<p>Hmm…maybe I should narrow the quote in which I was referring to. </p>
<p>
There we go. </p>
<p>I agree, capable isn’t a good word. I’ll replace it with valuable.</p>
<p>I’m just going to tweak this quote a little:
“Each gender is equally valuable and equally responsible.”</p>
<p>To this, I say no. No to what? Each gender is not equally valuable when bearing a child; although, each gender is equally valuable and equally responsible when raising a child. The mother is a lot more valuable than the father when the child has first arrived. The mother can even be more valuable than the father months down the line. The father can be basically absent. I wouldn’t say there is no need but I’m jut talking about within the first year. As this child grows and is raised, both genders level out.</p>
<p>I don’t understand how traditional roles block progress…</p>
<p>@Niquii
Agreed.</p>
<p>“I don’t understand how traditional roles block progress…”</p>
<p>When strict gender roles exist, people are often forced into them as a matter of course. People whose talents do not correspond with their gender role will not be able to reach their full potential, at least not as easily.</p>
<p>That doesn’t really block society’s progress as a whole imo. I mean, how does stating that women are better suited for child rearing disrupt progression? </p>
<p>As it stands, gender roles in the West are not rigid. There is move to move about. </p>
<p>See, this is why I’m not having kids. For me, career > children.</p>
<p>1) People being prevented from fulfilling their potential blocks progress…
2) To me, expecting people to conform to gender roles for no particular reason other than “they’re traditional” shows a lack of progress in thinking.</p>
<p>Yes but if not I shall adopt (I should really get to know to cook better)
no
no
yes</p>
<p>By “people” do you mean women? It’s often said that motherhood is somehow oppressive. </p>
<p>It isn’t just tradition. Women are often incapacitated (childbirth, rearing of very young offspring, menses) and as a result are usually the ones who’ve stayed home to raise children and care for the home in the past. Men, therefore were expected to work hard to provide (often more muscular and having more endurance, men are better suited to manual labor).
Why do women often participate the most in raising small kids? Because, I dunno, they carried them for nine months. There’s a bond there, imo. Oh, and breastfeeding. They, uh, have the food, lol. </p>
<p>We saw this changed with the Industrial Rev and the general increase in the number of single mothers. In the case of the latter especially, women must leave their children to their own devices as they fulfill the male’s traditional role. We can see the impact rearing a child with one parent in the home has upon society and the children who develop while in these situations. It isn’t often positive… </p>
<p>Keeping with tradition shouldn’t always be seen as stifling…</p>
<p>“By ‘people’ do you mean women? It’s often said that motherhood is somehow oppressive.”</p>
<p>Not specifically. With strict gender roles, men are prevented from doing stereotypically “feminine” things or feeling “feminine” emotions and vice versa.</p>
<p>“Women are often incapacitated (childbirth, rearing of very young offspring, menses) and as a result are usually the ones who’ve stayed home to raise children and care for the home in the past”</p>
<p>The incapacitation caused by childbirth and menstruation has been reduced a lot by modern medicine. Most jobs do not require a great deal of physical strength. </p>
<p>I’m not opposed to women staying home to raise kids because <em>they want to</em>, I’m opposed to it being pushed on women who would rather do something else. The problem isn’t that people have preferences for how they want to act, or that certain preferences tend to be more common to men/women because of biological factors. The problems occur when these preferences are forced on everyone and women are told that their entire identity should be based around their children, half of whom are girls and will grow up to do the same thing. You have half the population just running around in circles doing the same thing over and over and over again. That isn’t progress. </p>
<p>Women have pretty much always worked, unless they were affluent. Even if their work was at home on the farm, it wasn’t like they just sat there and mollycoddled the kids all day long like in 1950s suburbs.
I think it’s just important for kids to have parents/guardians who care - I don’t really think the problems are from parents (mothers or fathers) working as much as they are from parents not paying attention when they’re home. There has to be balance. Someone being home constantly even when the kid gets older could lead to a lack of independence.
Socioeconomic status before the kids were born probably also has something to do with it. People who can actually afford to only have one person working were probably (relatively) affluent to begin with. </p>
<p>“Keeping with tradition shouldn’t always be seen as stifling…”</p>
<p>I agree…as long as the tradition-keeping is a free choice for each individual and not some kind of mass legal/cultural decree. It’s stifling if the people involved find it stifling. It’s especially stifling when half the adult population has rights that the other half doesn’t.</p>
<p>I absolutely do want children, though I don’t know if I want to give up my career once I have them.
That being said, in an ideal world I want 4 sons, so I’ll probably have to end up at least cutting back on work hours.</p>
<p>For some weird reason, the title of this thread made me laugh really hard, so thank you for just making my day. </p>
<p>When I was younger, Cheaper by the Dozen was one my favorite movies, so I always wanted to have a lot of kids (at least six). Now, I’ve realized that probably isn’t a great idea anymore (can you imagine giving birth to six kids?!! And being pregnant for 54 months!!!). I still want at least three or four children. I definitely want to adopt at least one child, but I also really want to experience pregnancy and childbirth at least once, so… I don’t know. Whatever. Plenty of time to think about that. But I saw my mom raise three kids while maintaining a stable job, so it’s definitely possible to balance both. </p>
<p>To all the stay at home moms and dads, I applaud you. It’s definitely not easy and can sometimes be even harder than having an actual job.</p>
<p>No, I don’t want children. But if I change my mind, it will still be career<kids</p>
<p>
Well, it’s a good thing that this doesn’t apply to the lives of today. There aren’t any traditional roles forcing people into anything they don’t want to do.</p>
<p>I find nothing wrong with traditional gender roles. I feel, there’s something to fear when a group of people always want to oppose traditional values just because they’re traditional.</p>
<p>Anywho I’m finally going to answer the question. </p>
<p>I wish to bear progeny. I’ll have as many as God gives me. I’d love to adopt if possible. The kid doesn’t have to be from a “third world country”. Many kids in the US need home as well. I don’t want to have kids that young. 30s being the optimal age. I’ll probably work through the first one or two but if push comes to shove I’ll stay home. Perhaps start crafting and once the kid have become a certain age start a family business. The most kids I’d want would be 6 or 7.</p>
<p>I have always wanted to have 11 children - enough to form a soccer team 
gonna love my kids!</p>
<p>I find it sort of sad that gender roles would have such a large determination on whether someone would like to have kids or not. I mean, they’re people! not just people, innocent children that you get the oppurtunity to raise and love and (hopefully) be loved by. not just a package you get after birth when the doctors say, “all right, here are all your sacrifices. see ya!”</p>
<p>besides, at the end of the day, just marry someone who you know shares the same opinion on gender roles as you do. problem solved.</p>
<p>Nice!@stressedouttt</p>
<p>i don’t want kids…why would you want to waste all your money on them?</p>
<p>Since that’s how your parents treat you. It’s automatic. You do it for your loved ones.</p>
<p>
Legit. If someone thinks a traditional gender role is the reason not to have kids…Please don’t get married. Some eye opening needs to be done before that person hops in a marriage.</p>
<p>Seriously? You guys are literally showing how people are forced into traditional gender roles by being critical towards those who choose not to follow them. A person can choose to not have kids for any reason they deem fit; that doesn’t make them a bad person. Yet society is almost insistent on everyone having offspring.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes because clearly marriage is only for popping out kids.</p>