English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

replace the second parent with staff, that can not divorce or take the children out of his life ?

2007-11-25 05:18:11 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Gender Studies

Thesedays the staff is probably even better for the child than one of todays moms.

2007-11-25 05:23:48 · update #1

Before you ask it isnt something I want for myself, its something some (2) of my well off acquaintances did who didnt want to marry exposing themselfs to divorce laws and loosing the children.

2007-11-25 05:29:11 · update #2

Yah of course the father should still act as a father for the child.

2007-11-25 05:29:47 · update #3

Staff assuming that the man cant be home 24/7

2007-11-25 05:31:41 · update #4

How does a man who wants to be a single parent need any more therapy than a woman who wants to be a single mother ?

2007-11-25 05:35:09 · update #5

Who are you ? the question limit police ? Iam not really looking for a particular answer, I just like to get more answers for a particular question, so I repost it.

2007-11-25 06:09:22 · update #6

Bias ? I see not drawbacks. Pros who handle your kids, no risk of divorce, no hard feelings about "cheating". It makes pretty much look like marriage is the drawback.

2007-11-25 08:37:43 · update #7

10 answers

Sounds like a mom who gets artificially inseminated and gets a babysitter. If he's a loving father, who cares? Sounds to me like a great arrangement for him.

2007-11-25 06:10:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Cassius... I've been away for a few months, and you're still on this section. Maybe you should meet normal people, or maybe see a psychiatrist... I mean, not every woman is a lunatic, so maybe you're the one with a problem. You should read some books, go out,... I don't know, get a life! My brother-in-law's ex-girlfriend is a real bitxh, and he got a kid with her. She really made his (and my sister's) life difficult, but because he acted in an intelligent way, it's getting better.

Otherwise, I'm not really in favour of women getting a baby without a boyfriend/husband, but to each their own. So I don't see why I should have a problem with men doing it. However, women often do it when they haven't found a suitable person before their 40s, which is sort of the biological limit... Of course, some women do it because they don't want to have to cope with some "useless" (their word, not mine) husband, and I find that a bit sad, but if that's what they want... Same thing for men. Hopefully, though, they won't teach their kid(s) their bias.

2007-11-25 08:09:17 · answer #2 · answered by Offkey 7 · 2 3

there is more to being a parent than being "well-off". I see no problem with a loving, nurturing man, who has the resources and time to devote to a child, having a child- anymore than I see a problem with a single woman doing the same. As you suggest, there are plenty of mothers who can hardly call themselves that, but there are also more than enough deadbeat "dads" who don't need to have anything to do with their progeny. I don't see the need to fill any child's life with "staff" although a single parent will probably need a full-time nanny and possibly a housekeeper. A child needs his/her parent's time and love more than anything, as well as consistency.

2007-11-25 05:30:39 · answer #3 · answered by nanny411 7 · 2 2

as long as the male devotes the time and love that a "normal" parent would, i don't see anything wrong with it. however, again, the staff cannot be "the nanny" the man must devote time to the child. it really helps to having loving parents, or a loving parent.

2007-11-25 05:29:02 · answer #4 · answered by Angelix 1 · 4 0

I'm in favor of anyone who wants a child through the surrogate program to be able have one if he/she/they can prove that they are emotionally and financial stable.

But when someone can't let go of past pain to the point that all people from one gender or the other---past, present and future---must take the blame for what one individual did to them then the people is not emotionally stable. He/she could be become stable through one-on-one therapy, though, and that's what Johnny (up above) was trying to say I think. A person in that situation needs to talk openly and honestly about their personal experiences to find a way to let go of the hate that is eroding their soul. Carrying bitterness around like a shield keeps out the good as well as the bad stuff that could hurt you.

2007-11-25 06:28:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

It's important for a child to have a mother and a father.

2007-11-25 06:37:32 · answer #6 · answered by smoofus70 6 · 2 0

It is the way to go as things are now for men. I would rather both parents be involved with the kids though.

2007-11-25 08:40:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

I see you put "cheating" in quotes. What does that mean?

But to answer your question, I guess there is nothing wrong with it. Everyone is entitled to live their life they way they want to live it. As long as you aren't hurting anyone in the process, of course.

2007-11-25 14:25:07 · answer #8 · answered by Loving Life 5 · 1 1

Uh, what I'm starting to think is that you need a really good therapist...

2007-11-25 05:33:08 · answer #9 · answered by Bye for now... 5 · 8 7

Geeze....Cassius have some respect for yourself : |

2007-11-25 06:11:20 · answer #10 · answered by GoodQuestion 6 · 3 6

fedest.com, questions and answers