So angry at all these threads on useless and selfish men

[Winterday1991]

Off the back of the thread where the H refuses to care for his sick child so the OP can get some much needed rest as he is on annual leave from work 😡. I am seriously fed up of reading threads like this, why are so many men so selfish?

Why is it always women who have to do the lions share of caring, pulling themselves in all direction whilst their male counterparts glide through life uninterrupted? Why is it always women who carry the mental load for family life and the men just show up. Why is always women responsible for maintaining the household?

Even in the 21st century, why do so many men get such a bloody easy ride, whilst often their poor wives/partners are running around like headless chickens keeping on top of everything.

That's the second time you've made an odd reference to the phrase "thousands of generations". Are you a Creationist?

I'm not going to disparage anyone's faith, but ... the view that creation occurred 6000 years ago and there have only been 300 generations since Adam and Eve isn't based on any consensus around the science. There is evidence within the archaeological record of humans using fire for cooking from over a million years ago, and marks made by stone tools have been found and carbon-dated to over three million years ago. That implies hundreds of thousands of generations ... not merely thousands. And our closest evolutionary ancestors live in social groups with gender-based roles, so saying our societies evolved organically really isn't contentious.

Also it was pretty obvious from the context that I was using thousands as an idiom, not literally. But also from your earlier post on this subject, it seems you don't understand that evolution isn't about voluntary choices. There is no patriarchal conspiracy or intelligent (malevolent) design intended to keep women subjugated. There is simply what works, and what doesn't, in terms of genes being passed from one generation to the next, and those species most able to adapt to a changing environment will thrive. The next adaptation may indeed involved dispensing with men entirely - who knows?

Final gripe - even if you take a shortened timeline, of just recorded human history going back a few thousand years, it is only in the last blink of an eye that most men gained property rights. And in many countries white women gained those rights well before men or women of colour. So there's a little bit of privilege that needs checking, methinks. And/or an apology, or a clarification, at least, because currently, this line of argument is just odd.

Here's a reminder of what I actually said.
What does make a difference is the individual mindset and individual ability. This of course covers a broad variety of skill sets and IQ levels etc, etc.

Where do i mention my IQ.

Meaning the ability to forge a career is based upon intelligence and strategies to manage daily life, mitigating conflicts of interest that arise. Children quite obviously do not fit in with the processes of business.

There may be career choices that are more family-friendly, a personal business, for example, will also allow flexibility, but my experience is, most businesses are not set up for the needs of single parents or families.
Like Dp's old boss told him, his life problems are not his problems he has a business to run.
Hence the reason DP runs and manages his own affairs is to allow for his children. This also allows him to have a relationship in a way that he believes is correct. Dp's priorities are his relationship and his children.
I know when we have a child I'll be taking time away from work until pre-school-nursery.

@Stillcountingbeans

Well, yes.

That was my point

There is no research to suggest having or not having a sahp has any bearing on outcomes for the child or is any indicator of neglect or abuse.

It's nonsense to suggest it does

That's the second time you've made an odd reference to the phrase "thousands of generations". Are you a Creationist?

YOU were the one writing about how feminists have apparently ruined a work/life balance that had worked for "thousands of generations". Hence my ridicule. See you own post yesterday at 12:12.

But also from your earlier post on this subject, it seems you don't understand that evolution isn't about voluntary choices. There is no patriarchal conspiracy or intelligent (malevolent) design intended to keep women subjugated. There is simply what works, and what doesn't, in terms of genes being passed from one generation to the next, and those species most able to adapt to a changing environment will thrive. The next adaptation may indeed involved dispensing with men entirely - who knows?

It seems to be you that has no idea what evolution is or how it functions or over what timescales. Hint: neither male or female humans evolved to have careers or do housework. 🤣🤣

it is only in the last blink of an eye that most men gained property rights. And in many countries white women gained those rights well before men or women of colour. So there's a little bit of privilege that needs checking, methinks

Except that it was me who pointed out to you that what you're claiming is somehow an inherent part of our biology/ evolution is not the case, and that the time you were referring to (which was not thousands of generations ago 🤣) where your ideal model of a family existed for a short time it only existed for a very small proportion of privileged people anyway.

You really need to keep better track of what you've said and people's replies to avoid looking so foolish.

Well, that is where we will have to disagree. I happen to think that the 7 billion people currently on the planet all evolved to be exactly where they are today. Any perceived disparities are a consequence of that evolutionary process, not a failure of it.

You can disagree all you like. That doesn't change the fact the evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with modern social structures. To even claim it does shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is.

Evolution does however have everything to do with feminism and our striving for better in these modern times. Simply put, women have evolved whilst men have become obsolete.

Evolution has nothing to do with it.

Evolution has to do with everything on this planet.

Final gripe - even if you take a shortened timeline, of just recorded human history going back a few thousand years, it is only in the last blink of an eye that most men gained property rights. And in many countries white women gained those rights well before men or women of colour. So there's a little bit of privilege that needs checking, methinks. And/or an apology, or a clarification, at least, because currently, this line of argument is just odd.

I don't see how "privilege checking" comes into this?

The fact that white people generally speaking gained property rights before people of colour is absolutely true but neither here nor there in terms of this argument: why should that be a reason for men to hold back on supporting women (white or otherwise) in working? Do you think women of colour are any less preoccupied with this than white women?

Historically many progressive movements have been led by relatively affluent, privileged and well-educated people on behalf of and to benefit those less privileged than themselves. The Labour movement and socialism being prime examples. You can argue the toss about whether or not those movements achieved what they set out to achieve but no one would seriously argue that women need to get to the back of the queue because men of colour aren't there yet. That assumes that there's some inherent pecking order which requires that the social justice of all mean to come before those of women. It's a flawed logic.

all men, not all mean

It’s true that these forums are not a representative sample. There must be good men out there.

But my own experiences in the dating world over the past 7 years do reflect this. Absolutely unbelievable behaviour. I’m staying single because I can’t cope with these experiences anymore. Cats are equally useless but at least they’re good company.

Not quite nonsense. Absence of published research doesn't mean the idea is rubbish. Commonsense and your own life experience are also evidence, albeit not research evidence.

Have you not tried partnering up with another woman? It’s the best way forward for a lot of women in your shoes and if my husband ever stops being useful to me then I will be doing that for sure.

@Stillcountingbeans

How does common sense come into it?

Of course its nonsense to suggest working that working parents are more likely to neglect their children than a sahp

What's always baffled me is the posters that claim parenting is equal to a full time job yet seem to manage to spend hours posting on mumsnet in the daytime. 🤔

Literally all the neglectful mums I've met have been non workers. Drinking/smoking weed in the day, smoking cigarettes in the house etc, XL bullies left around the kids, etc. Dodgy boyfriends etc. Not things I've commonly seen from professional office workers.

@PeanutButterSmoothie

What's always baffled me is the posters that claim parenting is equal to a full time job yet seem to manage to spend hours posting on mumsnet in the daytime. 🤔

I don't see anywhere NEAR as many mums spending hours and hours a day posting on mumsnet, (whilst claiming to be busy and frazzled,) as I do women claiming they are in high-flying, super-busy, professional, demanding highly-paid careers doing so!

There are waaaay more 'busy career women' in 'niche' careers (that they can't name as it's identifying,) who claim the job is very busy, who are always on here, than there are busy mums.

@PeanutButterSmoothie

Literally all the neglectful mums I've met have been non workers. Drinking/smoking weed in the day, smoking cigarettes in the house etc, XL bullies left around the kids, etc. Dodgy boyfriends etc. Not things I've commonly seen from professional office workers.

Sounds like you live in a pretty nasty, rough area. Have you thought about moving? It can't be easy for you living around all these heinous creatures. 😜

I am not talking about parents who both work a normal 30-40 hour week - obvs that is no problem. I am talking about parents who both work 60-70+ hours. That should have been clear from my original post about it.

Not quite nonsense. Absence of published research doesn't mean the idea is rubbish. Commonsense and your own life experience are also evidence, albeit not research evidence

When a great many large studies have been conducted and not found even a correlation has been found, it's ridiculous to assert that it is anything but unsubstantiated nonsense.

@Stillcountingbeans

Even parents who work 60/70 hours a week wouldnt automatically be guilty of neglect

Good quality childcare for working hours plus good quality time spent together on days off.

Wouldn't be my choice but its not neglect

Having a sahp isn't better for children

Good grief. What does the term latchkey kid refer to? Is it used pejoratively, or is it something parents are proud to call their kids, do you think?

Oh, and for all this chat about everything needing to be published as peer-reviewed research - citations please.

There seems to be a complete absence of understanding of the basics of statistics and scientific method. Falsifiability, Representativeness, Generalisability, Correlation v. Causation? Where did anyone post that anyone working long hours is "automatically guilty of neglect"???

An observed phenomenon is just that. There are loads of factors that could cause that phenomenon. I wrote of a small number of single dads that were mainly widowers and far greater number of single mums that were mainly divorcees or never married. That observation is a fact. Not a theory. A fact. It referred to a specific cohort of people whose circumstances are known and whose children's outcomes have been measured. Whether that fact has enough validity to substantiate a theory is quite another matter. Whether that theory can be generalised to the general population is quite another matter. Neither of these claims were actually made - they were inferred.

Now, it is reasonable to wonder whether anything might explain those observations? For example - might differences in wealth have a stronger influence on a child's outcomes than the sex of the parent or their employment status? One might hypothesise that children living in single parent households where that parent is a widow / widower are, on average, wealthier than where that parent is a divorcee or was never married, all other things being equal. Intuitively it seems plausible that life insurance and/or compensation payments, which will have been paid to widows / widowers in at least some cases, will increase the average wealth of that cohort. Likewise it seems plausible that the expense of doubling up on the fixed overheads of maintaining two homes will reduce the average disposable income of parents who divorce, all other things being equal. It would seem like a reasonable basis for a research question. And I'd be staggered if there wasn't at least some influence on outcomes. There are hundreds of alternative hypotheses that could yet be explored, tested, found to have some utility, or discarded. The impact of long covid and lockdowns on learning is another massive topic that demands further research, where deteriorating outcomes are already clearly visible but the theories that explain-predict-control for those outcomes have not yet been developed or tested. We are not at a point yet where all knowledge has already been discovered, written up and published. Oh, hang on - unless you are a creationist. Of course. Makes more sense now.