Attitudes toward staying home.

[mercedesjin]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

There is a biological aspect to this. Women produce milk, men do not. Formula is available, and is *close* to breastmilk, but is only a substitute and in many cases is not a financially feasible option. I don`t think anyone would challenge the fact that breastmilk is best for the child.

In cultures where it is harder to secure breastmilk substitutes or safe "baby food" it is perfectly normal for a child to drink breast milk as the main staple of their diet until one or two. It would be impossible for a man to pull this off. If formula were not there, then the baby would die even with 24 hour care from the most dedicated father while mom was out working full time.

Japan believes strongly in feeding by breast as much as possible. If a mother takes the first year off, it is much easy to transition into her being the main "stay-at-home" part of the family as, no matter how understanding her workplace is, it would be very hard to leap from a year of parenting to full time full production in a company. There is no such transition for a father.

That's fine. If a couple decides to breastfeed a child, that's absolutely fine. It's also fine that a woman should stay home for a couple years to do this. However, to me, that certainly doesn't mean that the woman can't return to work after the few years, and that the man can't stay at home for a few years in her place. To me, a relationship is about balance.

Also, to add another layer to this, how do you feel about single parents? It's hard work, there's no doubt about that, but they manage to fill both roles of "man" and "woman." Men leave work and take care of the house and his child. Women leave the house to make money. Somehow, they make it work. Because of that, I think that - especially when there are TWO people to take care of those many responsibilities - it's easy for men and women to switch off and help each other in everything. Both can go to work, both can take care of the house. Both can ensure their financial future.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

That's just cultural value, though. What happens when the main breadwinner decides that he/she wants to claim all of the money he/she has made? What happens when the person who stayed home without a job is screwed over and doesn't have a place to live anymore, or money to buy essential needs? Like I said, I haven't read of this happening in Japan, but I've read many cases of this in the USA - and not only with women/men partners, but men/men and women/women. Regardless of gender, the person who stayed at home didn't make enough money to have a say in what happened after the couple split up.

Recently, a friend of mine divorced her husband in Japan. They are both Japanese.
She could have received the house, but opted out of it as it was pretty much required that she stay there until her husband could find elsewhere to live and she couldn`t afford the loan payments.
She moved into an apartment. Her husband pays for the apartment. She receives free child care, and a credit toward general living costs. She was able to find a job but is not able to work enough to make the same amount as her former husband due to hours (can`t do overtime because of the kids, etc).

I`d say she received a pretty fair deal, and she isn`t having trouble surviving. Perhaps if she had no skills it might be an issue, but most everyone goes to university in Japan so someone lacking skills is pretty uncommon.

That's fine. If a couple decides to breastfeed a child, that's absolutely fine. It's also fine that a woman should stay home for a couple years to do this. However, to me, that certainly doesn't mean that the woman can't return to work after the few years, and that the man can't stay at home for a few years in her place. To me, a relationship is about balance.

It sounds nice, but in reality doesn`t really make economic sense. It doesn`t matter who starts out staying at home, after the time they are off they will be behind in skill and experience... It will take time for them to get back to 100% of their potential. Where does the money come from to fill in the 30% while they`re still only at 70%? And not just once - children don`t reach adulthood in 4 years. If they take turns staying home until the child is a responsible age, that`s only going to hurt in the long run when it comes to economics.

Also, to add another layer to this, how do you feel about single parents? It's hard work, there's no doubt about that, but they manage to fill both roles of "man" and "woman." Men leave work and take care of the house and his child. Women leave the house to make money. Somehow, they make it work. Because of that, I think that - especially when there are TWO people to take care of those many responsibilities - it's easy for men and women to switch off and help each other in everything. Both can go to work, both can take care of the house. Both can ensure their financial future.

Single parents have no other choice, and I believe they are doing the best they can in their circumstances. I don`t believe it is the best possible situation for a child though.
If both parents go to work, and they work at the same time - the child is left in the care of someone else for most of the day. If they work one, then the other - they never have any real contact with each other and I believe that would not be a good thing for any relationship.

[mercedesjin]

Originally Posted by bELyVIS

I never said it had to be the mother. It was just I was talking about my mother and my situation. My point is that a parent needs to be there to raise the child, not a babysitter who is more interested in TV or what's in the refrigerator. Also, they need to bring back woodsheds. Time out doesn't always work and parents shouldn't need to be worried about getting arrested for spanking (not beating) their own child. A lot of these smartass gang member punks need a good spanking. At least they would know their parents cared enough to discipline them.

Er - well, I don't know if spanking needs to come back. There are a lot of adults these days with psychological trauma because of "spankings." But yeah, we can agree that value on raising children is important, and that it doesn't necessarily need to be the mother.

[mercedesjin]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

Recently, a friend of mine divorced her husband in Japan. They are both Japanese.
She could have received the house, but opted out of it as it was pretty much required that she stay there until her husband could find elsewhere to live and she couldn`t afford the loan payments.
She moved into an apartment. Her husband pays for the apartment. She receives free child care, and a credit toward general living costs. She was able to find a job but is not able to work enough to make the same amount as her former husband due to hours (can`t do overtime because of the kids, etc).

I`d say she received a pretty fair deal, and she isn`t having trouble surviving. Perhaps if she had no skills it might be an issue, but most everyone goes to university in Japan so someone lacking skills is pretty uncommon.

That's good for her. Not many people are as lucky as she is. It's kind of awkward asking about a stranger's personal life, but was she the stay-at-home mother? Did she have a job?

In the USA, I know that with the idea "women should stay at home" comes the idea "women should not work." Working is for men, where I'm from. Because of that, I don't think many women who stay at home are skilled, and can fend for themselves.

[bELyVIS]

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

What happens when the main breadwinner decides that he/she wants to claim all of the money he/she has made? What happens when the person who stayed home without a job is screwed over and doesn't have a place to live anymore, or money to buy essential needs?

That is what child support and alimony are for.

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

Cultural value is a beautiful thing, but so is survival. It's not fair that society places women into roles with no economic value and men into one of economic value.

No one places anyone anywhere, we allow ourselves to be placed. How do you explain so many women owning businesses or being bosses? This is sexist thinking on your part. If you want to be a business owner and can't find a husband that will stay home and watch the kids, don't have babies.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

That's good for her. Not many people are as lucky as she is. It's kind of awkward asking about a stranger's personal life, but was she the stay-at-home mother? Did she have a job?

In the USA, I know that with the idea "women should stay at home" comes the idea "women should not work." Working is for men, where I'm from. Because of that, I don't think many women who stay at home are skilled, and can fend for themselves.

I don`t think the situation is quite the same in Japan simply because there is value placed upon the stay-at-home parent, and a broad net of family and area support. (Remember, the one staying at home is part of the community - the one working is part of the company. It`s very hard to lose a community, but if you lose a job the company is gone.)
I think that her situation is pretty normal for divorces in Japan, although obviously not everyone is going to be the same.

She had a job prior to having children, but stayed at home since mid-pregnancy with her first child.

[mercedesjin]

Originally Posted by bELyVIS

That is what child support and alimony are for.


No one places anyone anywhere, we allow ourselves to be placed. How do you explain so many women owning businesses or being bosses? This is sexist thinking on your part. If you want to be a business owner and can't find a husband that will stay home and watch the kids, don't have babies.

Not everyone gets child support and alimony. I may be wrong, but people need to go to court for that.

I'm not sure where you're from, but where I'm from, society expects that - as a woman - I stay at home. The bosses and CEOs and successful women seen today are the women who fought against what was expected of them. They're women who struggle against sexism, such as the glass-ceiling.

If I personally wanted a child, and was a CEO, and couldn't find a man that wanted to be in a fair partnership, then I would still have a child. Children are raised by single parents all of the time. I wouldn't let others' ignorance stop me from what I want.

[mercedesjin]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

I don`t think the situation is quite the same in Japan simply because there is value placed upon the stay-at-home parent, and a broad net of family and area support. (Remember, the one staying at home is part of the community - the one working is part of the company. It`s very hard to lose a community, but if you lose a job the company is gone.)
I think that her situation is pretty normal for divorces in Japan, although obviously not everyone is going to be the same.

She had a job prior to having children, but stayed at home since mid-pregnancy with her first child.

Yes, there's value culturally. This means that there can also be value in the community. However, after a person has lost their job in the company or their "job" at home, will their co-workers support them economically? Will the community support them financially?

I'll say it again, I'm not expert on Japanese society when it comes to divorce, but I don't know if Japanese society will ever value the stay-at-home partner economically. Culture is beautiful, but culture has lost out to economics in Japan before - as culture has lost out to economics across many nations and societies. Money is what rules the world now, not culture. And, if the person at home isn't making that money, then they're most likely not going to be valued enough to survive.

The example of your friend shows that this isn't completely black-and-white. I've been assuming that stay-at-home mothers have never had any jobs, which isn't the best assumption. If a person has had a job in the past, then yes, they'll have a better chance of survival. If not, then I doubt they would have many skills - a resume to show - and I doubt they would do very well after the divorce.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

I'm talking about economic value.

I agree with you guys when it comes to Japan's cultural value. I think it's beautiful that value is placed on the home, and raising children. I don't agree that only women should play that role, but it's wonderful that the person who takes care of the house is valued more in Japan than in the USA.

That's just cultural value, though. What happens when the main breadwinner decides that he/she wants to claim all of the money he/she has made? What happens when the person who stayed home without a job is screwed over and doesn't have a place to live anymore, or money to buy essential needs? Like I said, I haven't read of this happening in Japan, but I've read many cases of this in the USA - and not only with women/men partners, but men/men and women/women. Regardless of gender, the person who stayed at home didn't make enough money to have a say in what happened after the couple split up.

Cultural value is a beautiful thing, but so is survival. It's not fair that society places women into roles with no economic value and men into one of economic value.

Where I live in the USA a lot of value is placed on stay-at-home mothers.

I suppose the hypothetical situation you present happens, and it is awful, and this is why there are courts and alimony. Just because a woman is a stay-at-home mom doesn't mean she doesn't have marketable skills.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

Yes, there's value culturally. This means that there can also be value in the community. However, after a person has lost their job in the company or their "job" at home, will their co-workers support them economically? Will the community support them financially?

I'll say it again, I'm not expert on Japanese society when it comes to divorce, but I don't know if Japanese society will ever value the stay-at-home partner economically. Culture is beautiful, but culture has lost out to economics in Japan before - as culture has lost out to economics across many nations and societies. Money is what rules the world now, not culture. And, if the person at home isn't making that money, then they're most likely not going to be valued enough to survive.

The example of your friend shows that this isn't completely black-and-white. I've been assuming that stay-at-home mothers have never had any jobs, which isn't the best assumption. If a person has had a job in the past, then yes, they'll have a better chance of survival. If not, then I doubt they would have many skills - a resume to show - and I doubt they would do very well after the divorce.

I don`t know any stay-at-home mothers who did not have a job prior to having a child. Every single one I know personally was something or other prior to choosing to have a child and remain at home.
I have no doubts there are women out there who have no skills taking care of their children at home - but I would say they`re very much an exception. Having some sort of skill is also valued, so most women go to college then work for a few years before getting married and continue working until they have a baby. It`s really the most common pattern. Companies offer jobs that appeal to this mindset, with less pressure to stay on and less stress when leaving the company. Of course if the woman wanted responsibility, it is there for the taking - but I do think that most women consider future children and a few years away from work... So don`t want to dedicate THAT much into a career until after the children have grown and they feel they really can dedicate themselves.

There is no stigma against a woman working - quite the opposite in fact. If she doesn`t have children then why isn`t she working? is the common way of thinking. The average level of education is very high in Japan, so it seems quite rare to me for someone to make it to adulthood without acquiring work skills and experience.

Of course, what I am saying applies to Japan, but possibly not elsewhere.

ETA; Another question:
If you were a CEO and wanted a child, and decided to have that child as a single parent... Who would raise your child? A CEO can`t take much (any) time off from running a company. 2~3 hours a night with the child before they go to bed, and 20 minutes in the morning rushing them off to daycare...... I find it very hard to think that could be a good parenting situation or in the best interest of a child.