|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wanderkind
Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Location: Japan
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| From a purely biological standpoint, she's quite possibly correct. Yeah, you need both parents to get the ball rolling, but after the initial act of conception, the father is essentially useless. Of course, once you look at the broader, societal picture, things are not quite as simple, but the fact remains that if the human race were nearly wiped out next week, you'd need far more women than men to repopulate the planet. |
I'm not clear whether you're saying that only goes one way or if it goes both.
In my mind, you need sperm and egg to conceive (naturally), womb to carry, and breast milk can convey immunological benefits to the child. But since breastmilk is not absolutely essential, let's say 1:2 as far as father to mother contributions (not bringing surrogacy etc. into it). So, in terms of contributions up until birth, yeah, I'll say women win it.
But since in the history of society, single-mothers and single-fathers have both managed to raise exemplary members of society, while at the same time 2 parent-familes / single-parent families of the complimentary gender have managed to raise some real assholes, that indicates that neither presence is imperative. What is important is whether those present are able to provide all the resources and fulfill all the roles that successful child-rearing requires.
Specifically RE: the OP. Was this woman Korean? Because in a significant portion of Korean households, from what I've gathered/read, the father is largely absent from parenting (50s era gender roles still at the 'fore', and in extreme cases see 'Goose fathers' and 'Eagle fathers'). If the mother fulfills all roles in the household and child-rearing with the exception of putting money in the bank, I can definitely understand that point of view taking root. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:54 am Post subject: Re: Fathers are less important than mothers. |
|
|
| Stan Rogers wrote: |
I heard a woman say this.
What do you think? |
A lot of USA single-mothers seem to believe that. Not the most intelligent demographic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr. BlackCat wrote: |
This thread is just an excuse to start an anti-woman flame war.
I heard some guy say this. What do you think? |
It's just a feel-good statement made by a woman that we're supposed to blindly agree with. Of course fathers AND mothers are important and have varied roles these days.
And yet, I wonder what the response would be if a man said "Mothers are less important than fathers." Women, and many men, would have a field day shooting that down.
Traditionally speaking, without the father to provide resources and protection, the family would have a hard time surviving. In this day and age though, things differ a bit, so a statement like that may be true in many cases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stan Rogers
Joined: 20 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wanderkind wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| From a purely biological standpoint, she's quite possibly correct. Yeah, you need both parents to get the ball rolling, but after the initial act of conception, the father is essentially useless. Of course, once you look at the broader, societal picture, things are not quite as simple, but the fact remains that if the human race were nearly wiped out next week, you'd need far more women than men to repopulate the planet. |
I'm not clear whether you're saying that only goes one way or if it goes both.
In my mind, you need sperm and egg to conceive (naturally), womb to carry, and breast milk can convey immunological benefits to the child. But since breastmilk is not absolutely essential, let's say 1:2 as far as father to mother contributions (not bringing surrogacy etc. into it). So, in terms of contributions up until birth, yeah, I'll say women win it.
But since in the history of society, single-mothers and single-fathers have both managed to raise exemplary members of society, while at the same time 2 parent-familes / single-parent families of the complimentary gender have managed to raise some real assholes, that indicates that neither presence is imperative. What is important is whether those present are able to provide all the resources and fulfill all the roles that successful child-rearing requires.
Specifically RE: the OP. Was this woman Korean? Because in a significant portion of Korean households, from what I've gathered/read, the father is largely absent from parenting (50s era gender roles still at the 'fore', and in extreme cases see 'Goose fathers' and 'Eagle fathers'). If the mother fulfills all roles in the household and child-rearing with the exception of putting money in the bank, I can definitely understand that point of view taking root. |
No she wasn't Korean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
