Interesting Guardian logic here

If full-time parenting was that fulfilling, more men would have been doing it

Hmm. If science was that fulfilling then more women would have been doing it.

If being a CEO, judge, entrepreneur, engineer were that fulfilling then more women would have been doing it.

They don\’t therefore obviously none of these things can be that fulfilling.

23 thoughts on “Interesting Guardian logic here”

  1. It’s not so much that it’s not fulfilling (it is), it’s that women are just better at it.

    Homo sapiens have been on this planet for something like 4.2 million years, and for all but about what 30-60 of those, having physical strength was how most crusts were earnt (and in many parts of the world, still are).

    So, humans have evolved into specialisations of throwing spears and suckling children. Switching from that to perhaps more generalised roles for men and women just isn’t going to happen in a hurry.

  2. You do realise that by using logic at her you are showing what an oppressive patriarch you are, you bastard!

  3. Deborah Orr makes no sense, but the good bishop she quotes is terrifying:

    “Where one parent makes a conscious decision to stay at home for the children … they shouldn’t be penalised. The evidence is that what the parent is doing is investing in a child’s development, which can save the state significant amounts of money at a later stage. It helps children to develop into adults who are more likely to fulfil their potential and make a net contribution to society.”

  4. Females are better at suckling children (not an evolutionary step taken uniquely by humans). But after the first six months, that’s irrelevant.

    Tim’s logic isn’t up to much. There are barriers to becoming a judge which don’t exist for the role of full-time parent. What Ms Orr wrote

    If full-time parenthood was as completely and unfailingly fulfilling as its cheerleaders suggest, then men would have been falling over themselves through the ages to try it out.

    makes sense.

    Tim adds: Which is why I said “Guardian” logic, not Ms. Orr’s logic. For I’m well aware that writers do not write their own headlines.

  5. It makes no fucking sense whatsoever. ‘Through the ages’ is a very long time. Until recently, a lot of family money was earned by mining coal, making steel, laying brick, digging roads, ploughing fields – all jobs women can do but which men are better suited to.

    Technology has changed that and the employment picture is changing with it.

    Additionally, it’s my view (personal of course, but based on experience) that women simply are better at rearing young children. More patient, more loving, kinder, quieter. This is a generalisation, as is “men are usually taller than women”.

  6. Interested, many women dug for coal too. They might not have been swinging those pickaxes, but they were down those mines too. Until Victorian puritans came along and demanded that they stop working half naked (it’s very hot down a mine) and tend to the children. Now the New Puritans are demanding that women give up on children and work. At least they haven’t reversed the half-naked trend. 😉

  7. If full-time parenthood was as completely and unfailingly fulfilling as its cheerleaders suggest, then men would have been falling over themselves through the ages to try it out.

    makes sense.

    I’d suggest that men never got the opportunity in the past. If you lived in Glasgow in the 1930s or the East End of London in the 1940s, and you’re a sensitive man who’d like to raise kids, what’s your wife going to do? Bash in rivets or unload ships?

    In terms of being a great catch, well, you weren’t. Along comes a load of technology like computers and robots and the rules change. Honda don’t employ a lot more women than they used to because of The Female Eunuch, but because they lost a lot of line jobs and created a lot of customer care and marketing jobs.

    So, we’ll probably see a change, but it’s going to take time because we’ll need at least a few generations for sensitive men to grow in number.

  8. There was an interesting programme I saw on iplayer a while back about the role of fathers in the early 20thC, I don’t know how it got past the BBC commissars really as it was at complete right angles to the orthodox feminist grain. It showed that the conventional view of fathers at that time as stern and remote patriarchs was bollocks and dealt with such things as parenting classes for men in the 1920s. Most people from a working class background could have told them that anyway, just as they could point out that women didn’t first go out to work in the 1960s but it’s news to the progressive middle class progressive still.

  9. If we’re talking about efficiency, clearly allowing non-specialists to do a highly specialised job is a bad plan. Childcare should be contracted-out to those whose core-competency it is. It’s notable that children brought up in creches don’t turn out badly, so arguably the parenting makes little difference.

    But of course, it’s not about efficiency; it doesn’t matter a damn which is ‘better’ (for some value of the word). It’s all about personal choice, and that means letting people do what they want without interfering.

  10. One amusing implicit assumption is that men were, or are, free to make such a choice. The delusions of Feminism are seemingly without end.

  11. @SadLad: “Interested, many women dug for coal too.”

    Which is why I said, women could do these jobs too. As you say, though, they were not swinging many pick axes, and back then that was actually what got the coal out.

    To take IanB’s point further, if 60,000 women had been mown down on the first day of the Somme, we would never hear the fucking end of it. So much of life is swings and roundabouts.

  12. So Much for Subtlety

    PaulB – “Females are better at suckling children (not an evolutionary step taken uniquely by humans). But after the first six months, that

  13. So Much for Subtlety

    PaulB – “Females are better at suckling children (not an evolutionary step taken uniquely by humans). But after the first six months, that-s irrelevant.”

    So you will no doubt be joining me in calling for reform to the divorce system so that gender is no longer taken into consideration when assigning custody of small children? Past six months they should go to the most financially secure parent, right?

    “There are barriers to becoming a judge which don-t exist for the role of full-time parent.”

    You mean like academic success and hard work?

  14. @IanB

    “One amusing implicit assumption is that men were, or are, free to make such a choice. The delusions of Feminism are seemingly without end.”

    Quite. Although Tim, it appears, is similarly disillusioned about the freedom women have had to be judges and scientists.

  15. So Much for Subtlety

    The Thought Gang – “Although Tim, it appears, is similarly disillusioned about the freedom women have had to be judges and scientists.”

    Well if I can borrow an article from the Late Great David Stove, women in the past were traditionally tied down by having children which limited their chances of great careers. Unless they were nuns. If they were nuns they were often encouraged to work full time in areas where they could have made significant intellectual contributions.

    You starting listing all the nuns that did so. I will start listing all the monks who did likewise.

    William of Occam. Roger Bacon. Erasmus.

    You done yet?

  16. If full-time parenting was that fulfilling, more men would have been doing it

    If Rusbridger devoted less time to practising his piano, he might be able to help what remains of his staff to write grammatical headlines.

    were not was for heaven’s sake…

  17. @ SMFS

    Wow, you really don’t like to miss any tenuous opportunity to throw in one of your pre-rehearsed set-pieces, do you. I get it. Women are shit. Also, if I recall correctly, so are black people and poor people. And gays too, probably.

    You’re entitled to your opinions about why the world is he want is, and why people have/haven’t done the things they have/haven’t done. And I’m entitled to think that you’re a bigot and a troll. I think it’s a shame that you find there’s an audience for your smug privileged drivel here, but life is what it is.

    So, if you’re OK with it, we’ll make a deal where you don’t waste any of your time writing stuff you’d like me to read, and I don’t waste any of my time not reading it. Yeah? Good.

  18. Er….the practice of women making a full time occupation of staying at home & raising children was a phenomenon of what, the middle decades of the C20th? Before that women generally worked. Before that everyone worked, children included. Even the concept of a “child” as opposed to an infant, is C19th.

  19. With regard to SMFS’s point, one explanation may be that women tend to be outcomes focussed, i.e. practical. This is very useful, but intellectually limiting, since intellectual pursuits tend to require a lot of interest in useless knowledge. What use is it to know that stones of different weights fall at the same speed, or whether dead brewers yeast still respirates?

    People tend to focus on whether men and women are equally capable. What is more significant is whether they are equally motivated. And whether that is cultural or biological.

  20. So Much for Subtlety

    The Thought Gang – “Wow, you really don’t like to miss any tenuous opportunity to throw in one of your pre-rehearsed set-pieces, do you.”

    It is not that tenuous. A little perhaps, but if we are discussing why women are not judges, then the reasons why they are not judges is entirely relevant.

    “I get it. Women are shit. Also, if I recall correctly, so are black people and poor people. And gays too, probably.”

    Probably.

    “And I’m entitled to think that you’re a bigot and a troll.”

    Oh please. I would not want it any other way. However that does not mean the hidden assumption that we are all equal and any failure to obtain equal outcomes is due to bigotry should pass unchallenged.

    19 bloke in spain – “Er….the practice of women making a full time occupation of staying at home & raising children was a phenomenon of what, the middle decades of the C20th? Before that women generally worked. Before that everyone worked, children included.”

    Not just in the 20th century but among White middle class women in the 20th century. At the time Hilary Clinton becoming prominent there were some interesting discussions about race and work. A classmate of HC said that she grew up always expecting to work because that is what Black women had to do. So she did not really get what the young Hilary was going on about. However if you consider some of my immediate female relatives who had to work, the sort of work they did was cleaning and cooking. Not the sort of work that is going to lead you to the Supreme Court.

  21. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “People tend to focus on whether men and women are equally capable. What is more significant is whether they are equally motivated. And whether that is cultural or biological.”

    I would be happy if we were allowed to talk about whether men and women were equally capable. We are not. The assumption is that we all are and that there is a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy of White Men keeping everyone else down.

    Well, we have tested this. We have had over 50 years of removing barriers and Affirmative Action. It may be true, but there does not appear to be any evidence for it. There must be some other cause for why White males continue to do well and most other people do not. On the whole I would prefer it was not a matter of ability given so much of our intellectual world is based on the idea that we are all equal. But it is something.

    I think motivation is a good possible cause. Men may be more motivated. You can see even on the internet males are more likely to argue and fight. I imagine that makes for much better scientists on the whole. But is that cultural – with girls being taught to be well behaved – or is it biological – due to testosterone perhaps?

    Ultimately the human race does seem to have evolved for women to stay closer to home and look after children while men go out and bring home the bacon. It is also what most people are actually happy with. Perhaps we could be socialised to be different, but I know of no society in the world where human beings do behave differently. What is more, women appear by no means happier when their husbands stay home and become, in Sandra Tsing-Loh s lovely phrase, kitchen bitches.

    So instead of Ms Orr trotting out the usual 70s feminist cliches, perhaps we could have a slightly more honest discussion about what is going on?

  22. Yes, we’ve tested it. There’s one profession, demanding large numbers of talented and highly trained workers, where cultural and recruitment barriers have been removed – medicine. The result is that 40% and rising of UK doctors are women.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *