from having women in the workplace, but those who prefer the above shouldn't be labeled sexists for having that preference.
I know every generation thinks they are the ones to have it all figured out, but even by those standards this is incredibly myopic.
There's a bit of a difference between seeing the towers go down when you just became an adult or whether you were five/six.
Camp Freddie
Member
I'm not quite an expert (I work with stats but not with people surveys, which have their own issues), but the criticism looks valid. It's not just the small sample size but also the sub-grouping. P-values and standard errors only work for a priori estimates. You can't redefine your groups ("okay, so millennials aren't sexist but what about young millennials") until you find a result. It's essentially the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
And the sudden change in 2016 data shows the low statistical power of the sample. No way is that shift real.
You've completely missed my point. It's not about "having it all figured out." You go a couple generations back from Milenials and it was a given women were the homemakers. It was fairly recent in our history that women started to push to have careers, except they justified it by arguing that women can do everything! I grew up being told women can have it all - have a career and be a mother. The end result is now a generation of women spread very thin, who are starting to think this isn't working very well.
OG Shaka Zulu
Member
How many generations of people have to die out for the U.S. to be more egalitarian?
You're supposing that egalitarianism is some natural state that has been perverted, and all we need to do is kill off all the "old stupid" people for everything to be fair. We're no different than generations that have gone before us. We're all capable of bias, stereotyping, racism, sexism.
We need to remember that and we need to be conscious of our inherent biases, weaknesses, and failings as human beings.
OG Shaka Zulu
Member
I know, I was being sarcastic. It's crazy how common that sentiment is expressed though.
My wife is the opposite. She's seen relatives and friends get divorced and the wife was a stay at home mom who basically had to start over their careers. My wife will make decent income when she finishes graduate school.
I told her I'm okay with whatever she does but there are things we have to deal with each decision. Stay st home mom = less income and retirement further out. Her working = expensive childcare and less time with children but earlier retirement
Ah, got ya. I think it's crazy how often people say that as well.
We like to think we're on some steady progression to perfection, but we're all flawed and sometimes awful people. It's our daily job to rise above that, individually and as a society.
MWS Natural
Member
If you have the financial means for one parent to work while the other stays home to support the house/kids then you should. I honestly don't care if it's the man or woman but that's the ideal situation for the health and wellbeing of your children.
The more working mothers the more children have a progressive egalitarianism view (unless their conservative, not sarcastic either). Sons help more with chores when their older and daughters generally are more successful in their careers. Harvard business did a study I believe
Are there any studies that actually back this up that aren't conservative paid?
cyclonekruse
Member
Yes and no. I think most men don't get as much family time as they would like. Nor do a lot of men work a fulfilling job. Instead, we men end up working more hours (outside the home, at least) and doing more dangerous work. All in an attempt to earn more money. Because part of a man's worth is determined by how much he earns and subsequently provides to his family. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think women are under the same pressure to make money.
To be sure, women are pressured in other ways, as you've pointed out. And I think you're right that women in recent times were sold a pipe dream of having it "all" in ways that previous generations didn't. But I would argue that men don't have it all either. Trade offs are necessary for everyone. We often sacrifice our bodies, safety, and relationships for the sake of being better providers. The result is that men make more money on average. We're more likely to shoot for that promotion or negotiate for higher pay or work overtime because we have to. But on the flip side, we have a smaller role at home and so our kids generally have a closer bond to their mother which means that, in the case of divorce, the mother is more likely to retain custody.
And while I don't doubt that some men prefer a diminished role in housework and childcare, anecdotally speaking, the fathers I know would like to be more involved with their family than they currently are. It's not that they're more focused on their careers per se, it's that they feel they can provide more value by ensuring their family has money than by spending more time with them.
Basically, part of the reason why women are discovering they can't "have it all" is that when it comes to career and family and quality of life/relationships, pretty much no one can.
Yeah, I grew up in a place where my mum and my dad took turns to work, and I could not imagine coming home alone, dark at night waiting for parents to come home all tired and have no connection.
I still remember the days my dad worked, we barely talked. even on the weekends, he would just sleep all day because he was exhausted
I just wish all this 10 hour workshift would stop.
Honestly depending on how you phrase some of these questions I'd agree with the "regressive" views. Dual income families are a necessary with the current economic outlet, but in no ways is that ideal if it's essentially a requirement.
It'd be nice if there were no innate expectations on which spouse will work versus staying at home for the kids, but I don't think anyone should get slammed for choosing their family over their career. Especially in my more liberal circles I hate that women devalue stay-at-home moms; it should be about what works best for your family, not making your family a political statement.
Yeah when I was a kid both my parents ran a business from home. It wasn't until I grew up that I realized how nice it was to have parents that could spend a lot more time at home and weren't doing hour-plus commutes. I vaguely remember them having to crunch on deadlines, but with them being at home it was always a much different dynamic.
It'd be nice if there were no innate expectations on which spouse will work versus staying at home for the kids, but I don't think anyone should get slammed for choosing their family over their career. Especially in my more liberal circles I hate that women devalue stay-at-home moms; it should be about what works best for your family, not making your family a political statement.
Yeah when I was a kid both my parents ran a business from home. It wasn't until I grew up that I realized how nice it was to have parents that could spend a lot more time at home and weren't doing hour-plus commutes. I vaguely remember them having to crunch on deadlines, but with them being at home it was always a much different dynamic.
In my experience, women are more willing to give up their free time and hobbies, to spend quality time with their children. So, even when both are working, the mom ends up putting in more hours with the kids, because she just abandons other activities. Part of this is because working mothers feel guilty for being away, so they're trying to compensate.
I don't mean to be dismissive of the points you are making, because you are right that men are under pressure to be providers, that women don't generally feel and I do think it's important to acknowledge that, but when I say men "get" to have it all, I'm referencing the fact that no one questions whether a man can work and still be a good father. Also, if you look at the studies which quantify how much time men and women spend on housework, you'll see that men have a lot more support than women do, when it comes to being able to succeed outside of the home. Men can focus more on their careers, because their wives overwhelmingly pick up the slack for them at home. I think this gives men an "edge" in "having it all."
But both of our problems would be alleviated if men were encouraged to be more involved at home and there was more pressure on employers to support working parents.
Generation X. The good generation sandwiched between two terrible generations.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
The easiest way to figure out if you're a millennial should be demarcated around how old you were when you got your Facebook account.
- Status