Sample Thank You For Destination Wedding

the compatibility

93 percent of childless women between 15 and 33 years to have children, so the good news of a new study commissioned by the Bertelsmann Foundation, which these days has been presented. As far as the positive aspect - encouraging from the perspective of women whose desire for children that is very often the veto of their Partners fail.

However, the conditions in which to imagine men the children having quite tricky: just under half are clear for traditional tasks - work they go themselves and are the "family breadwinner, the woman takes care of the children. Not even one in four for women and men representing an egalitarian gender roles. That this setting is highly problematic in times in which women must necessarily be employed, because the intra-family maintenance law is being abolished, and where the employment is not necessarily so, that guarantee a man alone the financial support the family in the long run can is the one and known. And that at this quite backward looking bias, the women are in debt because there are still many women who look to the men this financial provider role, is also true gift.

What has made me thoughtful of the study is rather a different aspect: how to imagine the men interviewed today, so much discussed reconciliation between work and family. " lifted out positive was in fact that most respondents want to be involved (other than the fathers of earlier generations) quite well in the care of their children - but only if that does not go the expense of the profession. The majority of respondents did not even want in the Time immediately after birth professionally put something back - parents money or not. Many commentators drew the conclusion that the main problem lies in the fact that most companies and businesses do not give the fathers of this scope for more Famlienzeit.

Even if it is safe, I'm still of the opinion that the main problem is different. Because this desire of the men that is a big illusion becomes clear that they have, and we as a society to have a whole are increasingly threatened: the illusion that one could have educated children, provide care, without that it influence has the professional capacity. But this is nonsense. A is total "compatibility" of family and work there, at least not as long as those working life, even if only similarity to the added today. Certain: the situation can be improved significantly with the known measures. But even if we for each child have a nursery and kindergarten, when we have all-day schools and flexible work schedules, day care centers in the business and understanding bosses who give us a family holiday, whenever we want - all that will change the fact that motherhood ( and, if the "new fathers" are serious, even a father) takes a lot of time and energy. And where does that again, that these time and energy of the career is available.

I admit that the women's movement "are compatible work and family" with the slogan contributed something to the development of compatibility illusion added. As early employers of women have assumed a flat rate, they would anyway someday have children and therefore not as fully prepared to perform, we had to say it were the opposite: The woman, the mother, is a completely performance-efficient worker. But if we argued earlier for the "reconciliation" between work and family, then that meant something to prevent the then common view that both complete incompatible is: Every working woman a bad mother. "Compatibility" means that both - is quite bring under one roof - with compromises on both sides. That if one makes a few here and there cuts and be enriched in female employment and motherhood even each other also, fertilizing, can the contrast is not so general and absolute, as the Patriarchate has said earlier.

compatibility does not mean that I can have both without that there will be just the most kinds of conflict. Women know that too. That is why so many of them go to part time when they become mothers. Therefore, they only get one or two children instead of three or four to the job not quite keep up. This means "compatibility work and family. "- on both sides to compromise in order to combine the two areas together and to connect

But it is utter madness, when more and more permeated the opinion that this compromise would not necessary, but it could be the 100 percent employment implement, even if one mother (or father) of children - and when it is taken for this 100-percent employment also a married man to scale, whose wife takes care of not only the children but himself the laundry, cleaning and cooking food decreases substantially.

The current study has shown how widespread this illusion of compatibility among young men before, and therefore is time to tell them: If you want to be active fathers, then that is definitely that you have to make compromises with the profession. One can not simultaneously active father and 60-hour careerist be. The day has won only 24 hours and our forces are eventually exhausted, and your well.

The message of the hour would be this: work and family are not compatible. At least not without compromises. Work and family are also not entirely incompatible . But it is in combining paid work and house and care can not just order a shallow "either-or", as was formerly said that even a well plate "as well as" how we think today. But the challenge (and that was the reason why the women's movement thirty years on reconciliation debate "has broken the fence) is both a completely new way to combine, without which a subordinate from the start the other. As long as so many men and, unfortunately, the majority of "family" politicians and policymakers assume this is not addressed, but pretend as if you could arrange everything for the 100-percent full-time workers (male and female version), it is maintain that the problem of incompatibility between work and family must pay for those who have children and care.

They are still in a large majority of women. But that's not the point. The point is that we "have children will limit their earning capacity is no bit of a" as a company that is, lie on the backs of those unsubscribe to face the facts and give up career opportunities and income to the time and energy for child care have. Whether it is now 5 percent are men (like now) or 50 (as in a possible gender heavenly future), I believe, pretty much regardless.


Further reading: Bertelsmann Stiftung (ed): bothered to family? The difficult way of young men into fatherhood. Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh 2008, 20 €.


thematically related articles:
farewell to the dream man (for a paternity light) and
about having

Gift Basket With Poem

When men share the bill ....

In the current issue of "Brand Eins "(October 2008) I was reading a review of Peter Berger Felix on a book which is titled The Logic of Life." The author, Tim Harford will, it support the thesis that economy is not always a result of rational action (not for a feminist even particularly surprising). Explains
is this with an "everyday example" that reflects the reviewer follows:. "It is with ten people in a restaurant in the first exuberance, they agree bureaucracy to distribute the entire bill to equally to all may sound economic sense and justice to all. the end of the story is different: all pay more because any more orders in the care to be neglected is the economic logic with unpleasant consequences "..
Huh??
Those are strange people who there in mind. If I go for lunch with ten friends and we so agree on a rule (which we often do), we usually all order as little as possible, because everyone wants to avoid, the budget the other drive unnecessarily with their order in the air.
Actually, of course, both the one and the other kind of idiotic (though I choose if I had to, but then the behavior of people still think Timm Harford's a bit idiotic). What
My point is that we are apparently dealing here with quite different ideas of what is "normal" behavior. And I do not like to imagine what happened only after going five women and five men eat together. In that sense I of this example has opened the eyes in such a situation NEVER SHARE THE ACCOUNT!!

What Is A Paddle Attachment?

The return of polygamy

Recently I was present when at a Talk about relaxing event a dispute whether the new maintenance law is good or bad for women. Some discussion participants complained that many fear women who had worked for years as housewives, children and husband, now about their financial security would have. Whereupon others defended the new rules, including a member of parliament, which described how female politicians from all parties have jointly discussed the issue and finally endorsed the new policy. She said something like, "It is now starting for the first women become worse, but we had just the interests of second and third wives in the eye."
.
In that moment I realized what I'm going as an idea for some time already pregnant, but I had not previously been formulated as follows: We are witnessing a return of polygamy. The sociological talk of "serial monogamy" is not true at all. "Serial" is monogamy, which is the exclusive community of a couple, namely a maximum in terms of sex - there is still unity in any case: Who's asleep with one may not (more) with the other. But in view of the totality of the relationship, it does quite often, that whenever there are children. So it's now required explicitly that the relationship of the children with both parents be maintained even after the divorce. But it is completely absurd to assume that a father could maintain an intense and good relationship with his children, without at the same time a (whatever type) relationship with their mother have.

How can we organize this complicated relationship patterns? On this issue today fail many love relationships between women and men. A friend of mine, for example, just separated from her boyfriend, with whom she was three years ago a couple. The unresolved relationship with his ex and even young children had been a constant point of contention. My friend had the impression that only the needs of the "first family" to be organized around - from the vacation dates on the question of which city you live, to planning the Christmas holidays. Final handed it to her then when her friend suggested that she could still move into a flat in the same house where lived his ex-wife and children. That would be the simplest organization, he found. The moment she decided that the life of a second wife but probably is not for them.

Maybe it's time to admit that the so-called "serial monogamy" is not monogamy at all. Monogamy is in fact, says the dictionary definition, "the lifelong (sic) exclusive community between two reproductive Individuals ". In this sense, our culture is obviously not a long time monogamous. This country will" have monogamous "understood as" in a particular period of life with one person having sex. "The question of who goes with whom to bed, but in this context irrelevant fairly. As long as there are no children, resulting in this respect in general, no major problems, at least not that adults do not usually agree among each other could.

The main problem is clearly with regard to the children and the question of how stable . parental relationships on one side and multiple sexual relations on the other hand, can be reconciled, or specifically: Who is with who feel as intensely connected, where is the emotional center of life, where the responsibilities and liabilities.

"reproductive communities" can not "serial" organize. In any event, not when a company lays claim to lifelong responsible parenthood by both Father and Mother. There were other ways of course. Matriarchal societies, for example, are often organized so that they separate paternity and sexuality: the role of the social father, ie, the reliable, lifelong, committed male caregiver of a child, takes the brother of the woman, while changing the sexual partners of mothers can. Men are not the fathers of the children who bring their (changing) sexual partners to the world but they are the fathers of their nieces and nephews, the children of their sisters, with whom they have indeed already a lifetime family relationship.

goes into this direction of a cultural divide between biological and social fatherhood development in this country just not. The "biological" paternity - as the recent appreciation of genetic paternity tests in legal proceedings - in relation to social fatherhood even more important. Especially the men There seems to have a great interest. But if you want this, one must also address the consequences Such conditions make: When is fathers and mothers have the right to alternate, serial love affairs, including it may entail more children, then the de facto polygamy.

that is not openly discussed, but discussed under the obfuscating term "serial monogamy" is (which is in terms of reproduction after all similarly absurd as the proverbial black mold) is, of course, that we are complex family structures, which the intimate relationship between two people also dismissed as "nucleus", this country officially reject. Even at school we have finally learned that the transition from the evil polygamy of wild nature to the good peoples of the civilized societies monogamy is progress in human history was.

is currently the subject also particularly sensitive, because the old, patriarchal, but polygamy is believed more with the supposedly backward Muslims, as among "us" enlightened people. It is of course completely absurd to believe that the ancient Arabs had married her many women all at once. Of course, they did so that usually "serial", so pretty in turn. And even then it will have been substantially so that the "first woman" especially when it came to the camp against their younger, sexually attractive successors exchanged, but was already the mother of the children born just continue to family belonged. That the Prophet Mohammed spent some time the slogan, four women had to be final, also had no sexual moral, but economic reasons: it was, then as now, the issue of economic security for women and children by the law of maintenance.

One thing has become different today, and that is the equality of the sexes. There are no more, as in patriarchal times, only men are allowed to have over time more women, but women may now have more men. This makes the problem but not necessarily easier. Even so, many "second man" should prepare the family mess already with a man of his other parent become life-partner problems. After all, the men, unlike women, here on the time factor speculate: When the women that is at some point with the mother are final, while the men bear witness to old age more children. Therefore, the new law of maintenance is also gender issues most unjust: a "first man" who has waived because of the children on career opportunities can be relatively certain that the well-paid mother of his children at some point is no other children in the world, which (and their fathers) to them may alimony. The "first women" because it is much worse. You have until the end of life fear for their maintenance claims, as the high-earning fathers of their children will always have the opportunity again to have children with other women.

As for the economic side of the problem, a solution is in sight: the financial independence of all adult individuals. Once all the men and women are protected in employment and individual economically, then the issue regarding the maintenance of law and more important. That this path is now taken only half-heartedly - so in part because the economic importance of domestic and family work still is not factored in with all the clarity - is true, but not symbolic, but merely a craft problem of politics. Conceivable, then a solution, and by and large we are there already on the road.

However, I believe that the problem of today's unacknowledged polygamous relationship structures is not solved. My girlfriend for example, who saw no other solution but to separate from the man she loves in fact, has no economic problem. That her boyfriend his income with his children and their mother announced she finds nothing wrong. As an economically independent woman, it may well be her care. Your problem is rather that it their relationship in this constellation is not possible to continue the dream of a monogamous love relationship dream. She had to realize that they can with this man, even though she loves him, found no intimate family matters (and in this internal space itself become a mother), without these "monogamous" area as it were "disturbed" by the equally justify claims of other women and Children who are well connected by intimate relations with this man already.

My point with this article is also to show that problems of this kind are not only individual problems, but address the logical result of the way we think about families and love relationships and . Think Earlier, in monogamous and patriarchal times, the heartache of women was due in an individual misconduct of the men in question. Although polygamy was sexual, especially among men (but probably also in women) have always spread wide. But when a husband with his secretary went to bed or seduced the wife of the postman, then this led to no moral consequences for called by the Company and obligations. Monogamy was just that the first actual, legally sanctioned relationship (marriage) was one of the only. Accordingly, the "public opinion", the neighbors, the mothers, the journalists and so on, also agreed: Who "is strange" - either as a married man or a married elsewhere - is bad, guilty, has no claim to represent.

That has changed. We want the rights of all parties heard and respected. But this means that today do from the "multiple relationships" arising heartache of women (and probably many men) is not with individual misconduct. But with conflicting, mutually exclusive claims of the company: It is just simply not one relationships both intimate and exclusive lead, as responsible for the children from previous relationships and reliably be there. The dream of the intimate, exclusive relationship between two people, monogamy appears therefore to dream only when we either omitted children all (and only those without children as a potential love partners and partners into consideration), or when actually the original monogamy definition of "lifelong exclusive reproductive community" returns. And it is no coincidence that there are both current strong trends in society.

If we do not want, but if we want a society in which children continue to be born, but the adults are free, their sexual partners and partners over time to change, then we will probably have to tackle the issue of "modern polygamy. How can family relationship structures work, in which feel more women and men who are in complicated structures mutually bound by (former and current) sexual relations and by a complex web of social or biological mother and fathers together, and deal humanely with each other?

Verses Promote Free Will

five points for the future of the movement

Until recently it as hopelessly antiquated, in the genus "feminist" to count. Today the label is suddenly back in vogue, even ministers and mainstream authors profess to do so. And even those most capricious species discovered the F-word again for themselves, we had already written off almost: the young women. Well great! The question is: Which way to go? Here are five points that I believe are now on the agenda of the movement: first

The search for the "right" to give up feminism. The women's movement today is fragmented into many parallel worlds: University Gender Studies, spiritual ritual circles, women's and equality officer, a business networker women, queer activists or Matriarchatsforscherinnen - and each group accuses the other of not being a "real" feminist. In this respect, who staged a "catfight" media dispute between "young" and "old" feminists, but a false scandal (because the separation line is not really between age groups), but not completely out of thin air. When women ignore the involvement of dissident women in the name of the "real" feminism or ridicule, they weaken the female authority in general. To avoid misunderstanding: This is not a plea for more women's solidarity. I think feminists should argue very publicly. But just about their different sources of their divergent views and judgments, and do not decide to whom the label "feminist" Who deserves not.

second A genuine dialogue with men lead. In recent decades it has succeeded in making laws and bureaucratic rules, so men had to change in many ways, their behavior towards women. As long as it does not really understand why it is as important to use inclusive language, a certain proportion of women on boards to have or spend time on household work, it remains difficult and there is always the danger of a "backlash". How can we convince more men to the concerns of the women's movement important? We do not have to be constantly with the whip behind them? Simple Appeals in terms of "the men have to ..." since no further help, especially not when they are expressed as so often in women-only contexts. With the whole subject, we should experiment with imaginative and non-dogmatic - which incidentally also means that men (or understand what they are lower) as partners in their criticism and their reservations about feminism seriously.

third Feminism to make cross-cultural project. Still, the feminism in Germany, in all its "political groups" mainly a matter of white, middle-sized women. This weakens the movement and holds enormous even large risks (for example, because of the intercultural dialogue in Germany at present threatens to be a matter of conservative men). To change that, a lot could be of the "postcolonial studies" courses in the USA. Above all, it needs concrete relations with women from other cultures that are based on a genuine interest in each other - and then even if they do not share the beliefs of the Western emancipatory feminism. Maybe there are other ways to female freedom. That, moreover, no cultural relativism, but the only chance we have to women from other cultures may value the "Western" achievements convincing.

4th The incorporation of neo-liberal feminist claims to oppose. Currently, the economy is very skilled at making available, powerful interest women as "Human Resources". In this context, old feminist demands such as nurseries, discharge of women from domestic and family work, and the naturalness of female employment are political consensus. On the one hand, of course, beautiful. On the other hand, feminism was always more than a tool for the optimization of capitalism, namely a social movement that goes beyond the boundaries of the given. We must not lose sight of - and also to give those newly converted feminists, that the history of the women's movement may not be as familiar.

5th Postpatriarchale shaping of the world instead of fighting for women's interests. Many fault lines that ran earlier between women and men, now run elsewhere: between good and bad income earners, between work and unemployed, between those who care for children or the sick and those who do not. With statistics on percentage of women here and there can no longer adequately analyze. Therefore, the women's movement in the future will be even less than before simply can only occur for "women's interests." What is rather about is postpatriarchale world design in a comprehensive sense to question how, in future this world and the coexistence of all people are created in a good way.