On 10/3/2017 7:17 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 18:38:22 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2017-10-03 5:56 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:54:55 -0400, Dave Smith
>>
>>>> Funny how it works in real life. Marriage was a social institution that
>>>> formalized a commitment between two people. It wasn't perfect, but it
>>>> did make it difficult to get out of the commitment. One thing that it
>>>> did ensure was alimony. Nowadays people want to live together without
>>>> that commitment, but they still expect the alimony. I realize there are
>>>> different circumstances in marital breakups, but my take on it is that I
>>>> do not think that a person's financial responsibility in a relationship
>>>> should have to continue after the relationship ends. Just because on of
>>>> the people in the relationship was financially dependent on the other
>>>> does not mean it should continue after the relationship has ended.
>>>
>>> In the traditional situation, the man has the career and the woman
>>> looks after the children and the household. Then they divorce after 30
>>> years. Do you now want the man to be rich and the woman to be poor?
>>
>>
>> Should that not depend on the situation? Some women choose to give up
>> work and stay home with the kids. It beats going out to work.
>
> I don't know it it beats going out to work. It depends on the job.
> She's stuck at home with housework and children.
>
> Anyway, these days both partners often work and the children are
> looked after by strangers during the day. That changes everything, I
> think.
>

To a woman that wants kids, she does not look at it as being "stuck" at
home. She is there to take care of her children.

IMO, if you are going to have kids, a parent should stay home to raise
them, not put them in a warehouse for the day. Yes, I'm old fashioned
that way, but I think you get better kids in the long run.