Why do so many anons on here get personally offended when a woman

>>17447010
>child rearing

fuck off faggot

>>17447010
>Why do so many anons on here get personally offended when a woman says she wants to delegate the child rearing to her willing husband, as if they feel a woman should not have time for herself?
It's the implication of totality: delegating ALL of the child rearing to someone else. This is one of those duties that needs to be shared. It requires the sacrifice of some personal time, even when shared, but not all of it.

>Nobody bats an eye when a man delegates the child rearing to his willing wife.
It has been decades since that statement was last true, at least when taken to mean total reponsibility for child rearing.

>>17447010
>so many
>literally no one

File: giphy.gif (2MB, 444x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 444x250px

>>17447033
>It's the implication of totality
But I made a post that said I would delegate most of the child rearing to my husband, not all, and some anon jumped on me all the same. Do you even read what people post?

>>17447055
>most

That's the issue. It has to be equal for it to really work.

File: 01-00.jpg (62KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1280x720px

>>17447105
So first it was total now you take an issue with most too? You were lying before?

>It has to be equal for it to really work
Why? It's not equal with a lot of parents, it wasn't equal with my parents and it worked all the same. Do you have any basis for what you say or are you just projecting your insecurities?

>>17447055
>But I made a post that said I would delegate most of the child rearing to my husband, not all, and some anon jumped on me all the same.
How was I to know that? You didn't link to it, or even mention it, before this post.

We get these kinds of threads all the time. But in most cases the question is purely hypothetical, not linked to any thread in particular, because honestly, discussions about a particular thread belong in that thread.

>Do you even read what people post?
Nobody reads every single thread here. Life interferes, and even when it doesn't, there are other reasons to avoid certain threads: for example, threads where one's own life experience clearly isn't what is needed to provide a helpful answer.

As it happens, this thread was the first one I read this morning. At the time, as stated above, I had no reason to think that the thread was referencing any other specific thread. So I took the post at face value, and responded accordingly.

>>17447133
>So first it was total now you take an issue with most too? You were lying before?
You are talking to at least two different people. I wrote >>17447033 and >>17447134 (and, of course, this post), but I did not write the one you were replying to just now.

File: 8fd10e97de081644418fccb974f309cc1343002733_full.png (259KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 640x360px

>>17447136
That still doesn't explain why it should be equal to work when in fact it's not and it works all the same, especially when it's the father who agrees to do most of the rearing.

Why is it that you are so unwilling to share the responsibility of taking care of the child equally with the father? I think everyone is getting pissy because in your other thread, you come off as obscenely selfish. You would just be better off not having children.

(for the record, I never want children so I don't particularly care what you do, just offering my opinion)

File: BEATS by Dad.jpg (61KB, 602x602px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 602x602px

>>17447010

I would gladly be a stay at home, dad.

House would be clean.
Kids well behaved and have excellent manners.
Bills paid on time.

That is if I could have kids; got a vasectomy 7 years ago.

Not a single fucking regret.

>>17447010
I don't give a shit either way. I'd happily stay at home and look after kids, would be rad.

>>17447105
What's going to happen if one parent takes majority of the responsibility? Nothing is going to happen.

File: tumblr_muuac4sInk1sif4cro2_500.gif (1001KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 500x281px

>>17447152
>Why is it that you are so unwilling to share the responsibility of taking care of the child equally with the father?
Because you people make it sound like that means compromising more time than I am willing to compromise.

>You would just be better off not having children
Hubby wants them with me. It's really his desire more than mine, I've never cared much for having kids but I love him so I don't mind indulging him, especially as he has agreed to take responsibility for what he wants and let me keep my own time.

>>17447010
don't see that much here at all. I do see women that have their husband/bf watch the kids as the she goes out on the town acting like she's single. I see why that would piss someone off.

File: 1469041093150.png (1MB, 1374x973px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1374x973px

I don't give a shit if a guy is a stay at home dad and they make it work.

The issue is that women may state they want a stay at home dad, but many often end up resenting being the breadwinner even if it's irrational and this is reflected by their inflated divorce rates. It's not like I'm going on some red pill rant here, this is something widely acknowledged. If a friend of mine said he was going to have an arrangement like that, I would encourage him to be very cautious with every step forward.

>>17447186
>I've never cared much for having kids but I love him so I don't mind indulging him
This is a terrible mindset entering motherhood. A child needs two parents, and if you're treating this as just something to shut him up I'd be very concerned.

I was under the impression that you were the bread winner and he was supposed to be a stay at home dad which is whatever, but apparently I was mistaken. Both parents should be excited to have a child, but you sound more apathetic than anything.

>>17447186
>I've never cared much for having kids but I love him so I don't mind indulging him, especially as he has agreed to take responsibility for what he wants and let me keep my own time.
It doesn't sound to me as though you really have any business having kids. Certainly you aren't going into it for a good reason: I can understand wanting to "indulge" one's partner, but there are limits. What you need to do is put your foot down on the issue.

Of course, this is probably somethibg that should have been hashed out a long time ago. Say, before you got married. Now there's a big mess that needs to be untangled, including a fundamental incompatibility when it comes to having children.

>>17447222
Shut him up? I have no intention to shut him up, I like it when he talks about our future child. It makes me feel a warm fuzzy feeling inside and it makes me love him all the more. He'll make a wonderful dad.

>This is a terrible mindset entering motherhood
I don't think so, my own mother wasn't sure in the beginning (while my father was) and she ended up being a wonderful mother. Not having a child is not an option because it would devastate him and I really don't want him to be sad or devastated. I don't hate my child or anything, I just expect the father to handle it when I'm busy with anything else. He's a good man and I know I can rely on him, I'm sure the child will grow up fine like I did myself.

>you sound more apathetic than anything
I'm sorry you get that impression, it's just that my own time for my things is a matter that concerns me deeply.

>>17447238
>What you need to do is put your foot down on the issue
Why though? I don't want to. I'm happy with our arrangement.

>Now there's a big mess that needs to be untangled, including a fundamental incompatibility when it comes to having children
What big mess? He knows how I feel and he's fine with it, why are you creating problems that don't exist?

>>17447245
>Shut him up? I have no intention to shut him up
By your own admission you're merely indulging him. You're allowing him a pleasure.

>it's just that my own time for my things is a matter that concerns me deeply.
Exactly, it's more important to you than this hypothetical child. Which is fine, not everyone is set up for parenthood. The problem is you're going forward with it anyways to placate your husband.

Your words are very clear. This is not something you care about. You should not have a child. However it's not as if I can prevent you from getting knocked up to keep your husband busy, so all I can do is hope the child manages to weather through it all.

>>17447260
Indulging: to allow oneself to follow one's will. Yep, he brought up wanting kids and I decided to follow his will in this matter, because I weighed the pros and the cons and decided with him it was worth it.

>You're allowing him a pleasure
That's what kids are when they're wanted.

>Exactly, it's more important to you than this hypothetical child
Not more, just equally important. I dread becoming one of those mothers who never have time for themselves, having time for yourself is important, that's why I made this arrangement with my husband. I never agreed with the notion that a child suddenly becomes more important than your own well-being, especially since if you're not well you're not going to be able to take care of a child well either.

>manages to weather through it all
And why wouldn't they? Again, my own mother wasn't sure of her pregnancy and I "weathered" through it all fine, in fact I have a great relationship with her to this day. So much drama for no reason.

>The problem is you're going forward with it anyways to placate your husband
I don't think placate is the right word here, it's not like he's angry or anything. Why should it be a problem for a happy couple to have a kid they've decided to have?

>>17447055
Oh you're just butthurt lol

Why create a whole new thread about this when the other one is still up and active?

Also why do you care so much about what anonymous people think about you? You just seem mad that not everyone here is validating your feelings. Go on Babycenter or Cafemoms, there are motherless women on there that would gladly shitpost with you

>>17447451
Come on, there's no comparison. Riling up the bitter failures on here is too much fun.

>>17447010
>>17447055
>>17447146
>>17447186

Who IS this semen demon?

>>17447010
because they think it's still the 50s

if the guy wants to take care of the kids, let him

good fucking god, with all the unhappy fucking people on this board you would think they'd be happy with a guy doing what he wants to do

maybe they're scared that if it becomes more common for guys to take care of kids, they'll be expected to do it too instead of fobbing it all off on wifey like they were planning to

who knows

File: 1467249036861.jpg (131KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 720x720px

>>17447010
If I work all day and pay the bills I expect my wife to do her basic duties of housekeeping and watching the child. How hard is that to comprehend?

File: 820174890271.gif (987KB, 341x250px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 341x250px

>>17447010
Both mother and father have a part to play in child rearing. I honestly don't see why either parent should have time to themselves; it just seems like millennial horse shit to me.

That said, I have no problem with a man being the caretaker of his children.

>>17448427
> it just seems like millennial horse shit to me.

/thread

File: 1469579444946.png (127KB, 589x265px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 589x265px

>>17448427
>millennial

>>17447010
>Why do so many anons on here get personally offended when a woman says she wants to delegate the child rearing to her willing husband, as if they feel a woman should not have time for herself?

Because men don't have rights as fathers.
No rights, no responsibilities, bizatch.

>>17447010
>>17447186
I'll make it easy for you:

you're an asshole

your kid will be an asshole

don't have kids

Now fuck off and stop making these threads.