StarDestroyer.Net BBS

No, why you ask?

I certainly don't see why not.

Unless some statistical proof could be shown to prove that woman are better with small children, I don't see why not. Whoever can make the most money needs to work, regardless of gender.

if the man has an education which allows him to earn more money.


no, of course there´s no reason.

Hell, my number one goal in life is to meet a woman who is smarter than me and who makes more $$$. I see nothing wrong with being a house-husband.

There seems to be a cultural consensus that women are better with little kids, yet we all know that both sexes are equally good at it. Men are better at disciplining.

jaeger115 wrote:There seems to be a cultural consensus that women are better with little kids, yet we all know that both sexes are equally good at it. Men are better at disciplining.

Yeah, men tend to be much better at disciplining, which is why single motherhood tends to crank out more troubled kids. Men can flat-out say "no, you will not get married to a bassist/do drugs/listen to Slipknot. Why? Because I said do."

Hmm....is it because a man's harsh voice sounds more intimidating than a woman's nag?

jaeger115 wrote:There seems to be a cultural consensus that women are better with little kids, yet we all know that both sexes are equally good at it. Men are better at disciplining.

How sexist can you get??? does it matter? no. A woman, a STRONG woman who was raised right can discipline as well as any man. It's a woman who will LET her children run over her who is the problem.

I have a friend who is a teacher at my high school. She keeps telling me that one of her adopted kids from Thailand gives her a pain in the butt then when her husband shows up from work, that kid just turns into an angel.

How sexist can you get??? does it matter? no. A woman, a STRONG woman who was raised right can discipline as well as any man. It's a woman who will LET her children run over her who is the problem.

Hmmm... I respect that, but I just don't think so. Can you prove that a strong woman can discipline an even-stronger teenager boy? I'm speaking from experience alone.

the only argument that i can possibly conceive of, is that during gestation and infancy the mother's body, as a womb and source of milk, is mopre in demand.
Biologically, thetre's nothing to stop men from fucking off and doing their own thing.


As a woman who was broguth up by two parents who worked 9-5, and hwo intends to have a full career herself, can someone point out to me why there necessarily needs to be a person at home while the kids are in school?

jaeger115 wrote: Hmmm... I respect that, but I just don't think so. Can you prove that a strong woman can discipline an even-stronger teenager boy? I'm speaking from experience alone.

Has this woman been disciplining this boy since he was little? If not, then NO he won't listen. If so, then YES, he better know that he'll get his ass handed to him if he acts up.

Kelly Antilles wrote:

jaeger115 wrote:There seems to be a cultural consensus that women are better with little kids, yet we all know that both sexes are equally good at it. Men are better at disciplining.

How sexist can you get??? does it matter? no. A woman, a STRONG woman who was raised right can discipline as well as any man. It's a woman who will LET her children run over her who is the problem.

I don't think it's sexist. Men just tend to be a little more aggressive and able to say "no." Hormones. Would you at least agree that a woman is going to be a little more likely to let her kids run over her than a man?

innerbrat wrote:the only argument that i can possibly conceive of, is that during gestation and infancy the mother's body, as a womb and source of milk, is mopre in demand.
Biologically, thetre's nothing to stop men from fucking off and doing their own thing.


As a woman who was broguth up by two parents who worked 9-5, and hwo intends to have a full career herself, can someone point out to me why there necessarily needs to be a person at home while the kids are in school?

It depends on age. If it's a small kid, do you honestly want them home alone?

Durran Korr wrote: I don't think it's sexist. Men just tend to be a little more aggressive and able to say "no." Hormones. Would you at least agree that a woman is going to be a little more likely to let her kids run over her than a man?

That's bullshit. It all depends on how the woman was raised as well. Trust me, I may not have children, but I'd never let any child run over me.

Durran Korr wrote:
I don't think it's sexist. Men just tend to be a little more aggressive and able to say "no." Hormones. Would you at least agree that a woman is going to be a little more likely to let her kids run over her than a man?

HER kids, and her kids that she's housed and nurtured personally, maybe, and only maybe.
And I only sday that because my childminder was an evil selfish cow who would hit me for giving as good as I got with her kids.

innerbrat wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:
I don't think it's sexist. Men just tend to be a little more aggressive and able to say "no." Hormones. Would you at least agree that a woman is going to be a little more likely to let her kids run over her than a man?

HER kids, and her kids that she's housed and nurtured personally, maybe, and only maybe.
And I only sday that because my childminder was an evil selfish cow who would hit me for giving as good as I got with her kids.

Oh, I totally agree with you; women may be even better than men are at discplining kids who are not their own (Catholic nuns, anyone?).

A mother has a stronger connection to the baby because it came from her womb. The evolutionary imperative is obvious; a man doesn't have to be there but for millions of years, if the woman wasn't there the baby would die of malnutrition for lack of breast milk.

Conversely, men are better at being violent assholes, again probably because of evolutionary imperative. Some of this, when toned down, may theoretically be useful for discipline (although it may also create as many problems as it solves).

You can call either of these characterizations sexist if you like, but I don't think there is any rational purpose served by arguing that despite all of the hormonal and biological differences, men and women are precisely 100% identical in terms of psychological tendencies.

neoolong wrote:

innerbrat wrote:the only argument that i can possibly conceive of, is that during gestation and infancy the mother's body, as a womb and source of milk, is mopre in demand.
Biologically, thetre's nothing to stop men from fucking off and doing their own thing.


As a woman who was broguth up by two parents who worked 9-5, and hwo intends to have a full career herself, can someone point out to me why there necessarily needs to be a person at home while the kids are in school?

It depends on age. If it's a small kid, do you honestly want them home alone?

Oh, I wasn't left home alone. i had a perfectly good nanny until I started school and then (luck only) had a bitch of a childminder that I still have grudges against today.
But, should my parents bad uck in findigng child minder reflect my choices as an ambitious, but broody, grown woman?

innerbrat wrote:

neoolong wrote:

innerbrat wrote:the only argument that i can possibly conceive of, is that during gestation and infancy the mother's body, as a womb and source of milk, is mopre in demand.
Biologically, thetre's nothing to stop men from fucking off and doing their own thing.


As a woman who was broguth up by two parents who worked 9-5, and hwo intends to have a full career herself, can someone point out to me why there necessarily needs to be a person at home while the kids are in school?

It depends on age. If it's a small kid, do you honestly want them home alone?

Oh, I wasn't left home alone. i had a perfectly good nanny until I started school and then (luck only) had a bitch of a childminder that I still have grudges against today.
But, should my parents bad uck in findigng child minder reflect my choices as an ambitious, but broody, grown woman?

No, but a little kid still shouldn't be left alone. Afterschool programs, clubs whatever, but up to a certain age, they need supervision.

closet sci-fi fan wrote:Is there any particular reason why the working parent should be the man and the stay-at-home parent be the woman?

No reason I can tell -- I'd rather my wife did all the bacon-earning while I stayed at home. Just didn't work out that way...

I think in the first year or two it is better for the women to be home. Especially during the first year with breast feeding. After that I dont really care. Whoever has the highest income potential should go work.

My experience with my neice is that she seems to already recognize women and it much more vocal and friendly with them. I dont know if a boy would be that way with men or not. ( She is 7 months and I first noticed this at 4 months )

closet sci-fi fan wrote:Just starting a conversation..

I was a bit confused cause you didn't express your opinion, sounded like you were pissed about something and wanted to start flaming people.

Honestly, Kelly Antilles, if the woman could make more money than the man, then I'd support her being the breadwinner.