Womens rights in Japan or elsewhere

[princessmarisa]

Today I learnt that I am a monster because I think it is more loving to work all the hours you can to pay for your child to have the best possible healthcare, best pre-school teachers and most fun nursery times. Instead of making do on less money and thinking that hugs and kisses can make up for cheaper food, less educational toys and the chance for my child to interact with others their own age all day without smothering them.


Sentimental bullshit is what causes bad parents, people who have children so that they themselves can feel loved and pretend all the staying at home and caring is for the Child's benefit instead of their own desire to feel needed and somehow superior.

Affection is needed, and as missmisa said can be given when the parents or carers get home from work.

Constant affection is no replacement for child raising skills, so yes you can compare it to a career and if more people did, perhaps they would research it and take it more seriously than thinking all it takes is "love"

[princessmarisa]

Originally Posted by MMM

Two individuals may not want to make a baby, but the human species wants to procreate. Again, why do you think the act is pleasurable?

No one here is arguing against this, missmisa even said that is why sex is pleasurable.

The point is people don't go out and have sex just to make a baby, they have sex because they like it, and the by product is a baby, which is how the selfish gene has evolved itself! I think at least that is one thing we can agree on, but it has little to no relevance as to whether it is best for blood-relatives to spend all their time at home raising young children.

It was brought up by you to show that instinct is still around and we are still controlled by it, I think to somehow counter my point that we work intelligently now and are less ruled by some kind of "protect our own nest/gene" instinct making a Child's best place under the wing of protective mother bird 24/7.

Even the cuckoo learnt it is better to let her children be raised by another bird if they will get some benefit from it.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

Today I learnt that I am a monster because I think it is more loving to work all the hours you can to pay for your child to have the best possible healthcare, best pre-school teachers and most fun nursery times. Instead of making do on less money and thinking that hugs and kisses can make up for cheaper food, less educational toys and the chance for my child to interact with others their own age all day without smothering them.


Sentimental bullshit is what causes bad parents, people who have children so that they themselves can feel loved and pretend all the staying at home and caring is for the Child's benefit instead of their own desire to feel needed and somehow superior.

Affection is needed, and as missmisa said can be given when the parents or carers get home from work.

Constant affection is no replacement for child raising skills, so yes you can compare it to a career and if more people did, perhaps they would research it and take it more seriously than thinking all it takes is "love"

Again, please cut the drama. No one called anyone a "monster".

YOU may think working long hours is showing love to your baby, but does your baby think so? It's about his happiness, right?

It's funny that you would come to the conclusion that a parent that puts her career on hold to raise her baby is being selfish. It's amazing how far feminism has taken us.

A baby doesn't need affection, love and connection with the parent for the couple hours a parent has after work. The baby needs it all day.

When did anyone say constant affection REPLACES child raising skills. BOTH are needed.

If you see parenting as just another job, and not as the life change and life choice than it is, then it's a real sad statement for the youth of the world. I hope yours is a minority opinion. I wonder why people cry with tears of joy when their first baby is born. It's just like starting a new job, right? No biggee.

[princessmarisa]

Originally Posted by MMM

Again, please cut the drama. No one called anyone a "monster".

amen to the cut the drama, that is called sarcasm using hyperbole, I never said anyone did call me that~

YOU may think working long hours is showing love to your baby, but does your baby think so? It's about his happiness, right?

A child is happy eating 10bowls of ice cream, I think I know what is better for them. The Happiness thing is back to sentimental bullshit, what is good for anyone and what makes them happy are not always one and the same.

If happiness is an end goal it takes strife and sacrifice to get there, this can be seen in all walks of life.

So yeah, maybe a child would rather have one more tickle than go to preschool and do an educational game? So what? Prooves nothing.

It's funny that you would come to the conclusion that a parent that puts her career on hold to raise her baby is being selfish. It's amazing how far feminism has taken us.

I am going to pretend you didn't stoop as low as to try use anti-feminism-rant in here, when not once have I said anything relating to it.

Infact, don't you think most mothers would rather sit at home in pjs have a lay in and watch tv than work all the hours they can under a stressful boss?

It isn't funny how I think it can be a selfish choice to stay at home it is pretty par for the course.

A baby doesn't need affection, love and connection with the parent for the couple hours a parent has after work. The baby needs it all day.

again you said yourself they are asleep for most of it.
Once they are old enough to not be asleep so much they start to benefit from other aspects of life.

When did anyone say constant affection REPLACES child raising skills. BOTH are needed.

Implied by suggesting I view it as a job and drama-ing it up about how it is no replacement for love and affection. I never suggested they needed constant 24/7 day care yet you reacted saying they need love, love, love. So I will counter with what I see to be the benefits of my proposed system.

If you see parenting as just another job, and not as the life change and life choice than it is, then it's a real sad statement for the youth of the world. I hope yours is a minority opinion. I wonder why people cry with tears of joy when their first baby is born. It's just like starting a new job, right? No biggee.

"sad statement for the youth of the world" and you call me drama-tastic?

Getting personal is a last resort and a flimsy one at that, you can judge nothing about me from my well backed up opinion on how to give a child the best possible life. Not just the most enjoyable childhood from isolated attention seeking moments.

I said if you think of it as a career, the most important career, put all the effort into being good at their career, research the best way to do things, view it scientifically and logically with studies and conclusions.
I compared it to work because when it comes to tasks at work people will (or at least should, or try to) think what is the best in the long run, with the best results and the most logical.

Where as with children it is "what will make them smile" not "what will make them socially well adjusted, intelligent, healthy, have a great chance in the future and all in all be better for them.

The aim there is long term happiness through giving them the tools to succeed you see?


No it is not the type of McJob you do just to get money and no biggie, I never said anything of the sort.


Do you have any opinions you didn't pull out of the Daily Mail newspaper or whatever the equivalent is wherever you reside?
So sick of this think what it is fashionable to think crap the world seems infected with.

[SSJup81]

Originally Posted by dogsbody70

I did not feel capable of having a chiild and caring for it when I was your age Misa. I would have been a bad parent I know.

But that's not the case for everyone. I'm sure I could've been a good parent when I was younger, I just couldn't afford it, lacked financial stability, and lacked everything needed to raise one so that he/she could grow up healthy. Emotionally, I would've been fine. I couldn't adopt either, something else I'd wanted to do for years.

I did not have a clue. I am glad for you that you had such a great childhood-- we are not saying mothers shouldn't work at all. Most would have to-- to survive.

Okay, I described my experience too. I grew up in a two-parent home where both parents worked. I had a very good childhood. My parents loved me, they took care of me, they were there for me emotionally, and physically (meaning, it wasn't like I never saw them). You can find a balance if you want to, if in that situation.

The only time where I didn't see my parents as much, was when my mother got a second job, since she needed the extra money, but by that time, I was about 16 years old or so, so it was no big deal. I also still had my grandmother (I always grew up living with my parents and my grandmother).

GoNative has described an excellent place for his child-- and thats great.

The way he described his life, sounded a lot like mine growing up.

You are entitled to your views but I hate the attitude that a child is just THE KID as though it is of no importance whatsoever.

I don't see anything wrong with saying "kid" either, unless you're using it in a disdainful way. I use it all the time. For instance, I was talking about the elementary school children a couple of weeks ago. I was telling my family, "I had to go to the elementary school. The first-grade kids were just so adorable!!!" I said all of that ecstatically. I didn't say it to be mean or anything. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

[SSJup81]

I don't see anything wrong with sending a child to preschool or a nursery school, but, I think it's sad if you have to send them younger than say...maybe...three or so.

I think it's a good thing to send them to things like that because the child can get used of being around other children and that's also a good way to prepare them for regular school (Kindergarten, etc.) It also helps to develop their social skills, I feel.

Of course I can only speak for myself here, but I really liked going to Nursery School and having other kids to play with. There was no education involved back then (not like how it is now), but it was mostly just a place to play and all that. My mother put me in that nursery school because it got to the point that no one could be around to watch me at that time during the day. My grandmother wasn't living with us yet, and my father was now in-between jobs and had to go on interviews and stuff like that. The Nursery School was right across the street from the office building my mother worked in. It was like a five-minute walk for her to come and see me.

Anyway, aside from my first day (first few minutes, rather, lol), I never had a problem with it and looked forward to it everyday, especially since I was an only-child.

[GoNative]

MMM you have an attitude that it is best for a child to have a parent at home. You also seem to believe that anyone that doesn't do this is being selfish and creating an environment detrimental to their children. That's fine. When you have a child then go ahead and raise him/her as you see fit.

Just accept that we don't all agree with you. I certainly don't agree with the premise that it is best for a child to be at home with a stay at home parent prior to them going to school. I fail to see how this is a much better environment for the childs growth. It's one option and certainly not a bad one but there are other options and I don't see them being detrimental for the child in anyway whatsoever. In fact I believe the current situation for my child is very beneficial and positive for her.

When we drop off our daughter at day care there's often a couple of her friends waiting for her and calling out her name in greeting when she arrives. She normally can't wait to get her shoes off and run in and start playing with them. I know the women who runs the centre has a day full of activities organised that will keep my little girl active, stimulated and learning. Probably much better structured that what we could offer her around the home.

There are many reasons why both parents may choose to get back to work as soon as possible. Not all of them are just purely selfish at the cost of the child. As I said earlier you appear to come from a community and way of thinking that is very, very different to most of my peers and friends. We just don't hink like you do. You appear to believe that your view is the only right view but just accept it's only your opinion and not an absolute fact.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

a
Do you have any opinions you didn't pull out of the Daily Mail newspaper or whatever the equivalent is wherever you reside?
So sick of this think what it is fashionable to think crap the world seems infected with.

Princess Marisa, this is getting a little too emotionally charged and personal for my comfort anymore. There is nothing more that I can say to you that I haven't already said.

Originally Posted by GoNative

MMM you have an attitude that it is best for a child to have a parent at home. You also seem to believe that anyone that doesn't do this is being selfish and creating an environment detrimental to their children. That's fine. When you have a child then go ahead and raise him/her as you see fit.

The first sentence is correct. I never called anyone selfish or said by not having a parent at home it is detrimental to their children. I just said what I thought was ideal. I know every family has their own situation, and sometimes things have to be done the way they have to be done.

Originally Posted by GoNative

Just accept that we don't all agree with you. I certainly don't agree with the premise that it is best for a child to be at home with a stay at home parent prior to them going to school.

"Stay-at-home parent" is the term, but it doesn't mean the parent and child have to stay at home all day. There are play groups, the zoo, museums, parks, playgrounds, etc.

Originally Posted by GoNative

I fail to see how this is a much better environment for the childs growth. It's one option and certainly not a bad one but there are other options and I don't see them being detrimental for the child in anyway whatsoever. In fact I believe the current situation for my child is very beneficial and positive for her.

Again, please don't misquote me. I didn't say "much better," I just said I thought it was ideal. From what I see, for many people having the mom put her career on hold so she can raise her child seems to be the ultimate goal. I am surprised to hear that goal would be the opposite. Like I asked before, if you have the means and could work it out, wouldn't you want to be there to raise your child? (

When we drop off our daughter at day care there's often a couple of her friends waiting for her and calling out her name in greeting when she arrives. She normally can't wait to get her shoes off and run in and start playing with them. I know the women who runs the centre has a day full of activities organised that will keep my little girl active, stimulated and learning. Probably much better structured that what we could offer her around the home. (And I am not speaking YOU, GoNative, but the generic "you".) If you had the means but chose not to, then why have children at all? Isn't the fun being there to see those special moments and helping your child discover the world around him?

Originally Posted by GoNative

There are many reasons why both parents may choose to get back to work as soon as possible. Not all of them are just purely selfish at the cost of the child. As I said earlier you appear to come from a community and way of thinking that is very, very different to most of my peers and friends. We just don't hink like you do. You appear to believe that your view is the only right view but just accept it's only your opinion and not an absolute fact.

Again, I never called anyone selfish, I am just trying to understand the thinking, as it is very different from what I see around me. Even the women I know that have small children and work wish they didn't have to, and wish they could be with their kids all day until they start school.

I do not think my view is the only view, and I am very aware that it is my opinion, and my opinion only. Again, I am just trying to understand another perspective.

[GoNative]

Originally Posted by MMM

If you had the means but chose not to, then why have children at all? Isn't the fun being there to see those special moments and helping your child discover the world around him?.

Because there are special moments regardless of how much time you get to spend with your child. So you may not be there for the very first steps they ever take but there will still be the very first time you see them take steps. It's just a s special as far as I'm concerned. And you can still play a major role in helping your child discover the world around them. That they also have other experiences without you I believe is only a good thing. I'm assuming in most of your experience one of the parents do go to work? Do they not miss out on all the things you believe are so important? Why did they become a parent if they didn't give up working and stay at home as well?

Originally Posted by MMM

Again, I never called anyone selfish, I am just trying to understand the thinking, as it is very different from what I see around me. Even the women I know that have small children and work wish they didn't have to, and wish they could be with their kids all day until they start school.

Well you do live in a very different community to the one I am familiar with. All of my good friends from Australia (male or female) are tertiary educated, many with PHD's. Most haven't started families until their late 20's to mid 30's and most have successful careers beforehand. Most of the mothers have managed to get 1-2 years maternity leave after having a child and all have returned to work after this time. This really is pretty much normal in Australia and not considered unusual in anyway like it appears to be where you are from. I know one thing for sure in Australia there is no stigma attached to women who don't stay at home. In fact there's almost more of a negative stigma attached to women who do just choose to be housewives.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by GoNative

Because there are special moments regardless of how much time you get to spend with your child. So you may not be there for the very first steps they ever take but there will still be the very first time you see them take steps. It's just a s special as far as I'm concerned. And you can still play a major role in helping your child discover the world around them. That they also have other experiences without you I believe is only a good thing. I'm assuming in most of your experience one of the parents do go to work? Do they not miss out on all the things you believe are so important? Why did they become a parent if they didn't give up working and stay at home as well?

I understand how moments are special, and since it is practically impossible for both parents to spend 24-7 with a child, some moments cannot be shared. It just seems like to me that for those first words and first steps, it would be nice if at least one of the parents were there to see them, instead of hearing about it from the day care worker.

My personal experience doesn't really matter, I am trying to keep this in a general sense, and not a personal one, as there are as many different experiences as there are people. However, if you would like to know, my mother quit her career as a medical researcher to get me and then my sister to school age. I appreciate it very much, and I don't think I lost anything by being raised by my mother, rather than another person.

Indeed someone in the family has to work, and indeed that means they miss out on things. I have a friend in Osaka who works for Panasonic. He has a young daughter and a wife that stays at home to raise her (they are Japanese natives). With the way the economy is now he works so much he is gone before his daughter wakes up, and comes home after she has already gone to bed, so he really only gets to see her awake on Sundays and maybe an hour or two here and there if he can come home early. This really saddens him, as he is missing out on so many milestones, and just gets to hear about them from his wife. This is a two-way street, as she misses her daddy during the week. Anyway, that's just an example of one family's situation in Japan (just to kind of bring it back a little).

Originally Posted by GoNative

Well you do live in a very different community to the one I am familiar with. All of my good friends from Australia (male or female) are tertiary educated, many with PHD's. Most haven't started families until their late 20's to mid 30's and most have successful careers beforehand. Most of the mothers have managed to get 1-2 years maternity leave after having a child and all have returned to work after this time. This really is pretty much normal in Australia and not considered unusual in anyway like it appears to be where you are from. I know one thing for sure in Australia there is no stigma attached to women who don't stay at home. In fact there's almost more of a negative stigma attached to women who do just choose to be housewives.

I guess my community and circle of friends is very different. I didn't realize this wasn't more universal in thinking, although I consider myself pretty liberal and live in one of the most liberal and progressive cities in the US. Most of my friends are college educated, and have BAs and BSs, so not quite PhD level. One to two years maternity leave sounds like a dream! I have a friend who is a public school teacher, and she got six months with her two kids. In her situation, she would have lost her job if she didn't come back after six months, and so she had to, but still feels guilty about having to put her now 2-year-old in daycare during the day. At least she gets long breaks and summers off.

I don't think there is a stigma here for women who don't stay at home, as in these financial times it is hard if not impossible for some to do so. However, the mothers I know that don't stay at home wish they could. And the ones that do are really happy they can.

It is interesting that there is a negative stigma toward women who choose to be housewives in Australia. Are these housewives mothers, too? If so, why is being a stay-at-home mom considered a negative?