Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyororin
When you can pull that off with a disabled kid, call me.
But even if that weren`t the case, I certainly don`t think that taking responsibility for living space and spending the time to personally raise a child is being a "servant". But hey, I guess that`s just me.
|
Do you have a disabled child? If you do, then I really am sorry. Suddenly, all of the discussions we've had about this topic in the past make sense to me.
It's my personal opinion, however, that it's not fair anyone should have to automatically assume a prescribed role under any circumstances, just because of their gender or their race or their sexual orientation. If I had a disabled child and I had a husband, I wouldn't want him to say that I'm the woman, and so I have to stay at home.
Even under circumstances where a child isn't disabled, it's difficult to raise a child. It's difficult to keep a house clean and in order. It's a full-time job, well into the night after the main breadwinner - man or woman - has returned home. And, unfortunately, in the culture that I've been raised in, not much value is placed on the partner who stays at home. Not much value it put on the person who cooks, cleans, and raises the children. More value is placed on making money.
This becomes apparent when the partners decide to become separated and, through legal divorce, one person wins more money and benefits than the other. Usually, it's the person who has worked for the money that will get more out of the divorce. I've read about situations where the ones who stayed at home don't get anything, and are completely screwed over, even they've worked very hard for however long their partnership lasted.
I don't think it's much of a coincidence that it's usually the woman who is expected to stay at home.