The Art of Gen X/Y

[nhg]

Don't agree, and here's why;

I and my sister were raised until 11 by a poor, single mother. Occasional part-time work and the single mothers' pension. A renter, a battler for sure, but very proud and had class, very strict on us two..

Then, my stepfather came into our lives. He was an orphan. Definitely poor, but a terrific human being with high standards.

No real education between either of them.

They had two more kids together, and all 4 of us have grown up to become reasonably decent and useful humans to the planet.

We all have kids of our own now. Admittedly, none of us 4 - or our kids - have gone on to become higher level professional career adults (yet), but all the grown up ones (my sister has 4 adult kids now) have decent jobs and so on.

My wife and I managed to share the raising of all 3 of our kids (still doing it) and be there for them without farming them out to carers.

In this day and age, many fathers are doing this, and they are not necessarily higher level social ladder or career men.

In fact; quite the opposite; many of these types of parents are so caught up in their careers and work such long hours, that they are not as involved with their kids, and have to farm them out to the grandparents etc.

A stay at home mum also does not necessarily have to be an upper social circle person to have high morals or social etiquette....from my experience in life.

Ok. So the last comments are my opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt. Prior to this there were linkes sites with articles using facts and figures.

To clarify:
- I have friends raised by single dads who have done quite well;
- education isn't about advanced math, in different locations it may refer to sanitation and sexual health;
- moral education rates higher for community well-being than tertiary degrees and anybody can have them;
- I used the words and also... and academic, to signify a link between those two, not between a degree and etiquette, there is no correlation I'm aware of between those two;
- advance etiquette can be found anywhere, chances are though, you will learn a lot more in a huge household with maids and drivers, than myself who grew up in Blacktown before it was cool.

My understanding of why education of women is more important:
- contact time, argue all you like, most families especially outside of Australia would have the mother as a primary care giver;
- can make better informed decisions on health, eg. How many kids should I have, 20 or 2;
- balance equality;
- creates opportunity for advancement.

I can discuss my opinions all day, but they are opinions. Please look above for links to research by the world bank, possibly look into micro financing or just any organization that would deal with this stuff for hard data.

 

[OKFFW]

The world bank one states it in summary. There's an attached pdf. I'll keep looking when I have time.

Educating women in third world countries provides opportunity for primary care giver. An educated woman (we ain't necessarily talking applied science degree here) can make better financial decisions, pass on the knowledge to her kids and community who work in clusters and make informed decisions on sexual health.

A man in those countries won't have a direct influence on the children in comparisson as they will be away working. If the woman has basic math skills or life skills, I'm hypothesising the kids will have a greater start at school.

From observation, the mothers in my circle who have higher moral and usually also tertiary education have more grounded kids who do better in social and academics settings. These are the ones who stay at home during child raising. I know a lot of my social etiquette came from my mum who grew up in an upper class household. Definitely didn't learn it from my dad

So in short..........educate the primary care giver and it is much more likely that education will be passed onto the children.

That has nothing whatever to do with educating women specifically.

Furthermore, nothing in the research indicates that no man has ever shared or will ever share the education he receives which is implicit in the first part of the pithy statement.

So the pithy saying is just that, a pithy saying.

 

[nhg]

So in short..........educate the primary care giver and it is much more likely that education will be passed onto the children.

That has nothing whatever to do with educating women specifically.

Furthermore, nothing in the research indicates that no man has ever shared or will ever share the education he receives which is implicit in the first part of the pithy statement.

So the pithy saying is just that, a pithy saying.

Completely ignoring that in reality it is women who are dominantly the primary care giver the world over. You are right, it would not be an accurate statement.

...but they are, so...

Anywho last post on the topic, I hadn't jumped in early on cause this is WAY off topic.

 

[weg]

Completely ignoring that in reality it is women who are dominantly the primary care giver the world over. You are right, it would not be an accurate statement.

...but they are, so...

Anywho last post on the topic, I hadn't jumped in early on cause this is WAY off topic.

You could also argue that if women are mostly in the home as primary care givers, then it's men that run governments and countries, so educating men would improve what nations can offer women and children - in terms of education and otherwise.

Anyway, the statement you lost me most on was... 'you will learn a lot more in a huge household with maids and drivers' .

 

[OKFFW]

Completely ignoring that in reality it is women who are dominantly the primary care giver the world over. You are right, it would not be an accurate statement.

...but they are, so...

Anywho last post on the topic, I hadn't jumped in early on cause this is WAY off topic.

Well totally ignoring the reality that educating a single woman is extraordinarily unlikely to "educate a nation" and the fact that educating a single man is extraordinarily unlikely to result in that education being passed on to absolutely no one else ever, then yes it might be an accurate statement.

Or it could just be a pithy statement that ignores the reality altogether.