Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

women working outside of the home is not the cause of society's high divorce rate. 

Here’s a reference that shows a direct correlation between women working and a higher divorce rate:

https://www.unitedfamilies.org/marriage/divorce/what-is-the-impact-to-a-marriage-when-the-wife-works-outside-the-home/

[Grug the Neanderthal]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I claim this went on too long.

On what grounds?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

There are cost and benefits for women working.

Yes, of course. The main benefit is more money, but at what cost? 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Right, "unnecessarily" suggests that it is not likely a single mother of a divorced home, and does not necessarily imply latchkey kids.   What it suggests to me is a two-parent home where the mother decides to work.  According to him, that is a "major" contributing factor in the the "absolutely catastrophic" downfall of the family and delinquency of teens.    That is simply unsupported nonsense that is misattributing guilt and shame on working mothers.  

I'm not sure how you get there.  Whether by necessity or by choice, kids are being left without parental supervision for long stretches.  They are in "latchkey" circumstances.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure how you get there.  Whether by necessity or by choice, kids are being left without parental supervision for long stretches.  They are in "latchkey" circumstances.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not sure how you get there.  Neanderthal is speaking about working mothers in general, and you both seem to be suggesting that working mothers unavoidably results in latchkey kids or single parent homes, divorce, delinquent, depressed and messed up kids, etc.  It simply doesn't seem to work that way in my observation. for the mothers that I know who work. 

I know lots of mothers who work and coordinate their work with their kids schooling/work/extra-curricular activities, or provide other methods of parental supervision for their kids when their schedules don't perfectly coincide.  Many choose to work for the school district to have matching breaks.  Others take the summer off.  Others choose jobs with really flexible schedules or choose to work places that they can telecommute (becoming very popular).  Many choose to become independent bloggers, or copywriters, or medical transcriptionists, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.  The possibilities seem to be endless to allow women to work by choice and provide supervision for their children.    Between work and school and extra-curricular activities for kids, there is often very little time where other methods of supervision need to be arranged.  Some only choose to work part-time.    

These dire warnings catastrophe over the general condition of women working is turning me off.  There are so many options to make it work. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, of course. The main benefit is more money, but at what cost? 

My wife would disagree.  She wants to work desperately, but not for the money.  She wants her sanity back from being around kids 24/7.   When my little one starts 1st grade, she is going to start working to feel like she has some purpose outside the home and to exercise her brain and socialize with other adults without kids pulling on her and demanding her attention, but again, it's not for the money for her.   Improved well-being of the mother = improved relationships all around = happy home.  

Edited January 31, 2023 by pogi

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Here’s a reference that shows a direct correlation between women working and a higher divorce rate:

https://www.unitedfamilies.org/marriage/divorce/what-is-the-impact-to-a-marriage-when-the-wife-works-outside-the-home/

You are not at all suspicious of the source here?

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

I'm not sure how you get there.  Whether by necessity or by choice, kids are being left without parental supervision for long stretches.  They are in "latchkey" circumstances.  

I'm not sure how you get there.  

Via the data.  A "latchkey" kid left unsupervised for hours on end because his custodial parent(s) must absent himself/herself/themselves is no more or less a "latchkey" kid left unsupervised for hours on end because his custodial parent(s) choose to absent himself/herself/themselves.

And none of this is a disparagement.  It's just the reality we see.

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

Neanderthal is speaking about working mothers in general, and you both seem to be suggesting that working mothers unavoidably results in latchkey kids or single parent homes, divorce, delinquent, depressed and messed up kids, etc.  

Well, no.  The data indicate that "latchkey" kids are at heightened risk for all sorts of unpleasant things.  This can be mitigated, and that mitigation can be effective.

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

It simply doesn't seem to work that way in my observation. for the mothers that I know who work. 

Well, in my sphere, the juvenile public defenders of my acquaintance are pretty much ubiquitous in their assessment, and the data appear to substantiate their anecdotal observations/experience.

I know a number of lawyers who defend juveniles, or their parents, or both in juvenile court or in criminal proceedings relating to "parental" issues.  They seem pretty well situated to have almost a front-row seat to the problems that arise from "latchkey" situations.  I'm glad the mothers of your acquaintance are able to things work.  But attorneys (and, I suspect, law enforcement) are the "boots on the ground" who are witnessing the bad things arising from "latchkey" situations.  

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

I know lots of mothers who work and coordinate their work with their kids schooling/work/extra-curricular activities, or provide other methods of parental supervision for their kids when their schedules don't perfectly coincide.  Many choose to work for the school district to have matching breaks.  Others take the summer off.  Others choose jobs with really flexible schedules or choose to work places that they can telecommute (becoming very popular).  Many choose to become independent bloggers, or copywriters, or medical transcriptionists, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.  

I'm very glad to hear that.  Many families lack the resources, the financial and logistical means, the social/familial network, etc. to implement these mitigating efforts.  And as a result, lots and lots of kids end up in "latchkey" circumstances.  And as a result of that, there are all sorts of unpleasant things happening during the hours and hours when these kids are bereft of parental/adult supervision.  

Again, this is not a disparagement of anyone.  This is just the way things are.

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

The possibilities seem to be endless to allow women to work by choice and provide supervision for their children.

Ah.  So you seem to be defensive of women who want to "work by choice."  Is that it?

If so, that's fine.  A parent may well be able to voluntarily absent himself/herself from supervising the kiddos outside of school hours and mitigate that absence by the "etc. etc. etc. etc. etc." things you reference.  I hope such mitigating efforts make up for the absence of a devoted and attentive parent.  I suspect such efforts sometimes fall short, even seriously so.  

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

These dire warnings catastrophe over the general condition of women working is turning me off.  There are so many options to make it work. 

I haven't done that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, in my sphere, the juvenile public defenders of my acquaintance are pretty much ubiquitous in their assessment, and the data appear to substantiate their anecdotal observations/experience.

I know a number of lawyers who defend juveniles, or their parents, or both in juvenile court or in criminal proceedings relating to "parental" issues.  They seem pretty well situated to have almost a front-row seat to the problems that arise from "latchkey" situations.  I'm glad the mothers of your acquaintance are able to things work.  But attorneys (and, I suspect, law enforcement) are the "boots on the ground" who are witnessing the bad things arising from "latchkey" situations.  

You do realize that this would be a wonderful textbook example of a sampling bias?

Edited January 31, 2023 by The Nehor

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, I want a reference for your claim that my opinion is unsupported nonsense.

Again, I can't prove a negative.  If there are no studies to support your opinion (it wasn't all stated as opinion - some of it you were "absolutely certain" about), then there are no studies to support it.  I can't show you something that doesn't exist to prove that it doesn't exist. 

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

However I am absolutely able to provide evidence to support my opinion. Here’s one study that supports my opinion:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2003/nov/14/workandcareers

You like that word, "absolute/absolutely", don't you?  Interesting.  So, you think this supports your opinion that working mothers (no qualifiers made by you whatsoever) are major factors in the "absolutely" (there it is again) catastrophic decay of the family?

Lets see what it says:

First qualifier: The negative consequences were only seen in families where mothers work "in the years before they start school".  Hmmm, you seemed to make an unqualified remark about "working mothers" in general.   Where these results found to be major contributing factors to the catastrophic decay of the family?

It says they have "slower emotional development and score less well in reading and maths tests".  Hmmm, not quite the major contributor to the absolutely catastrophic decay of the family as you claim.  

Another qualifier:

"The consequences were less severe for the children of better-educated mothers. And the positive effects of higher household income brought about by the mother returning to work went some way to compensate for the negative effect of reduced contact in the early years."

Ok, so the positive effects offset some of the negative effects when families invest in a woman's education. 

Another important tidbit that makes your blanket statement about working mothers not quite so "absolute":

"Parents are increasingly finding creative ways to be with their children more, such as shift parenting."  

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Now please provide a reference showing that there’s no evidence whatsoever that mother absence in the home has a negative impact on the family, particularly the children. Otherwise please retract your charge.

That wasn't your claim. Your claim wasn't simply that a mothers absence has a negative impact, it was that a mothers absence (with no qualifications, but was stated as a blank statement shame of all mothers who work (regardless of child age, or maternal education, shift parenting, work schedule, etc. etc.) is a "major" contributing factor to the absolutely catastrophic decay of the family and contributing to delinquency in teens.   

12 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I work with teens, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that the decay of the family has been absolutely catastrophic for many of them. 

There's that "absolute"ness again with everything you seem to say. 

12 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

How much of this can be attributed to women leaving the home unnecessarily and how much of it is due to other factors is hard to say. But it’s definitely a factor, a major one in my opinion.

Again, "it is definitely a factor" is not an opinion.  It is a "major" factor is your opinion.  And a seemingly unsupported one at that, so far. 

For you to support your claim, you have to provide studies which show that working mothers (without any qualifying factors whatsoever) are "definitely a factor" (and probably a "major factor") in the "absolutely catastrophic' decay of the family. 

That's not misattributing shame to working mothers (without any qualifying factors) at all, is it?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

My wife would disagree.  She wants to work desperately, but not for the money.  She wants her sanity back from being around kids 24/7.   When my little one starts 1st grade, she is going to start working to feel like she has some purpose outside the home and to exercise her brain and socialize with other adults without kids pulling on her and demanding her attention, but again, it's not for the money for her.   Improved well-being of the mother = improved relationships all around = happy home.  

You won’t be able to say that your wife going back to work will lead to "Improved well-being of the mother = improved relationships all around = happy home" until you try it out and see what happens. In the meantime this is all theoretical. 

But please return and report what impact your wife going back to work when your little one starts first grade has on the family. And be sure to give us frequent updates. So we can use that as anecdotal evidence. 

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  The data indicate that "latchkey" kids are at heightened risk for all sorts of unpleasant things.  This can be mitigated, and that mitigation can be effective.

I made a very specific point that you are not directly responding to here.  That point is the hinge point of what I am saying.  You are not addressing it.  Neanderthal made a non-qualified blanket statement about working mothers being a major contributing factor to the absolutely catastrophic decay of the family.   You keep talking about how latchkey kids are at heightened risk.  His comment and your unrelated comments about latchkey kids are not corresponding well.  for there to be latchkey kids, there has to be a very specific type of environment created by working mothers - that is a qualifier.  He made no qualifiers.   

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I haven't done that.

Well you seem to be defending Neanderthal who did.  I would disassociate myself from his uncareful, unsupported, and absolutist comments about the catastrophic consequences caused by mothers working in general (again with no qualifying statements).  

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

You won’t be able to say that your wife going back to work will lead to "Improved well-being of the mother = improved relationships all around = happy home" until you try it out and see what happens. In the meantime this is all theoretical. 

But please return and report what impact your wife going back to work when your little one starts first grade has on the family. And be sure to give us frequent updates. So we can use that as anecdotal evidence. 

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

You won’t be able to say that your wife going back to work will lead to "Improved well-being of the mother = improved relationships all around = happy home" until you try it out and see what happens. In the meantime this is all theoretical. 

But please return and report what impact your wife going back to work when your little one starts first grade has on the family. And be sure to give us frequent updates. So we can use that as anecdotal evidence. 

You just claimed that you can "absolutely" (once again) provide evidence to support your opinion about how working mothers (without any qualifying factors) are major contributing factors to the absolutely catastrophic decay of the family unit.  

Again back up your claim. CFR. Read your own link this time to see if it actually specifically addresses what you claimed.  

Seriously, my wife is going to destroy my family if she goes back to work when my kids are in school?  This is my last post to you.  This is all too much, and you are not even addressing my posts. 

My wife going back to work when my youngest is in first grade is supported by your own link which shows that these effects are seen when mothers work when children are not yet in school.    It's in your own "evidence" dude!  Curious, do you honestly think that my wife won't be able to find work to coordinate with my children schooling - that is her goal.   I'll be happy to report back.   Curious, this comment leads me to believe that you don't have much experience around many stay-at-home mothers who are knee deep in the toddler years.  Are you married with kids?  Too old to remember?  What is it?  Mothers need time away from their kids.  They need purpose outside the home.  They need to feel intellectually challenged beyond cooking, cleaning up messes (endlessly), play-time with toddlers who will not let you take your attention away from them for a second, resolving sibling conflicts, quieting outbursts, getting your kids to stop jumping on the couch, cleaning up crayons on the wall, cleaning up 'who-knows-what-that-is in the carpet), moping up water splashed all over during bath time leaking through to the basement, cleaning up vomit, care for the endless-cycle of sick kids from pre-school and primary contacts, and where playing with matchbox cars, dinosaurs and baby-dolls is your "fun" time etc. etc. etc. and doing this all with half-a-working-brain from sleep deprivation from kids waking up every night sick or scared.  Yah, if you think that having my kids away for school and providing an environment where adults actually listen to you and do what you say, and interact with you in engaging and interesting ways, and where you are rewarded for your efforts with money and recognition, if you think that is not going to contribute to the "improved well-being of my wife" which will contribute to a happier home over-all, you are "absolutely" nuts.   

Edited January 31, 2023 by pogi

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You do realize that this would be a wonderful textbook example of a sampling bias?

If there were not ample sociological data supporting their anecdotal observations, yes.

But there is, so it's not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Grug the Neanderthal]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

it wasn't all stated as opinion

Now you’re deflecting. Let’s stick to the facts. This is the comment of mine that you quoted and responded to:

"How much of this can be attributed to women leaving the home unnecessarily and how much of it is due to other factors is hard to say. But it’s definitely a factor, a major one in my opinion."

This statement of mine that you got all bent out of shape about and attacked with straw-man arguments and then dismissed as "unsupported nonsense," was clearly given as an opinion and not a fact. 

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

You like that word, "absolute/absolutely", don't you?

What’s up with the dig? I don’t talk to you this way. Please knock it off. 

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

Another important tidbit that makes your blanket statement about working mothers not quite so "absolute":

This is just another straw-man. I didn’t make the blanket statement you claim. Again, please read the actual opinion I gave. It’s in quotes above.

In any event, the study I shared does provide evidence to support my opinion. Does it provide irrefutable proof? No, but it's a piece of evidence that supports my opinion. 

And then there’s the study I shared with Bluebell about how there is a direct correlation between women working outside the home and higher divorce rates. Higher divorce rates means more broken homes. So again there’s evidence for my opinion. 

And that’s just two links. I can dig up a lot more evidence. And once again, my claim has never been that women working outside the home is the sole cause of the decay of the family or even the main cause. I gave it as my well-reasoned opinion that it’s a major factor. 

 

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

I made a very specific point that you are not directly responding to here.  That point is the hinge point of what I am saying.  You are not addressing it.  Neanderthal made a non-qualified blanket statement about working mothers being a major contributing factor to the absolutely catastrophic decay of the family.  

Okay.  I have been a bit more circumspect.  I think there are a variety of factors in play, absentee or derelict/neglectful/inattentive parents being a big one.  

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

You keep talking about how latchkey kids are at heightened risk.  

Yes.  That is the point I raised.  My comment only briefly touched on Neanderthal's qualified statement about "women leaving the home unnecessarily."  Men are also contributing to "latchkey" circumstances, a point I have also noted a few times now.  I have also said that we need to be supporting these parents regardless of how the "latchkey" circumstances arose.

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

His comment and your unrelated comments about latchkey kids are not corresponding well.  

If my comments are "unrelated," then let's just review them on their own merits, and not on whether they "correspond" with Neanderthal's.

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

for there to be latchkey kids, there has to be a very specific type of environment created by working mothers - that is a qualifier.  He made no qualifiers.   

He did at least once when he referenced "women leaving the home unnecessarily."

Most "latchkey" situations arise by necessity, not by choice.

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

I haven't done that.

Well you seem to be defending Neanderthal who did.  

To the extend his point corresponds with mine, yeah.  But the overlap is not huge.

Kids left unsupervised for long periods of time are at heightened risk for all sorts of troubles.  I have been working to be nuanced and general in my remarks, without much effort to find fault or blame.

If parents want to voluntarily leave there kids unsupervised for long periods, they can do things to mitigate the risks inherent in that decision.  And hopefully, those mitigation efforts pan out.  Meanwhile, lots and lots of folks lack the resources, the financial and logistical means, the social/familial network, etc. to implement these mitigating efforts.

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would disassociate myself from his uncareful, unsupported, and absolutist comments about the catastrophic consequences caused by mothers working in general (again with no qualifying statements).  

I was responding to his comment about "women leaving the home unnecessarily."  That seems like a qualified statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If there were not ample sociological data supporting their anecdotal observations, yes.

But there is, so it's not.

Thanks,

-Smac

Their observations are literally based around incidents of abuse and neglect and/or a broken marriage. Of course those kids are going to be messed up.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

"absolutely" (once again)

You really love to make digs at people don’t you?

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

Seriously, my wife is going to destroy my family if she goes back to work when my kids are in school?

You really love those straw-man arguments, too.

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is my last post to you.

I’m going to hold you to that.

But I would ask that if you aren’t going to respond to me directly anymore that you don’t make disparaging remarks about me to others, like you've been doing on this thread. Because I consider that to be disrespectful. 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, in my sphere, the juvenile public defenders of my acquaintance are pretty much ubiquitous in their assessment, and the data appear to substantiate their anecdotal observations/experience.

I know a number of lawyers who defend juveniles, or their parents, or both in juvenile court or in criminal proceedings relating to "parental" issues.  They seem pretty well situated to have almost a front-row seat to the problems that arise from "latchkey" situations.  I'm glad the mothers of your acquaintance are able to things work.  But attorneys (and, I suspect, law enforcement) are the "boots on the ground" who are witnessing the bad things arising from "latchkey" situations.  

I see plenty of issues where the kid's issues are definitely reflective of the parental environment....luckily almost none of that has to do with whether both parents work or not and far more to do with relationship difficulties or poor habits/stresses that rub off on the kids in varying ways. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Their observations are literally based around incidents of abuse and neglect and/or a broken marriage. Of course those kids are going to be messed up.

 "Neglect" can take many forms.  More affluent parents have more means to mitigate the effects of the lack of parental supervision that is at the heart of "latchkey" circumstances.  Less affluent parents often have fewer means.

Thanks,

Smac

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 "Neglect" can take many forms.  More affluent parents have more means to mitigate the effects of the lack of parental supervision that is at the heart of "latchkey" circumstances.  Less affluent parents often have fewer means.

Thanks,

Smac

So if we can close the wealth gap and work to eliminate poverty we can mitigate the problem. Nice! Let’s do that!

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Now you’re deflecting. Let’s stick to the facts. This is the comment of mine that you quoted and responded to:

"How much of this can be attributed to women leaving the home unnecessarily and how much of it is due to other factors is hard to say. But it’s definitely a factor, a major one in my opinion."

This statement of mine that you got all bent out of shape about and attacked with straw-man arguments and then dismissed as "unsupported nonsense," was clearly given as an opinion and not a fact. 

What’s up with the dig? I don’t talk to you this way. Please knock it off. 

This is just another straw-man. I didn’t make the blanket statement you claim. Again, please read the actual opinion I gave. It’s in quotes above.

In any event, the study I shared does provide evidence to support my opinion. Does it provide irrefutable proof? No, but it's a piece of evidence that supports my opinion. 

And then there’s the study I shared with Bluebell about how there is a direct correlation between women working outside the home and higher divorce rates. Higher divorce rates means more broken homes. So again there’s evidence for my opinion. 

And that’s just two links. I can dig up a lot more evidence. And once again, my claim has never been that women working outside the home is the sole cause of the decay of the family or even the main cause. I gave it as my well-reasoned opinion that it’s a major factor. 

Sigh.  Here is your quote I originally responded to:

14 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I work with teens, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that the decay of the family has been absolutely catastrophic for many of them. 

How much of this can be attributed to women leaving the home unnecessarily and how much of it is due to other factors is hard to say. But it’s definitely a factor [stated as a fact, not opinion], a major one in my opinion [this is your opinion here].

The only part that you claim as your opinion is that it is not just a factor, "but a major factor".  

To even imply that working mothers (without qualification) are contributing to the absolutely catastrophic decay of the family is really quite a thing to say.  Stating that it is your opinion that it is not just a factor but a "major" factor, doesn't soften the nature of the statement, it just makes it worse.  It is still your opinion, is it not?  Provide a CFR which demonstrates that working mothers (without condition) are "definitely" a factor in the catastrophic decay of the family unit which contributes to teenage delinquency.  Still waiting.  Then please try and support your opinion, if you can, while you are at it. 

I hope you can eventually find your way out of this mess of ideas you hold. 

So far you have provided evidence that a woman working before the school aged years has been correlated with some developmental delays with math, etc. in children, which is often offset some by the positive effects of the working mother - certainly nothing approaching the "absolutely catastrophic" decay of the family, that you claim.  

Now this is truly my last word.  I won't be here to rebut your next failed attempt at supporting your views with evidence.  

Edited January 31, 2023 by pogi

[MustardSeed]

I’m done here.  This is the most sexist baseless and assumptive thread I’ve seen here. 

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I have repeatedly and consistently said that I believe mothers leaving the home is one of the factors that has led to the decay of the family and higher divorce rates. I  never once claimed that as soon as a mother leaves the house all hell breaks loose. In fact I literately stated that it’s hard to say how much of this is due to mothers leaving the home to work and how much is due to other factors.

 Jumping in after reading through the last few pages.

Here's the problem I'm seeing: minus the feeling and personal bias you hold toward this, you're not giving any really good stats, figures, and umph to claims minus loose anectdotal assertions you've tied to the change in women working out of the home more often. Your one site isn't a "study" but a series of quotes from old sources (in terms of social research) that is usually quoting other unnamed research. You're making a lofty claim, one that is going to be inherently offensive, with crap evidence. But you keep asserting it sometimes almost as fact and then almost at the same moment as if it were just your opinion...but a really solid opinion that it has to be a factor because it "correlates" with the divorce rate.  

Correlation does not equal causation is an a research adage as old a time. And this correlation is fairly weak. yes, Divorce spiked at the same time that working moms started to increase from around 1970-1980. But this ignores that divorce had been rising for decades (albeit slowly and minus 1950's) before then and didn't have much of a correlation with working women before this. It ignores that divorce finished spiking by 1980 and started to drop significantly (we are by no means are "sky high"  divorce rates at this point)....even though workforce participation by women continued to rise well after, before it starts to dip gradually around the early 2000s. It ignores any other theory or possibly connection between these numbers, including reverse cause. Namely divorced women most often have to work to make ends meet....so if divorce rises working women would naturally rise with it. Or the obvious one of greater legal ability to divorce in a generation where there were also more couples at the right age to divorce in a uniquely large generation. Or that there were shifting values and expectations in marriage that settled into slightly healthier patterns after a while. Or that working moms often still carry disproportionate workloads in the home even if working equal hours, creating greater stress and higher chances of resentment since apparently a man can't pick up a mop. Or that those who would have divorced simply stopped marrying as much from either self awareness or less pressure to have to marry. Etc. I could go on and on with so many other potential reasons.

There's also quite a few counterfactuals too. For example currently the rate of marriage is highest among high income, highly educated couples. It's also that demo who generally have more working moms and less divorce.  

But none of this is really engaged with beyond vaguely noting there may be other reasons and then focusing on your pet theory affirmed by namely your anecdotal experience as both a child and I assume a father in a household with a SAHM. And any info or theories that are given that conflict with this are dismissed (such as pointing to reasons such as abuse

I don't want to put words in your mouth. I know you've used means to soften this by insisting there's issues with men as well, there's other unnamed issues that could also be at play (the only ones actually named tend to fit your religious/social stances already), it's moreso a specific type of working mom (aka the ones choosing to work "rather than nurture" their children), etc. Personally this doesn't do enough to make this position if not inherently sexist to some degree then at least deeply problematic. Because at the end of the day, the only correction for this trend if it were a cause would be for women (not men) to stay home with their kids and forgo work unless absolutely necessary where they will magically pick up a decent earning job that will fill in the financial gap with often with little to no work history and no recent work history. (Again, this last assertion made without evidence beyond "common knowledge," a knowledge I have never seen and runs counter to just about every last bit of info and experiences I've seen). There's no other solution given to this. 

You are allowed to your opinion. You can believe it till the end of your days. But that doesn't make you're opinion a good one. I get that you value SAHM's and working dads. Kudos. If that works for a family, great. What you're doing isn't just valuing but elevating by devaluing or gently denigrating any chosen path that's not that one. (note I said chosen v. forced into due to exceptions). That's not going to fly well. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by BlueDreams