Attitudes toward staying home.
 

I've heard recently that many Japanese men, even in the 20-25 age range, still believe the ancient idea that it's a woman's responsibility to take care of the household. :/ If so, I'd have to look for a Japanese man that DOESN'T believe this in order for me to date him.

Although this veered way off topic, I thought it was worthy of discussion and gave it a thread all it`s own. The first post remains as a copy in the original thread. - Nyororin

... :eek:

Your house must be a shocking mess!

Oh, and I thought of something else... I like that the ideas of femininity and masculinity are a little different from the culture I was raised in, so I guess it'd be interesting to date someone there for that reason alone...

... After I find a man that has liberal ideas about the roles of men and women, anyway.

... It's hard if your wife doesn't do all the house shit for you, but. I mean, I don't have time to do it all myself. If I didn't have a wife, I'd have my hands tied.

But most women are content with doing that. I dunno what kind of husband is going to enjoy a lazy wife...

You're a big boy. I'm sure you can handle washing a few dishes yourself. :)

I'd buy disposable.

My husband is Japanese and believes in the housework being done by the person in the house the most. As he is out there working and earning 90% of the money for the household, it is certainly not him.

If you stay at home and don`t do the housework, that`s just lazy. What kind of wife makes the guy come home and do work again... after a day of work?

The kind of wife that isn't a servant and also has a job. :)

Here we go again off topic.:mad:

When you can pull that off with a disabled kid, call me.
But even if that weren`t the case, I certainly don`t think that taking responsibility for living space and spending the time to personally raise a child is being a "servant". But hey, I guess that`s just me.

If I was home and my wife worked I would keep up the house and other things so she could just relax when she got home. But what would I know being sexist as I am.;)

Do you have a disabled child? If you do, then I really am sorry. Suddenly, all of the discussions we've had about this topic in the past make sense to me.

It's my personal opinion, however, that it's not fair anyone should have to automatically assume a prescribed role under any circumstances, just because of their gender or their race or their sexual orientation. If I had a disabled child and I had a husband, I wouldn't want him to say that I'm the woman, and so I have to stay at home.

Even under circumstances where a child isn't disabled, it's difficult to raise a child. It's difficult to keep a house clean and in order. It's a full-time job, well into the night after the main breadwinner - man or woman - has returned home. And, unfortunately, in the culture that I've been raised in, not much value is placed on the partner who stays at home. Not much value it put on the person who cooks, cleans, and raises the children. More value is placed on making money.

This becomes apparent when the partners decide to become separated and, through legal divorce, one person wins more money and benefits than the other. Usually, it's the person who has worked for the money that will get more out of the divorce. I've read about situations where the ones who stayed at home don't get anything, and are completely screwed over, even they've worked very hard for however long their partnership lasted.

I don't think it's much of a coincidence that it's usually the woman who is expected to stay at home.

My husband did the same when I was working and he wasn`t. (In school, but not close to the hours of a full time job). I think it`s more that Japanese guys (and women, in fact) believe in caring for the children within the family if at all possible. This means that if it is financially possible one of the parents stays home and takes care of the child - and as breastfeeding is the way to go, the mother already stays home for quite a while anyway... So she is generally the one to leave work and take care of the kids while dad is at work.

I think this is the big difference. A dedicated caretaker and stay-at-home parent is given value, and quite a lot at that. A good parent is a highly valued part of the community, and not someone told to stay at home and slave away. They RUN the home, the neighborhood, etc. It`s not like being discarded out of a workforce - it`s just another path. As you say, parenting is hard work. Producing productive children for the future is something which a lot of value is placed upon in Japan. The attitude of a lot of women when they are staying home is that the husband is out working FOR her benefit - he works at her command and brings the money home to her in return for a place to sleep and food - because she is busy with the truly important things... Like raising children (the future) and maintaining the "real" world outside of a company`s walls. Men are valued for their ability to create money - and that is the main thing. Women have power over what happens with that money and with the future via their children.
It really is a difference in culture. I`m sure I would feel differently if not making money were thought of as inferior.

I've heard of that difference between Japan and the USA. In Japan, taking care of a home is strongly valued. We're in an economy-run, international society now, however. I don't have an article to point to, but it's my feeling that - if Japan also puts value on economy - then, economically, there will be more value put on the main breadwinner. Not necessarily culturally, no. That, like you said, is a difference between Japan and the USA. Still, I don't know if many will be happy if they have their cultural kudos while they're homeless and impoverished because they've divorced their partner, and they weren't fairly rewarded.

Again, that's just speculation. I haven't read anything about people losing out once they've divorced their partners. But that's an opinion I'm making based on the fact that internationally, Japan seems to be an economic society, where value is placed on the money.

This is exactly why America is going to Hell. No one watches or teaches their kids and the kids are raising themselves and learning their behaviors from other kids in the streets. My mother stayed home until the youngest was almost finished with high school and we turned out pretty good if I say so myself. No unwanted pregnancies, no jail time, no gangs, no killings, etc.
I wish more people thought like you, America could be great again. Raising good kids is all of our futures. I am afraid to think about what will happen when I get old now. I'm glad you are comfortable in your very important role as mother and homemaker.:ywave:

It's definitely important to raise children properly and make sure they understand the values of whichever society they live in.

However, it's not only the woman's role to raise the child. Fathers are important too, and I'm sure children can benefit from stay-at-home dads just as much as stay-at-home moms.

Why should only women risk their futures and lives in these economic societies?

Not much value is placed on the person staying at home raising the child in your culture? That is sad.

I don't think that is true at all in Japan. As I have stated in the past, women tend to quietly "wear the pants" in Japanese families. Not only do they do the housework and raise the children, they also are in charge of the finances. The father's job is to make money, so it is a team situation.

Some people think it is sexist if a man does one thing (makes money) and a woman does another (raises family). That seems a little silly to me, and this idea that everybody should do everything is a terrible model. Name a successful business where everybody does everything. There is nothing sexist about having roles. Especially if those roles are considered valuable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A single parent will never completely fill in both roles as a mother and a father. A child needs both. Like it or not, fathers and mothers play different roles in children's lives.

You never answered my question: What successful business has everyone doing everything?

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.

That's what lawyers are for.

So then you've allowed society to place you in this role.

Someone this selfish could never be a good parent. Don't blame anyone else when you have to go to prison to visit your child because you were too busy being CEO instead of taking care of your, yes your by your decision, child.

This is why an education, college or technical school, should be done before a child is brought into the picture. Accidents don't happen either. You are right that many stay at home mothers have some sort of marketable skill, but most of them waited to have kids when they were really ready.

MMM i've never had a father or a father figure In my life. Just my Mom, and as though she can only do so much.

I feel as though not having a father figure in a way has put a more positive effect on my life.

MMM: I've said it again, and I'll continue to say it: CULTURAL value. Not financial value. Money is what makes the world go around these days and, unfortunately, for alimony a person needs to go to court. To win their case, a person needs a good lawyer. For a good lawyer, a person needs money. Painful catch 22, isn't it?

As for single parents, what are the roles that each father and mother must play in a child's life?

And your question... I'm sorry, I don't understand it, I guess because it's out of context. I can't find where it was originally asked either. Explain it for me please?

Nyororin: At this point, I kind of feel like we're going back and forth based on what we feel and what we know... I don't know about you, but I don't have any statistics handy to prove my points. So, I don't know, I almost feel like saying whatever it is I want to say is a little pointless. Saying, "yeah, well, I know a lot of women who've never had any jobs" is kind of pointless because that's just my experience. I don't know the numbers nationally for the USA or Japan.

It's kind of the same as the single parent situation. Neither of us know how many successful single parents they are. I know I personally feel that it's entirely possible. There are plenty of single successful mothers and fathers who are out there, making it work. They bring their child to work, they take their child to grandma's house, they take their work home... I've seen it. Not with a CEO, no, but with other pretty demanding jobs. Again, I don't have statistics, but I know it can work based on my experience.

bELyVIS: Yeah, and usually lawyers cost money. Lots and lots of money. Money that these jobless people most likely won't have.

I can define what I want to be in this society, but if society doesn't agree, then that's not what I am. I can start declaring, "I'M A STRAIGHT WHITE MAN!" By your theory, if I didn't allow society to place me into any role, then I really am a straight white man. People will look at me and see otherwise, however. For that reason, I can't say that I won't allow society to place me into any role.

Like I said to Nyororin, I think it's completely possible to have and take care of a child in a successful position.

I had and have both, and can't imagine being raised without both of them.

Statistically, children with two parents are more successful and get into less trouble than children with one. That doesn't mean there aren't success stories, and it sounds like you are one of them.

A father figure is not a negative thing.

And what about abusive fathers? What about abusive mothers? Do you think it's better to have an abusive parent than to not have both?

Oh no i don't think of it as a negative thing at all.

And yes I do believe children with both have it better off.
I felt left out as a child not having a dad. (to sum it up)
But I'm doing just fine myself now.

No, I would believe you entirely. Japan and the US are different cultures, and value is placed in different locations. I can only tell you what I know from my experiences and my knowledge, just as you can only do the same from yours. I believe you may be entirely right about little value being placed upon those who stay-at-home, and that there are tons of women out there left with nothing because of it. I have absolutely no reason to doubt this is the case, as I was born in the US and spent the first chunk of my life there. (Raised by grandparents, by the way, after my mother divorced my father.)

The fact is, things are different in Japan. I am just offering the information of how things are here.

I totally believe it can work, and that there are wonderful successes. But I don`t believe it is in the best interest of the child. That is different from saying it is impossible. There are great success stories out there. The thing is, having actual background in studying childhood development, it`s NOT in the best interest of the child. Can some children adjust and thrive? Of course. But it`s not the best situation, and never will be. For those single parents who ended up that way, I am entirely supportive of. I can`t say I feel the same for a single parent who knew ahead of time but still decides to have a child and have someone else raise it for them. If you do not have the time or ability to dedicate yourself to being the best possible parent to that child, it is selfish to choose to have one. That is the huge difference in my eyes. I don`t even think people with demanding jobs should choose to have pets who they have little time for, let alone children. It`s nothing wrong with their job, it`s that they are making the choice to bring a child into a situation that will never be in the best interest of that child.

ETA;
That means that it would be better to have a single parent, as it would not be in the best interest of the child to be in an abusive situation. But that doesn`t mean that a single parent would be the best path for any child.

lol don't let him make you think that you're negative thing, or some kind of special case. There are single-parent families across the USA and across the world, a lot of which are doing just as well or even better than families with two parents. It's not traditional, but single parents are becoming the norm these days.

Families with two parents can be pretty screwed up too, you know?