[julianmarq]

> No, women don't need to spend their 20's finding a husband. They can have also go to school, volunteer, have friends, start a career. You know - the things men can do.

Nothing in GP's comment suggests ~that women should spend their twenties finding a husband~ (EDIT: I missed that sentence in the original comment), nor that they shouldn't do the things you just mentioned.

I don't understand how this is in any way apropos.

[pcnix]

> Nothing in GP's comment suggests that women should spend their twenties finding a husband, nor that they shouldn't do the things you just mentioned.

That is in fact exactly what the comment seems to suggest, in these lines.

> as opposed to when you were in your 20s (when the woman should be finding a potential husband

room500's response was exactly what I had in mind too, when I was reading the parent comment.

It very much feels like the GP had something specific in mind for "high-quality" that insinuates that caring for someone else's children is not a high quality thing to do.

I believe that quality is not what they are showing when they focus the comment on what women "should be doing", or if they're still seeing it as "someone else's kids".

[julianmarq]

I must have missed the statement in parentheses the first time I read it (I honestly don't remember it being there before, apologies), so I retract the part on what GP said about "should". However, I maintain that the comment doesn't say anything about whether women shouldn't do the things the other person said; there's no implication one way or the other in the original comment and most people do both.

On the matter of kids and "high quality", I made no comment on that earlier, and I make no comment now.