This is a discussion we were having in class and I would love to hear the input from those here, for pure curiosity sake, because I do know there are a lot of feminists here. (Or so I've heard? Pretty sweet)

We were recently reading a book that was written in the late 1800's, dealing with a woman who was married, had several children, and was living in a healthy relationship. (Her husband did not beat her or abuse her, in fact he loved her dearly) However she was not a very good mother. She explained how she did show affection to her children, but only whenever she wanted to, or else she would just shoo them away. She had another woman care for them in her absence.

The book deals on the fact that she hates being in chains within her marriage. She hates being held down, and would love to find her inner self, and the freedom to do what she wishes. This would also require her to leave her current husband and even her children. Of course this book is placed within the times it was written, so I would assume everyone here knows about the lack of rights for females.

Now, before I trail off, my question here is this. Would you consider it right for a woman who does not feel as if she belongs in a situation (marriage or motherhood in this example, but doesn't have to be), even if that said situation has no abusive actions within, to just leave that said situation behind? In this case she would be abandoning her husband and children.

Several things to note. Are the children going to be well cared for? Let's assume that in one case yes, they would have a caretaker other than their father. In the second case no, they would be left without a mother or someone to act as such.

Also, let's ask is this time period she will be away from home a long or short one? I will set an example of maybe 6 months, a year, never returning.

Also note the time period. This generation? That of the 1800's, or later or earlier.

Is it okay for a woman (or a man, doesn't have to be female) to abandon responsibility in order to figure out more things about themselves? Is it okay in any situation to sometimes place yourself first before that of your family?

I will not post my opinion except for the fact that I don't think I MYSELF could abandon a child. However I am not in this situation, and I am not only asking about children, but perhaps any chained situation you can assume. (Be creative!)

P.S. Anyone can guess the book I am talking you get an A+. xD

Originally Posted by SaetonChapelle

Would you consider it right for a woman who does not feel as if she belongs in a situation (marriage or motherhood in this example, but doesn't have to be), even if that said situation has no abusive actions within, to just leave that said situation behind?

Provided she is not placing anyone in danger by doing so, then yes, she has the right to leave.

Are the children going to be well cared for? Let's assume that in one case yes, they would have a caretaker other than their father. In the second case no, they would be left without a mother or someone to act as such.

I know this isn't a real question, but I'd just like to comment that children do not necessarily need two people to raise them, which is what you seem to be implying that they are well cared for if there's a father and a caretaker, but they won't if it's only the father. Additionally, even two parents can fail to take care of their children well.

Is it okay for a woman (or a man, doesn't have to be female) to abandon responsibility in order to figure out more things about themselves? Is it okay in any situation to sometimes place yourself first before that of your family?

Depends. If there are children involved, then that might involve child abandonment laws. She might be allowed to leave her family, but not without paying child support or whatever the law requires.

This is the short version anyway. I'm working on some other stuff right now, so I took a break to pop in and respond to this thread. I'll respond to responses to my response as I'm able to. (mind blown)

xD Fantastic way of working my friend! And amazingly true. Sadly I feel as if some parents don't deserve to be parents at all. We used to joke that you should have to take an exam to even think about being one. oo

We were (well, the professor. He is one of those that assumes we have very little divorces in our time... Oo Yeah, what world does he live in?) discussing whether a child can grow up proper without a mother figure. I think yes, of course. We argued for a while. Oo I think a child can grow up properly with only a mother figure, with only a father figure, or with neither. (What would this case be, in an orphanage? Trying to think of a good example but I'm lost)

I guess I worded it weird. Of course a woman has every right to leave. I meant by "right" by being perhaps morally right? But you already seemed to understand that. xD

Good luck on your work!

I think when one has children, they consent to give up certain things in order to be able to care for those children. So no, I think it'd be wrong to just abandon your kids and walk away because you feel like it. Honestly, you really should have thought about that before you elected to have the child.

Who said that she chose to have the child?

Awesome! Let's assume in one instance she herself chose to have a child. And in another she was in a situation in which she was forced to, or some other incident. (Rape for instance which resulted in a child. Let's assume no abortion here)

Well, she pretty much was forced to have the children, given that abortion was illegal. Even if she wasn't raped (and some would argue that, in an era before marital rape was illegal, all marital sex could be considered rape since the woman had no consent to give), she still hardly chose her situation.

Aside from that, my thoughts are pretty much in line with Keyori's. You certainly shouldn't (physically; emotional harm cannot really be avoided) hurt others, but your life is your own. Nothing negates that. If you devote your existence to your children, it should be because you chose to do so. I once had a similar discussion with someone on my leaving Christianity after having been baptized. She felt that I had a responsibility to honour my commitment, but I did not, and do not, see the value in forcing oneself to continue down a path they do not want, and in some cases did not choose, just for the sake of "responsibility", an abstract concept that has long been used to justify forcing people into horrible situations (a woman's "responsibility" to stay with her abusive/adulterous/neglectful husband comes to mind) while at the same time making it seem as though they chose to be in those situations. It's probably the most successful guilt trip ever.

Well said.

Okay, what if the woman did chose to have children, and was devote to those children for quite a few years. (You can decide age wise). She was in a loving relationship with a non-abusive husband, but one day just decided she didn't want to deal with it anymore. This goes for males too, and I know there are quite a few parents in THIS day and age who just decide to walk out for whatever reasons. What if one day they just become bored of their lifestyle, although they have few complaints, and just decide to get up and leave? (Obviously it is their CHOICE to leave, I am not saying it's not. Nor can I say anyone should deny them of this choice) Let's assume on both ends the parent decides to pay for child support (or whatever you have in your area dealing with the care of children while away), and on the other end they chose not to.

People should do what they think is best. If you don't want to, say, take care of your children, you're not going to. You may stay, you may fulfill their basic needs to survive, but you will grow to hate them and that's something you won't be able to hide. You'd be doing more harm by staying than you would if you left.

Originally Posted by Keyori

Who said that she chose to have the child?

I imagine if you really didn't want to have a child, you would have an abortion or give it up for adoption. And I am, of course, talking about the modern day because debating about the 1800s seems a bit silly to me.
I suppose there are probably situations where a woman could be forced to have a child and they will probably be brought up now, but it seems pretty unlikely to me that you could have NO choice in the matter whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Fabby

I imagine if you really didn't want to have a child, you would have an abortion or give it up for adoption.

Even today, not all women have that choice; especially those who are teens or are in a relationship that they cannot control (or are part of a family who exerts a severe social pressure upon her to keep and raise the child herself). It may very well be "unlikely" that she has absolutely no choice, but I would doubt the assertion that women are never "forced" to have a child they don't want.

Not to mention, abortion isn't legal everywhere, and even where it is, anti-choicers continue to try and get it banned, or make it so difficult to get that it might as well not even exist for all the good it does.

Assuming she is leaving her children with the proper care, I would say it is perfectly fine for her to leave. It's her own life to do with as she pleases. Also, she's not technically responsible for the children just because she had them. That doesn't mean she wanted them. If someone needs to leave the environment they're in to "find themselves" I urge them to do so.

I am of the opinion that there's always a choice. Theres not always the will to make that choice. As for anything being morally right or wrong, that's quite subjective as different people have different morals. If you ask me, however, is it fair for anyone to abandon responsibilities in order to obtain their own wants and needs; no it's not fair. At least, it's not fair to everyone involved. You can't make everyone happy even if you try.

I feel it's wrong to make anyone think they have to do anything. I also think people should take care of themselves first. Meaning if they want to run away, go for it. If you want to stay, do it. Even if the relationship is messed up, if a person likes the madness and wants that (even if it's not viewed as healthy) it's their life and theres no reason to not experience life the way you wish.

I myself would not abandon a person, perhaps a duty, but never a person who is close to me. I'd hate myself, so to take care of me, I wouldn't do that to myself. I protect me first, and usually it results in me doing the right thing so that I don't feel bad later.

So, if the woman (or man) can live with the choice, and want to leave for any period of time. They should go. As a child I'd prefer to wonder what my parent is like rather than having a parent who would rather be somewhere else and seems to resent me for holding them back.

Well, sure, she can abandon her responsibilities. But when she wants the safety and comfort of a safe home back, I doubt they'll be waiting, so welcoming for her.

IMO, when it comes to children, you made 'em, you take the fuck care of them.
Unless you have a very legitimate reason to want to leave them (ie your husband beats you), then no, I don't think she should leave. But does she have the right to? Probably, she wouldn't be leaving the children in a dangerous environment.

If she wanted to find herself she should have done it before getting married and having kids.

I'd say it was perfectly fine for her to leave, provided her family was in a safe situation when she did. If that wouldn't be the case, then she should set up such a situation before leaving. When you are responsible for other lives, the least you can do is make sure that someone will take care of them before you decide to abandon them yourself.

Sometimes it is better for a person to leave then stay and poison the whole atmosphere.