Of course; and surely to be an informative and spirited discussion. I would probably start with the assumption that it's a "problem" and that the "strong parental leave and benefit systems" are optimal.
Well its a problem in the sense it is something that needs to be resolved, whether you view it as a negative or not. And I never made the argument that these systems are "optimal", merely that this kind of discussion would probably not be necessary if the system they had available to them were different. I sometimes feel you let "perfect" be the enemy of "improvement" when it comes to discussions of systemic changes.
No; I'm further down the continuum. I don't like "do anything" instead of "improvement", which so often happens here in the States, and I CERTAINLY don't like "entitlement" as an example of "improvement". Me, essentially, paying more so that these people don't have to face reality and do the hard work of a relationship is not an "improvement" (I'm speaking broadly to make a point, please).
For me, it's never as simple as just "give the entitlement", and I'm not really sure that we WANT to take away the discussion in cases like these. These people need MORE discussion - at least real discussion - not less.
I don't see how parents having to have a discussion concerning which one would need to sacrifice money or their career in order to give the necessary support to their child aids them in any way, especially if there are systems that could be implemented which gives them the option to retain more of both. In any case, more discussion is great, so long as it is directed towards the right things, and ensuring that systems do not promote discussion and debate of things that could be solved at a more fundamental level at the expense of more important discussions that have no systemic solution.
Well, if that's the discussion, I'm sort of with you, though it depends strongly on what we mean by "systems". I've used the word several times already, and too often "systems" means "entitlements". The answer isn't necessarily more government (or worse, corporation) funded programs that don't really solve the underlying problem, just reallocate the wealth so we're all feeling the burn. ANY discussion about how two people are going to parent is to be assumed beneficial. It's a commitment and a dedication to have kids. Sacrifices must be made. As I implied above, I'm not really interested in an entitlement program that simply lets parents who are potentially ill-equipped to have kids to begin with skate by without the hard work.
Regardless of whether there was a system in place, it's incumbent on the parents to meet the challenges in front of them while the children can't. I don't know, and I don't really care to speculate, but the overall tenor of the post suggests that in that arrangement, there will be conflict whether on this issue or another.
Sure, hence my careful phrasing that maybe it is not "purely" down to the individuals. Systemic failures do not completely (or in some cases at all) absolve individual failings, but we should also analyse and critique the systems to ensure that they are protecting against individual shortcomings rather than exacerbating them.
See, I don't think I agree with that. I suppose it depends on the definition of "individual shortcomings", and I'm sure we define them very differently. I don't agree they should ensure that they are protecting against individual shortcomings rather than exacerbating them. I think they should at best neutralize them. I'm all for helping those that (truly) can't. I'm not interested in helping those that won't.
Topic: Common Law Wife Asks Husband for 50K to Have Their Child (Read 2994 times)
