Writes Dorothy Pomerantz (in Forbes), whose 7-year-old daughter said to her "When I’m a mom I’m not going to get a job. I’m just going to look after my children." Asked why, the daughter — at age 7 — showed a dramatically astute understanding of economics: She's going to marry a guy who wants to work full time, and if she works too, they'll have to hire a babysitter for their children.
At this point, you'd think the mother would praise the young girl for thinking on such a sophisticated level. Instead, she frets first about whether the daughter has perceived the mother's inadequacies and failed to learn that a woman "can work and be fulfilled professionally and have children." Then she goes on about the importance of changing the workplace "so that both parents will be recognized as equal caregivers and employees will be encouraged to find balance and have lives outside of the office."
What's so bad about division of labor, with one parent out in the world making the money, competing vigorously, and the other home-based, controlling and avoiding expenses? Especially if you consider the tax consequences — which the 7-year-old probably hasn't analyzed yet — it's much more efficient for the husband and the wife to adopt different roles. Either the husband or the wife can be the home-based spouse.
And note how Pomerantz assumes that careers are fulfilling. Often, they are not. And anything you do consumes your time and energy. If you do one fulfilling thing, you're doing less of something else that might be fulfilling. I should think many women — and men — would get great satisfaction out of avoiding a life of money-making and concentrating on conserving the money the career-spouse brings home, raising lovely children, cooking delicious meals, developing the couple's social connections, and so forth. The benefits to the working spouse in that arrangement are obvious.
November 27, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
257 comments:
1 – 200 of 257 Newer› Newest»I should think many women — and men — would get great satisfaction out of avoiding a life of money-making and concentrating on conserving the money the career-spouse brings home...
This is a joke, right?
Hic jacit dragones!
The road to wealth is specialization and trade.
You want to avoid an Italian central banker and a German Pope, however.
"This is a joke, right?"
Is it funny?
Good luck, Ann. I suspect you're about to be barraged by angry men who think women who stay home to raise lovely children, manage the family finances, build a social network and cook tasty dinners are moochers, parasites, leeches, a drag on society and the worst sort of whining takers ever to exist.
Does this Pomerantz woman have a career outside the home? Maybe her daughter hates the fact that mommy is out so much.
From the article (my emphasis):
I told my daughter that if she wants to stay home, that’s a good choice because I truly feel that as women we should support each other regardless of whether we decide to work outside of the home or not. But I also told her to consider finding a carer that she can love. That it’s possible to to have both.
Freudian slip, there. Or maybe not.
@madeleine -- I suspect most of the sardonically good-natured men who comment here will be mocking Ms. Pomerantz.
Really a career she loves?
I told my daughters to go into a career that can pay the rent, so that they can also do things they love. In looking at Ms. Pomerantz's job description I'm not sure the career she loves will have a salary that can cover expenses in twenty years.
The relationship women have with their children is so special we as a society are at fault for not honoring it more. I just spoke this morning to a young woman who is 11 weeks pregnant, who just yesterday felt her baby move for the first time. "No doubt" she said, "there is a life there." She is really excited to have a baby.
I enjoy sitting behind a family with children while at Mass: the children love to cling to their mother. Ask anyone who has lost their mother, and they will tell you that is hard. Children will be grown up soon enough. Working is barely cost effective, yet the good will engendered lasts a life time.
The largest voting block to support President 0bama was the Black vote. The second largest was the single moms. They have kicked their husbands out and replaced him with government support. Before Social Security people had their families to aid them in their old age. We replaced families with Social Security: people don't need their children to help them out in their old age, we have the government. Somehow, for most people, that wasn't a trade up.
wv: wommeta
Actually, Madeline, many professional women seem to regard stay-at-home Dads to be "moochers, parasites, leeches"!
The best thing I ever did for my family was to leave my career in education and stay home with my three boys. People didn't understand it, especially my mother who, as an uneducated woman, prized my degree more than I did. She wanted me to return to the place where SHE felt I had value. As it stands, I have been home for 10 years, we have not had to go to the poorhouse without my salary, and I am not a crazy woman trying to "have it all".
Playing career women:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/playing-career-woman/
...you might be asking, these are after all feminist women. They don’t need a man anyway, they have their careers! But this is where we separate the real deal feminist career women from the fakers and posers. Men and women who work hard to support themselves understand that they are in it for the duration. There is a determined realism to them. Likewise the women who work to survive until they marry and after marriage until they have children are being pragmatic and working to meet the needs of their family. These aren’t the women we are talking about. The women Escoffier described see having a career as a badge of status to be collected on their way to their ultimate goal of stay at home housewife. They aren’t really career women, they are playing career woman much the way that Marie Antoinette played peasant and Zoolander’s character played coal miner.
Is it either/or for women? If you're in your mid-thirties when your youngest is in school all day, it's not too late to start a career.
Many people start their second, more "fulfilling," career around 50.
I pretty much have gone to the poorhouse in order to stay home with my daughter. When she started school, I got a part-time job in a coffee shop in order to stave off foreclosure. Then for a while I sold real estate. It's probably unnecessary to go into detail as to how that ended. Now that she will be graduating from high school, I have a full-time job that is not "fulfilling", but also isn't unpleasant. They're just jobs. My work was raising my girl, and it went pretty well. Now that I have time, I'm going to make some money so I can settle with some creditors and worry less.
It was (and is) all worth it.
Men are fucked. Pussy is a drug to men in a way cock is not a drug to women.
I've never met a man who thinks women raising children are leeches. I get it pretty much every day from "liberated" type women, though. They seem to find it threatening to their world view.
You can have everything, a fully balanced work and family-life, but is it very likely? I doubt most men have ever achieved it, and I see no reason to pretend to children that it's a reasonable goal.
People need to realize:
You're not the best parent you could be. You're not the best worker you could be. It may even be beneficial for your children to not spend much time around you ('cause you suck so much).
Get over it and get over yourselves.
@Henry--I don't mean Ann's regular male commenters. I mean the others who will eventually make their way here to stomp on us all for being so naive.
@Jeff with one F--Unfortunately, you are right about that. But then, I'm not sure there's anything men could do that would satisfy today's feminists.
It was her clear desire not to work that struck like a guilt-tipped arrow right to my heart.
Thus the heart of the article, assuaging her own guilt by trying to convince her daughter and anyone else who will listen that her choice is better, more fulfilling, etc, no matter the impact on the kids. It's all about her.
I've never found anything more fulfilling than my kids and don't expect to.
I suspect you're about to be barraged by angry men who think women who stay home to raise lovely children, manage the family finances, build a social network and cook tasty dinners are moochers, parasites, leeches, a drag on society and the worst sort of whining takers ever to exist.
No, those guys comment over at Helen's place.
90% of jobs are not fulfilling. My dad spent his entire life bouncing from job to job, getting more education, ect. Jobs are simply what you do to get by. It's 1 out of 100,000 that actually stay interesting and fulfilling your entire life.
I must have misunderstood feminism. I thought it was empowering women to make whatever choice fit them. Apparently there was only one choice..a career. And politically..Democrat. ACHTUNG!
A topic dear to my heart, but I have nothing to add. Althouse already said it all.
Paula..kudos.
Leaches? No, that's too harsh. But once your kids are of school age, how much difference is there really between stay-at-home parenthood and early retirement? Yes, your kids will need help with homework and have to be driven to activities. But most retirees I know drive to lots of activities too.
One of the hardest things I ever had to do was to go back to work shortly after my daughter was born. I didn't have a choice. No supportive husband to work full time. (Bad bad marriage, but that is another story).
Later as a single mother, still no choice about working until I became more successful and could structure my hours and days.
The economics of having both parents work sometimes is worse than one parent working in the competitive labor world and the the other working in the home based world. There is great value in having a stay at home spouse, male or female, to keep the home together.
Not only monetary value but also the value of two people pulling together using the different skills that they have to create a better whole for the entire family.
To those women who think you can have it all.....career and great home/family life, you are deluding yourself. There are always going to be trade offs. You can't have it all.
If you're a high achieving woman who decides to stay at home with kids, the cultural and societal pressure to get you to turn back to career can reach an obnoxious level. It is, therefore, good to know plenty of other people who also value the division of labor within a household.
(Note that I said "value" not necessarily "implement." Not everyone is in a situation where having a stay at home spouse is feasible.)
My husband and I met in engineering school. We married two weeks after graduation, and I was pregnant on our first anniversary. I didn't begin a career until our youngest entered 3rd grade. Since we didn't increase our expenditures by much, that allowed me time to earn and save enough to put both kids through college without them or us taking out a single loan. Then I banked enough money to pay for the weddings. Then I bought my husband a Porsche and begin filling the retirement coffers. Last year I retired early so that he could relinquish his share of household responsibilities to me again and have both of our loads lightened until we're ready to fully retire. Did I enjoy "my career"? Yes, but not as much as I enjoyed watching our family grow and prosper. We're well positioned for retirement financially. The kids turned out great. The grandchildren are adorable. Did I become CEO of one of the Fortune 500's? No, but I had it all. Just not all at once.
You are hereby awarded a Traditionalist Medal with oak leaf clusters.
I had it all. Just not all at once.
Great point.
I have had a career, and I have been a stay at home mother.
There is nothing I love more than my career as a mother. I can't imagine anything more fulfilling.
It has worked for us. We've moved a lot as my husband has advanced, something that wouldn't have been possible if I had a career with geographic demands of its own. Not to mention the whole work visa issue as we've moved internationally. And I know my husband told some recent new hires who were interested in international assignments that he couldn't have done it without his wife taking care of everything in each of our new homes (and countries!).
Our lives and our kids' lives would have been completely different had I wanted a different kind of career.
In fairness, I think it's worth noting that the "women are leeches" contingent (which has not, in fact, appeared here yet) is only a small subset of men, and it is very, very highly likely that it is the same subset that actually has been bled dry in an awful court system. I don't judge them too harshly for their anger and rhetorical excesses.
The French had the right idea about work when they called it travail.
@Jeff with one F--Unfortunately, you are right about that. But then, I'm not sure there's anything men could do that would satisfy today's feminists.
Maybe that is what the song write was talking about with "I gave her my heart but she wanted my soul."?
I think that most men who stay married and have jobs that can support a stay-at-home mom and a couple of kids like having their home life tended to. While my husband has been great about doing his share of the household tasks while we were both working, he is totally delighted that his weekends are no longer taken up with laundry and errands. He comes home Friday night to a nice dinner and a relaxing weekend ahead, which recharges his batteries for Monday morning. When I suggested that I begin winding down my career so that we could both have more free time, he offered to tell my boss for me.
Interesting point. The kids of the Working Moms are rebelling, telling them that being dumped at day care (which isn't a bad method of socialization, IMHO) isn't the same as a hug from Mom.
So, the kids want to give their kids a better life than Mom gave them. Shades of the 50s!
The big problem is that, these days especially, but, for about the last 40 years, Mom and Dad both had to work to give the family a decent life.
(now, if taxes didn't take such a big bite...)
Ann Althouse said...
And note how Pomerantz assumes that careers are fulfilling. Often, they are not.
You broke the code. Most women do not have a career. Like their husbands, they have a job.
One of the great lies of feminism, that women had to leave the home for that great career.
As Joe Johnston observed about slaves and the Confederate Army, about 10% of the women have 90% of those great careers.
When she was 7, my daughter wanted to marry her brother. Never believe what a 7-year-old says is going to happen when they grow up.
I tell my kids that they should always have a Plan "B" -- because life can throw you a curve ball, and you have to have something else sometimes. If you plan to be a stay-at-home Mom, and your marriage falters, or your partner dies, then where are you?
I do like the "I had it all -- just not all at once" line.
If you plan to be a stay-at-home Mom, and your marriage falters, or your partner dies, then where are you?
In about the same place as if your fulfilling place of employment fires you.
Of course, a plan B is always essential.
Memo to self: Find a Plan "B" :)
"What's so bad about division of labor, with one parent out in the world making the money, competing vigorously, and the other home-based, controlling and avoiding expenses?"
Nothing is wrong with it.
A parent might be concerned about two potential problems if their adult child stays out of the job market for a significant amount of time.
1) Death of the spouse. Need life insurance to support the children through higher education. And the surviving spouse needs something for old age.
2) Divorce. The stay-at-home parent might have real economic problems if their job experience is out-of-date.
No, but I had it all. Just not all at once.
I just hate the assumption about what "it all" entails.
(not an assumption by you, Eleanor, but by the people who talk about having "it all".)
Can you have it all if you don't have a career? Can you have it all if you don't have kids? I say yes.
A parent might be concerned about two potential problems if their adult child stays out of the job market for a significant amount of time.
A parent can find any number to concern themselves about when it comes to their adult child.
What if the adult child doesn't find a spouse or a partner? What if the adult child is bad at his job?
What if the adult child gets to 47 and realizes she wishes she had had a child?
"In about the same place as if your fulfilling place of employment fires you."
It's easier to get a new job if your job experience is current.
And in general it's easier to save for retirement with two salaries.
But if two people are careful, trustworthy (no divorce/cheating), and money-wise (insurance/saving) then one spouse staying at home can work out very well.
Ann, I agree with you. I've always thought the best marriages were ones with complimentary roles, not competing roles. When both parents are working, suddenly each competes with the other over who should grocery shop, who's going to pick up the kids, who's going to do the laundry, etc. And the one making more money might feel their job is more important so they should do less at home. When one stays home, the roles are symbiotic and pretty clear.
Instead, she frets first about whether the daughter has perceived the mother's inadequacies and failed to learn that a woman "can work and be fulfilled professionally and have children."
Perhaps the daughter is saying the author sucked as a mom. She'd rather have a mother at home than one who is "fulfilled professionally."
The economics of single verses two income families can get complicated. The second income comes with higher expenses and taxes. Sometimes, unless the wife's income is fairly substancial, it can cost more than she actually brings home for her to work when you factor in child care and other expenses.
Good luck, Ann. I suspect you're about to be barraged by angry men who think women who stay home to raise lovely children, manage the family finances, build a social network and cook tasty dinners are moochers, parasites, leeches, a drag on society and the worst sort of whining takers ever to exist.
That's easily more funny than anything I've ever written on this blog.
MadisonMan, You're just being intolerant. Daughters marry their brothers all the time in Arkansas.
I think the idea of stay at home mother or father works provided the couple stay together. If they don't stay together the spouse that stayed home is at a disadvantage in terms of future earnings.
I'm a stay at home Dad. It was a choice my wife and I made after she had stayed home for four years raising our daughter and son. She had left a university position overseas and was very determined that we raise our own kids. Her earning potential far outweighed mine, and she was being offered a very well-paying job after we returned to the US and I had endured a difficult job change. So......we swapped.
It was weird. Now it isn't. Now I can't imagine throwing money away on strangers to raise my kids. And I watch other people spend 5 hours a week with their families and wonder why they do it.
Maybe it's all the poo and madness?
I write about it here actually.
http://hsimplex.blogspot.com/
Shouldn't women, and men, have the choice about whether to work outside of the home or not?
Seems to me that this is something to be negotiated between husband and wife.
Doesn't seem like it is any of my or anyone else's business how people choose to arrange their domestic and work responsibilities.
We might also look to James Lileks as a model for men. His wife is, I think, an attorney. Until their daughter started school, he was at home to take care of her and of the house.
Good on him.
John Henry
I think the idea of stay at home mother or father works provided the couple stay together.
Yes...and no.
Like someone said earlier, once the children are in school all day, unless you are home schooling, as is Freeman, the stay at home spouse is freed up to pursue some other career options.
In addition, while the children are young at home and mom or dad is the stay at home parent there is nothing in today's high tech world to prevent the adult from continuing with their education or studies. Sure, she/he may be getting a later start.
As the children get older they not only don't need to have a 24/7 at home parent....they really don't want you around all the time. :-) The can also be recruited into doing chores and helping with the household. Give them some responsibilities!
As MayBee said. Always have plan B.
As a former financial planner it was really difficult to get the idea across that the wife, who was generally the stay at home spouse, should have life insurance. The value of the homemaker is not to be taken lightly. Just because she/he isn't bringing in an income doesn't mean that their work isn't valuable.
I recently went back to work after two years of being Mr. Mom.
While I get a lot of satisfaction from an independent income, the costs of employment are so high that despite the job paying 60,000/year, we don't come out much ahead. And life has gotten quite a bit harder for my wife who, instead of coming home to a clean house, a happy child, and dinner on the table, now has to rush to daycare, rush home, make dinner and if I'm working late, maybe put the child to bed. And then I come home to a cold dinner and a disaster of a kitchen.
No way I'm voluntarily going back to full time parenting, but the family as a whole was probably better off then.
As the children get older they not only don't need to have a 24/7 at home parent....they really don't want you around all the time. :-)
Yes and no, but I still consider this a personal choice.
I found my kids didn't want me around "all the time", but they certainly wanted me when they wanted me. I've worked part time and I've done a lot of volunteer work, and in the end even my teens didn't really like competing for my time (and services!). When we moved to LA, it was my ninth grader who begged me not to be too busy. I've long lived in areas where a high percentage of the kids have a stay at home parent up into college.
And as I've said, for our family specifically, my not having a career actually opened up a whole lot of options.
What's so bad about division of labor, with one parent out in the world making the money, competing vigorously, and the other home-based, controlling and avoiding expenses?
Nothing really bad, except that it is not ANY parent, it is the mom expected to assume the role of homemaker. Division of labor along gender lines is what is bad. Patterns are set, stereotypes are made, members of one group is made to pay the price when defying that stereotype.
Come on, isn't this obvious to you?
{sorry if this point is already made, I didn't read the comments.}
Nothing really bad, except that it is not ANY parent, it is the mom expected to assume the role of homemaker. Division of labor along gender lines is what is bad.
It's usually the mom because it's usually the mom who wants to do it. That can be a stereotype to which people feel pressure to conform, but its origin isn't arbitrary. You just have to ignore the stereotype if you desire a stay at home dad scenario.
And note how Pomerantz assumes that careers are fulfilling. Often, they are not.
I grew up in a working class neighborhood in the 1970's.
In the 1980's I watched a lot of television shows that featured modern career women as protagonists or secondary characters. They were all in white collar jobs.
Yet nearly all the girls I knew in high school who went on to have "careers" were working on a factory floor or working as a retail clerk.
Like a lot of people in prime time television production, the POV of Forbes writers is not as normal or representative of America as they think that it is (median family income in the US was a hair over $50k in 2006).
"I had a normal life -- born in New York City, raised in the Midwest. Mom was a real estate agent, Dad owned a printing business. I went to a prep school followed by Harvard. I've got one brother who is photojournalist, another who is in broadcasting for a news channel. I'm just an average, middle of the road American kid. Nothing special about my experience at all." (a rough summary of the life of Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota)
And what happens when those children are in school full time or grow up? Then what? It is really hard to return to the work force after staying home for a decade.
Which parent assumes the offsping rearing duties in Polar bear families?
Which parent is more likely to kill and eat the offspring?
I was 35 with a master's degree and a job I loved when I gave birth to my first child. I decided to stay home because I couldn't bear the idea of leaving my infant son in daycare. Nine years and two more kids later I am ready to go back to work nowmthat my youngest is four years old.
However, I'm now 44 years old and our economy is in the crapper. The odds of my getting a job in my field of interest is pretty slim considering I have to compete against people twenty years younger who don't have the responsibility that a mom of three has. But it's all good. I'm working for my husband as his legal assistant.
Nothing really bad, except that it is not ANY parent, it is the mom expected to assume the role of homemaker. Division of labor along gender lines is what is bad. Patterns are set, stereotypes are made, members of one group is made to pay the price when defying that stereotype.
This is all well and good, of course, if men and women are exactly alike in child-rearing, as far as their genders go. Pardon if I notice that it's more of the "women and men are exactly alike" schtick.
In the words written by Nora Ephron:
He: Look, kids are happy when their mother is happy.'
Dottie: 'No, they're not. Everybody says that but it's not true. Kids are happy if you're there. You give kids a choice, your mother in the next room on the verge of suicide versus your mother in Hawaii in ecstasy and they choose suicide in the next room, believe me. . . . '
Ignoring the stereotype is not enough. It goes deeper than that. Why do you think there is a pay inequity between men and women? Mass role reversals to negate stereotypes are what we need. At the heart of women's movement is choice. If I don't want to be a stay at home mom (the dominant role assumed of women in societies), I should be able to work to my full potential earning dollar to dollar with my male peers.
Why do you think there is a pay inequity between men and women?
Many factors, sexism not being a significant one. Why do you think there is?
Pardon if I notice that it's more of the "women and men are exactly alike" schtick.
Of course they are alike when it comes to intellectual pursuits. Are you saying women are any inferior? Just because women bear children they need not be relegated to the kitchen/home for the rest of their lives.
If you plan to be a stay-at-home Mom, and your marriage falters, or your partner dies, then where are you?
Lemons, water, sugar ... some assembly required.
I was a SAHM for 16 years when husband (at the 13 year mark and upon the death of his dad) decided to "self-medicate" with whatever booze he could lay hands on. So, at 42 with 4 daughters (9 to 17), I was on my own.
It wasn't easy. I went back to school worked at whatever job I could snag and hung in there.
I've now been happily remarried for ten years, successfully launched the kids, have 3 adorable grandsons and am working on what I want to do when I retire.
And even knowing that my prior marriage was going to end, I wouldn't trade my SAH years for anything. They are still the best job I've ever held.
@Ann Althouse said...
"This is a joke, right?"
Is it funny?
Around my house? Sure is. My wife stays home, but she sure doesn't do much towards conserving my money!
Just because women bear children they need not be relegated to the kitchen/home for the rest of their lives.
Who said they should be?
And excuse me, but being a SAHM is not some sort of living hell - oh, maybe for Leftists who believe the most important partner any woman should have is the Government, but not most women.
We do NOT swap our minds for a mop.
Hard for me to believe you are a child of the 60s, Professor.
wv turms
What one has to come to re to work or not to work or whatever.
No, those guys comment over at Helen's place.
Seriously. Sheesh!
My cousin went home to be with her baby girl after 10 years working. She loves it, but she has started working part time at a day care/MDO so her daughter gets to socialize and she gets a little spending money. That seems to be working well.
As someone sympathetic to the traditionalist mindset, Althouse should be more nurturing and somehow offer her male commenters a better sense of fulfillment.
I think pay inequity is mostly the result of this division of labor along gender lines -- the stereotypes hurt women more than men. Men are seen as reliable and productive without the encumbrances of family and children. Work is what they have been expected to do for centuries and by golly, they will do it. Why are there so few women CEOs, women tenured profs, women in positions of power? Why do they earn 78 cents for every $1.00 earned by a man?
I've started reading some of the comments in Forbes and I keep reading "well, maybe we can't have it all, but with a major shift in attitudes about gender roles" blah blah blah.
Why is it so hard to accept that SHOCKER men and women are different? And it has more to do with nature than nurture? Face it, significant numbers of women do not want to give birth then hand their 6 week old over to "day care" while they spend 50 hours a week at work. No amount of wishing human nature away, sighing about how a "major shift" needs to take place, is going to change basic biology.
Men are seen as reliable and productive without the encumbrances of family and children.
Point of order ... for centuries men were not considered reliable UNLESS they were married with children.
I should think many women — and men — would get great satisfaction out of avoiding a life of money-making and concentrating on conserving the money the career-spouse brings home, raising lovely children, cooking delicious meals, developing the couple's social connections, and so forth.
I'm surprised to see that this comment didn't ruffle the feathers of the resident anti-OWS crowd.
If I don't want to be a stay at home mom (the dominant role assumed of women in societies), I should be able to work to my full potential earning dollar to dollar with my male peers.
You can. You're not getting paid less because you are a woman. Average salaries in general favor men because women leave the workplace to have a family. As long as you don't leave the workplace you'll get paid as much as a man.
Forbes
Now, there's an Althouse rag--the WASP-zionist mafia itself (and Stevies' daddy...oo la la. Also has Ahouse appeal).
Confession: I prefer hiring moms over 20- and 30-something singles. The younger ones can be so intense and career-driven that they are really tough to work with. They have really unrealistic expectations of the workplace and this utopian career they've been promised. I've found Moms to be a lot more flexible and resourceful. Sure, they have to duck out occasionally to tend to family matters, but at least I don't have to worry about them job-hopping every 2-3 years because they are unfulfilled.
At the heart of women's movement is choice. If I don't want to be a stay at home mom (the dominant role assumed of women in societies), I should be able to work to my full potential earning dollar to dollar with my male peers.
Fair enough. One the one hand, we'll see how much of that parity pursuit is still being championed in about twenty-five years when the results of current college graduation rates, extended unemployment and other such factors bear fruit. On the other, while choice is often championed, the down sides are treated as heresy.
I'm surprised to see that this comment didn't ruffle the feathers of the resident anti-OWS crowd.
Why should it? OWS is about making Gov the most important partner in an individual's life - giver of free sh*t even if the only thing you do for it is stand around and suck oxygen.
The configuration of a marriage, its goals and the roles the man and woman will assume in pursuit of those goals is their decision absent a reliance on Government or on a Twinkles up 90% consensus of "The Group".
Why should it? OWS is about making Gov the most important partner in an individual's life - giver of free sh*t even if the only thing you do for it is stand around and suck oxygen.
Lol. So says you and all the propaganda you're fed.
The configuration of a marriage, its goals and the roles the man and woman will assume in pursuit of those goals is their decision absent a reliance on Government or on a Twinkles up 90% consensus of "The Group".
Which must be why opposition against gay marriages and non-traditional roles is higher among Republicans.
Don't make me laugh.
You're not getting paid less because you are a woman. Average salaries in general favor men because women leave the workplace to have a family. As long as you don't leave the workplace you'll get paid as much as a man.
This.
rhhardin,
Your Italian banker/German Pope line made me LOL! But in seriousness, do you really think the current Pope is all that bad, compared to the alternatives? At least he seems willing to confront Islam to a certain degree; that, surely, is not nothing.
Really, Ann, one of the best posts I've read about women in the workplace in a long, long time.
Women have been bamboozled into a life of subservience to .75 cents on the dollar by a government subsumed with reducing incomes and double taxing families.
For the majority of women, it simply does not pay for them to be working owing to the additional tax burden, the additional child-rearing costs and the loss of control over your children's education and upbringing. Not to mention the depressive effect their presence in the workforce does to their husband's salary.
Go home women. Quit your jobs. They are not fulfilling.
Your children miss you and need you to be at home. Your families are depending on your mothering abilities. And you are letting them down.
Go home.
Which must be why opposition against gay marriages
Gays can marry now, as long as they pick a partner of the opposite sex. No marriage statute tests for sex orientation.
Now same-sex marriage, like polygamy, is based on public policy. No one jails same-sex partners over setting up households. And even H8ter Traditionalists have little problem with domestic partnerships or civil unions. Just don't call it "marriage" because it is not and the moment one demands it is, then any configuration must be legally recognized as "marriage." Live how you want privately. No big deal.
Of course, if the agenda of the Leftist SSM advocates is more about diluting "marriage" beyond recognition, then the shrillness and violence against supporters of marriage is understood.
and non-traditional roles is higher among Republicans. Which non-traditional role are Republicans opposing? I've missed the introduction of legislation banning women from working. Do you have a link? Maybe I could subscribe to your newsletter.
Of course when there are two incomes the outgo and expectations of material stuff increases.
A rule of thumb if 2 are working is to have a life plan geared to ONE income. (Plan B2 is you will.)
Families with both parents working fulltime (forget doing "something they love") tend to become dependent on that income to a degree that the house payments can't be made when one loses a job, decides not to work, gets sick or dies.
I have done both. Stay at home (started in the 70s when the pressure of the feminists was really ramoping up), school part time, work part time, a little bit of work full time and every possible combination in between including self employment and volunteer and non-profit stuff -- while having 4 kids.
Hubby laid off a couple times and unemployed for a chunk in there ....
Could have made different choices along the way, I'm sure, but ("near") poor and flexible is how we managed and we have been blessed along the way.
I liked being at home with the kids. When I was working at one point, (kids in school) one of my co-workers came back to work when her baby was 6 weeks old. I told her I was glad to see her, but sorry to see her. She cried.
Our then home was paid for 15 years ago (small house, small mortgage), our small 401(k) got clobbered a couple years back, and we don't have the security others might have ... but we're okay.
The kids turned out well (in spite of us?) and actually 4 out of 4 do love what they are doing. (!) Includes one who is a SAHM. She is young, but already knows how to handle money quite well and deal with a lot of things girls her age (22) don't yet have a clue about.
Different strokes for different folks. Funny how hard it is for left/lib to really accept that.
This is a joke, right?
Well, it must be! We all know that women only prove their worth when they supply their labor to the people's economy.
started in the 70s when the pressure of the feminists was really ramoping up
It was a pretty steep ramop too.
Instead, she frets first about whether the daughter has perceived the mother's inadequacies and failed to learn that a woman "can work and be fulfilled professionally and have children."
woman favors self over family unit = failed social experiment
Is the family and the children it brings to the world better off today than it was 40 years ago?
"Face it, significant numbers of women do not want to give birth then hand their 6 week old over to "day care" while they spend 50 hours a week at work."
Women in Canada do not believe me when I tell them American women do this. One woman asked me, "But what do they do with the babies?"
Canadian women are shocked because they stay at home with their infant for at least the first year.
Of course, women in Canada get paid maternity leave for twelve months.
Because of illness, I became Mr. mom as well as Mr. breadwinner. It was tough, and less than one would have hoped for. Miss a school play, or lose your job. Try that one on for size. But take the school play. You won't regret it.
Maybe I'm old fashioned (and like I give a shit what anyone thinks) but being a dad is the most important thing in life to me. "Traditional" is what we did, for as long as it lasted.
And sure, I've thought about having that wood working shop to make Norm Abrams cry like a baby, with a full recording studio upstairs and every rhytmn section instrument under the sun in it. Maybe next time.
"Which must be why opposition against gay marriages"
Gays can marry now, as long as they pick a partner of the opposite sex.
Funny. Witty. For someone on the losing side of progress. Talk about condescending. How would you feel if someone told you that you could marry only if it was a woman?
Oh, that's right. Putting yourself in someone else's shoes would make your head explode.
No marriage statute tests for sex orientation.
But bad and dishonest marriages do, instead - which is obviously more to your liking.
Now same-sex marriage, like polygamy, is based on public policy. No one jails same-sex partners over setting up households.
Good to know that you parrot the norms of the time. Forty years ago, we know which norms you would have been parroting instead, though.
And even H8ter Traditionalists have little problem with domestic partnerships or civil unions. Just don't call it "marriage" because it is not and the moment one demands it is, then any configuration must be legally recognized as "marriage." Live how you want privately. No big deal.
"Privately" is code for a status denoting banished from public acknowledgement, which is just the sort of condescension that allows you to pretend that people unlike yourself don't still have human needs and wish to be seen as equally human participants in the eyes of civil society.
Of course, if the agenda of the Leftist SSM advocates is more about diluting "marriage" beyond recognition, then the shrillness and violence against supporters of marriage is understood.
Whatever. Nice to hear you revert to your violence and shrillness.
I would have been content to leave the ignorant "dilution" argument stand, just to throw you a bone. But when you threw in the resort to legitimating violence, then the nature of your position made a lot more sense: Irrational.
"and non-traditional roles is higher among Republicans."
Which non-traditional role are Republicans opposing? I've missed the introduction of legislation banning women from working. Do you have a link? Maybe I could subscribe to your newsletter.
Any role that doesn't conform to your hard-nosed ideas of what's to be expected of a "MAN" and what's to be expected of a "WOMAN".
I'm not as egotistical as you to do a newsletter about what is visible in broad daylight: the fact that you obfuscate with arguments directed against legislation when you yourself think that violence is a commendable form of recourse. I assumed that violence was extra-judicial, but who knows? Maybe you're into the sort of Southern "justice" where the judge and cops allow mobs of people to protect their notion of normality with chains, rope, white caps/robes, and other symbols of good ole' fashioned vigilantism.
Thank you for this enlightening view into the retrograde mind, Darleen. It was very informative.
Any role that doesn't conform to your hard-nosed ideas of what's expected of a "MAN" and what's expected of a "WOMAN".
Good Creator, you are a walking cliche of a Leftist -- you invent my position then argue against your invention.
The juvenile, feeling-oriented, Left is consistently revealed in their hubris that up until they came onto the scene, wisdom never existed.
ZOMG! So many women want to spend the early years of their children's lives AT HOME WITH THEM!!! It's a CONSPIRACY I tell you! And if you disagree with me, YOU'RE a conspirator, too!!!
What's so bad about division of labor, with one parent out in the world making the money, competing vigorously, and the other home-based, controlling and avoiding expenses?
The controlling and avoiding expenses part tends to break down quite often, in my experience.
Ritmo
and because you seem to have a reading issue, as well as your creative rewriting, I was talking about the violence visited upon those that support marriage by those wanting to radically redefine it.
Funny, just like the difference between the criminal-prone #OWS v not-one-arrest TEA Party.
I find it interesting that women worked hard so that their daughters can have options that were once closed to females -- then proceed toget all bent out of shape when the daughter chooses the "wrong" option. The right to choose, whether to abort or give birth, have a career or be a stay-at-home mother, whatever, means that they get to choose, and not anyone else.
J, you are a bigot.
The Wasp-Zionist mafia?
You can't hide your antisemitism by linking it to a hatred of white protestants as well.
@Darleen, please don't feed the trolls. The way to deal with Ritmo is to make fun of him, not to engage him as though he's your mental equal.
The bottom line is that we don't all have the luxury of choice: to work or not.
Ms. Pomegranate *yes, I know that isn't her name* may have choices that others don't have.
A fulfilling career is something to aspire to....often, however it is just a drudging job and not some elevated wonderful occupation.
Given the monetary contribution to the family unit offset by..... taxes taken out, new tax bracket, commuting costs, cost of day care, cost of clothing for work that you wouldn't need to buy if you were stay at home mom, fast food because you don't have time to really cook: many times you are going backwards financially and backwards emotionally.
But....we've been told that women should be in the work force and women should aspire to more than being a mother, wife and homemaker.
Unfortunately, society bought into that lie and it has destroyed families for decades.
So....who should be raising the children while both parents are working in the coal mine? I know.....THE GOVERNMENT!!
Hmmmm? I wonder who made up this lie and who benefits by it?
Good Creator, you are a walking cliche of a Leftist -- you invent my position then argue against your invention.
The juvenile, feeling-oriented, Left is consistently revealed in their hubris that up until they came onto the scene, wisdom never existed.
ZOMG! So many women want to spend the early years of their children's lives AT HOME WITH THEM!!! It's a CONSPIRACY I tell you! And if you disagree with me, YOU'RE a conspirator, too!!!
It must be nice to rail against straw men by creating one of your own, Darleen.
I was talking about the violence visited upon those that support marriage by those wanting to radically redefine it.
Then you might have made an argument that sensibly followed from that. Didn't see one. Nor do I see any evidence of violence against people who are opposed of the rights of gays to marry for the same reasons as straights do.
Funny, just like the difference between the criminal-prone #OWS v not-one-arrest TEA Party.
That's just because the Tea Party is corrupt enough to be that much cozier with the same government they pretend to hate. Birds of a feather.
pm317 said...
Ignoring the stereotype is not enough. It goes deeper than that. Why do you think there is a pay inequity between men and women?
There is no "pay inequity" between men and women.
This probably has been pointed out, but what's worth fretting about in this scenario is that the daughter wanting to be the stay-at-home one is likely seeing herself in that role due to cultural influenced ideas on gender roles. It's easy to abstractly say "she could've just as easily said the man!" but the reality is that society begins molding women into that role while their still in the womb. It's something I think any mother should pay attention to. Careers might not be right for everybody, but we want to make sure that gender biases don't raise people into that role.
I'm a heterosexual woman, but I believe I'm falling deeply in love with Darleen.
pm317 must surely be barren (or male). It's not credible that any woman who has birthed and raised a child or children could spout such foolishness.
Marriage is about obligation, not rights. We reward marriage for the benefit of society. When men are in the home as fathers to their own children, all of society benefits as well as the children. Children are not property, parental obligations can't/shouldn't be sold. Unless you have money to pay donors and surrogates, so you can 'build'watch a family.
Bleh, I feel like a broken record. Sick of being called an idiot or a bigot, because everyone has a mom and dad. Duh! As former democrat, they don't give a crap how broken families cause poverty and instability for children. Democrats favor gay marriage due to money from the lobbying.
Marriage matters, no matter what anyone might be enlighten to believe otherwise.
PM317 asked:
"Why do you think there is a pay inequity between men and women?"
Yes, why do you think that?
Certainly not because of any evidence, is it?
Yes, women make 65%, 75%, 95%, 100% 105% or pretty much whatever percentage you want to show for whatever your cause is.
If you measure hourly earnings, women make the same as men when you correct for continuous experience, geography, skill etc.
If you compare lifetime earnings, not so much. For the same comparison!
This bullshit about women being paid less than men for the same work is just that, bullshit.
Speaking generally here. Of course you will find some instances of women making less than similar men. They are the fairly rare exception, not the rule.
John Henry
So much good stuff here.
@madeleine -- Thanks for the clarification. I do know the type you're talking about.
@MadisonMan, who wrote, When she was 7, my daughter wanted to marry her brother. Never believe what a 7-year-old says is going to happen when they grow up.
Both my older kids have gone through the stage of wanting to marry their best friend. I once inadvertently reduced my daughter to tears by telling her she would have to move to Massachusetts for that. "But I don't want to move to Massachusetts!" As for jobs? My 9-year-old plans on being a spy. My 7-year-old plans on being an artist and a chef. My 4-year-old has told us he's never moving out.
@br549 -- I haven't been in your situation. But there was a two year period where I was working part-time and freelance and my wife was working evenings several days a week. I really liked the 3:00pm - 8:00pm shift. That was from the time the kids got off the bus until they went to bed. Then it was back to work.
Thanks to the flexibility and proximity of my job I'm able to spend a lot of time with my kids. I guess it is at the expense of commuting to a soul-killing money-making job, or taking flight lessons or something, but I wouldn't trade it for the world.
Amidore wrote: society begins molding women into that role while their still in the womb
I'm curious. Please explain further.
Freeman Hunt --
"No, those guys comment over at Helen's place."
BWahahahaha! Nailed it. Hell, I once said I had a good female boss and several of them melted. "Are you a liar?" Friggin' dunces.
Not all, but a significant number.
but the reality is that society begins molding women into that role while their still in the womb. It's something I think any mother should pay attention to. Careers might not be right for everybody, but we want to make sure that gender biases don't raise people into that role.
We want to make sure girls don't grow up thinking they know what they want.
No one ever talked to me about being a stay at home mom while I was growing up. No one. Everyone talked to me as though it was assumed I would spend my adult life pursuing a career.
Most of my friends were raised the same way. So is the concern really that girls will be indoctrinated into stay at home mom roles or that that being a stay at home mom would even be mentioned as an acceptable option?
I was a house husband for many years...and with a gang of children. For many years, it was great.
And then it was not great...
....Divorce.
Being a full-time care giver is a much more natural role for women. Despite what deleterious consequences it may have for women's careers, the family is more likely to benefit, and the mother can return to work when the children are of an appropriate age.
One wonders how many thousands of women drive themselves nuts trying to be "SuperWomen" working and being moms. Better to downsize or downscale and for the mother to stay home and to delay career gratification.
but the reality is that society begins molding women into that role while their still in the womb.
Alternatively,
mothers instinctively want to be with their newborns.
Where do people come up with such stupidity?
"Amidore wrote: society begins molding women into that role while their still in the womb"
I'm curious. Please explain further.
Yes, me too. By what insidious technology is society performing this molding?
@ Scott 5:30
they were on mopeds
Good to see you're back, Ritmo. Nothing like interrupting women discussing what's worked for them and their children in their own experience with your own half-baked pop ideas....shitting all over the thread like a teenaged boy. Why won't they see how deep and sensitive you are?
Which reminds me, take a look at Hall & Oates "Adult Education." Hall's smooth and accomplished vocals don't varnish over the passionate fumblings and adolescent and rebellious love-theme of the song.
Good stuff
"But I don't want to move to Massachusetts!"
Ha!
Amidore wrote: society begins molding women into that role while their still in the womb
I'm curious. Please explain further.
I’m curious about that one too. If it’s happening in the womb, it’s not ‘society’ that’s doing it, it’s genetics.
Alternatively, mothers instinctively want to be with their newborns.
It makes sense that if you carry someone inside of you for 9 months you might become rather attached, doesn’t it?
Pyrrric victory as it were.
Rock on, Big Mama Althaus
Nor do I see any evidence of violence against people who are opposed of the rights of gays to marry for the same reasons as straights do.
Then you obviously skipped reading newspapers during the Prop 8 passage in California. Pro-Prop 8 supporters were targeted with violence and harassment. Never the reverse.
"Marriage" isn't a "right." So the idea of marriage for "the same reasons" doesn't apply. No one inquires of the man & woman who get a marriage license what "reason" they are marrying just as they don't inquire about their sexual orientation. Marriage for business reasons, convenience, pregnancy or for love is no nevermind to the Gov. It is a default contract outlining the responsibilities and obligations of those that enter into it and the state got involved because most marriages lead to children.
Same-sex couples should have a default contract too - e.g. domestic partnership/civil union. But as men and women are not fungible, a same-sex relationship cannot be "marriage."
But hey, how can the Left get people away from the one institution that leads to individual stability and that DREADED WEALTH if they were ever to acknowledge that?
As with all dissent from Leftist dogma, dissenters never operate from sincere motives, just EVIL OPPRESSION (please ignore the totalitarianism of the Left - it's only for your own good)
I distinguish between Leftists and liberals. I can actually have intelligent discussions with liberals even if we disagree (to quote Prager: clarity before agreement).
Leftists aren't into good-faith arguments -- maybe that's why there is so much jihadist sympathy among them - they admire the tactics against the kuffar.
Oh give me a break, Chris. That wasn't until at least nearly a hundred comments in and after Darleen brought up irrelevancies like the supposed atrocity of gays marrying each other for the same reasons that the rest of us do. I have no quarrel with women who don't want to work. I just thought it was funny that Althouse brought up the complementary (and just as unobjectionable, if hippy-dippy) argument that a guy could also stay at home.
But then a parrot started in...
what's so bad about choice? Oh, according to the isms and ists, there is to be no choice.
Looks like I spoke too soon, Chris.
Is this really what Darleen wants to make out of the thread? An argument about an inevitable trend to see gays as humans with the same respect w/r/t their participation in civil society?
I thought she was going to regale us with her wisdom of stay-at-home motherhood, Chris. But it looks like funky tropes regarding tradition for tradition's sake and the rights of rich West Coast carpetbaggers are more of what she's up for tonight.
What if Our Daughters Don't Want to Work?
Then they won't be as upset at the unemployment rate among the young as they would be otherwise.
wv rerri -what I would say about this column if I were Japanese.
That's just because the Tea Party is corrupt enough to be that much cozier with the same government they pretend to hate. Birds of a feather.
Wow, talk about alternate-universe!
Nevermind that the TEA Party adults behaved with civic-mindedness even as they exercised their Constitutional rights and were maligned by Democrats - Pelosi/Reid/Obama and their PR department aka Mainstream Media, as violent terrorists akin to Nazi's. Oh no, the millions of TEA Party participants are just COZY with Nanny Government and are secretly wishing for higher taxes, Obamacare and handing over the rest of their liberty to be taken care of cradle to grave.
Um ... someone needs to 5150 Ritmo before he hurts himself.
Aww, what the hell:
"Marriage" isn't a "right."
Funny. Let's deny it to 97% of society and then see how long this "right" to not see something as a right lasts.
So the idea of marriage for "the same reasons" doesn't apply. No one inquires of the man & woman who get a marriage license what "reason" they are marrying just as they don't inquire about their sexual orientation.
Because those things are assumed.
Marriage for business reasons, convenience, pregnancy or for love is no nevermind to the Gov. It is a default contract outlining the responsibilities and obligations of those that enter into it and the state got involved because most marriages lead to children.
Cite a stat for that. Better yet, what percentage of births are out-of-wedlock? If they are substantial (and they are), then your argument for marriage for the sake of childbirth goes out the window. As does the right of any woman to marry after menopause.
Same-sex couples should have a default contract too - e.g. domestic partnership/civil union. But as men and women are not fungible, a same-sex relationship cannot be "marriage."
You're right with the first part, wrong on the second. Feelings are universal and not restricted on the basis of one's gender. If roles in a marriage are fungible (as you say they are) then so is the gender of either partner.
I distinguish between Leftists and liberals. I can actually have intelligent discussions with liberals even if we disagree (to quote Prager: clarity before agreement).
Leftists aren't into good-faith arguments -- maybe that's why there is so much jihadist sympathy among them - they admire the tactics against the kuffar.
I can distinguish between conservatives and populists and fascists. Conservatives have a sense of humanity, populists and fascists don't.
You want a clear, crisp, argument? Speak some sense first, show that you have a heart to go with that robotic thinking and stop making generalizations and casting nets designed just wide and xenophobic enough to include your favorite enemy-of-the-day.
Funny, when did Ritmo become crowned King of the "gays" and their spokeshole?
IIRC the societal demand was that gays not be judged by their sexual orientation. It was to be of as much significance as eye color or foot size.
Now the "love that dare not speak its name" not only won't shut up, but demands not tolerance but privilege. Not equality to rise and fall on individual skill or talent but to be free of all negative consequences or perceived offense.
Of course, like left-feminism, "gay rights" is just a convenient figleaf for statist Leftism. E.G if you're gay you MUST follow Left dogma OR ELSE!
Left-feminism demands that, while universities are majority female, while boys struggle in school, while unemployment disproportionately affected males -- TEH WOMYN'S are still OPPRESSED!!!
Oh.the.humanity!
Nevermind that the TEA Party adults behaved with civic-mindedness even as they exercised their Constitutional rights and were maligned by Democrats - Pelosi/Reid/Obama and their PR department aka Mainstream Media, as violent terrorists akin to Nazi's.
Their lazy propaganda and lack of concern for the welfare AND RIGHTS of others earns them that label. Wear it proudly as would the guy who applauds executions and death-by-no-insurance at the Republican debate. Everybody else has taken notice.
Oh no, the millions of TEA Party participants are just COZY with Nanny Government and are secretly wishing for higher taxes, Obamacare and handing over the rest of their liberty to be taken care of cradle to grave.
Yep. "Government out of my Medicare", and all that.
As long as the benefits go to their constituencies alone, they're fine with it. The biggest per capita net "importer" of government spending? Yep, Alaska. You bet'cha.
Listen, I know you don't give a shit about anyone who isn't just like you in life. We get it. Everyone else is lazy and corrupt and you are morally pristine and a model of financial purity and self-restraint.
But no one else buys it anymore. Tough cookies.
Funny, when did Ritmo become crowned King of the "gays" and their spokeshole?
I'll just let this comment (especially the last word) stand as a reminder of Darleen's civic-mindedness and the respect she has for her fellow citizens.
Because those things are assumed.
No, because the state doesn't care about subjective reasons. Just like no-fault divorce. You want out of the contract? Fine.
I said "men and women" are not fungible. There are significant and profound differences between the sexes.
By assuming sex doesn't matter in marriage is the statement that mothers and fathers don't matter.
Funny, but state prisons are full of evidence to the contrary.
Yep. "Government out of my Medicare", and all that.
So people who are forced to cough up a portion of their salary for 40 years are not to expect to get it back?
And thanks to Billy Jeff, one cannot even opt out of Medicare ... if you do, you lose all Social Security benefits for life, regardless of how much you've paid in.
Try again, statist.
btw
"spokeshole" like "piehole"
where IS your alleged mind, Ritmo?
I said "men and women" are not fungible. There are significant and profound differences between the sexes.
Because you said that roles need not be traditional, I said that their roles were fungible. You are not reading.
By assuming sex doesn't matter in marriage is the statement that mothers and fathers don't matter.
Funny, but state prisons are full of evidence to the contrary.
What is this even supposed to mean?
If it has something to do with child support, it's a rather self-serving and circuitous statement. You would be using a legal system that's set up to see mothers as physically needed but fathers only as financial supports to argue a biological case. If that's what you're getting at, you might want to run that by your fellow male cons here.
But then, you'll probably want to clarify, anyway. You're not making the clearest of arguments tonight.
And I have to get a hamburger anyway.
I know you don't give a shit about anyone who isn't just like you in life.
Who cares more about people ... those that want them to have the freedom to pursue where their talents and skills will take them even if failure may happen along the way
or those that want to control them, for "their own good".
The defender of social security is calling others "statist". That's funny.
By assuming sex doesn't matter in marriage is the statement that mothers and fathers don't matter.
Funny, but state prisons are full of evidence to the contrary.
Ritmo: What is this even supposed to mean?
**********
The vast majority of male prisoners were raised without a good father.
Who cares more about people ... those that want them to have the freedom to pursue where their talents and skills will take them even if failure may happen along the way
Oh, I'm sure there are many homeless people and unemployed who don't see your defense of freedom as having anything to do with them and how much you allegedly care for them. But it's nice to know that real-life gets in the way of your ideology.
or those that want to control them, for "their own good".
Put down the Ayn Rand for a second and think for yourself, fantasist.
The vast majority of male prisoners were raised without a good father.
The mothers who begat them must have been taught well, then. Taught well in conservative households, no doubt.
"What If Our Daughters Don't Want to Work?"
My daughter does her own laundry and shares washing the dishes with me. She doesn't want to work, but she does.
How many of us want to work? I'm still trying to figure out how to have a fulfilling, financially rewarding career fishing and camping. I've heard it can be done.
Wait ... so you think someone who has had 15% of their lifetime earnings put into an "account" held by the government should not get it back? And if they want it back it makes them statist?
I love how the Left wants to shut up people who believe in property rights by attempting this risible "hypocrite" argument, while at the same time predicting ARMAGEDDON if anyone dares make suggestions for reforming Social Security into privately managed retirement accounts.
BWAHAHAHA!
Why yes, Ritmo, I'm sure the vast majority of unwed mothers whose kids ended up in prison are regular church goers and have functional relationships with their own immediate family.
You are a funny Leftist... delusional, but entertaining in the way watching someone bang their thumb with a hammer is entertaining.
The great thing about a career is that if it's successful, eventually you get to stay at home, but by then there is no one there.
Oh, I'm sure there are many homeless people and unemployed who don't see your defense of freedom as having anything to do with them and how much you allegedly care for them. But it's nice to know that real-life gets in the way of your ideology.
The majority of homeless are mentally ill ... and you can thank the Left for keeping them on the streets.
And I think it snort-worthy that Leftists totally discount church, charity and voluntary community organizations that feed/clothe/shelter numerous people and families who fall on hard times. But then you'd have to acknowledge the statistics that conservatives give more in time/money to charity than "Let the government do it" Leftists.
Darleen, you must remember that Liberals are righteous because they vote for people who take our money and enact laws that give to those they deem worthy.
The vast majority of male prisoners were raised without a good father.
The mothers who begat them must have been taught well, then. Taught well in conservative households, no doubt.
Hilarious. Not very familiar with the demographics of our state correctional institutions, are you?
ricpic said...
"The French had the right idea about work when they called it travail."
And don't many Americans say they look forward to retirement so they will be free to travail?
The majority of homeless are mentally ill ... and you can thank the Left for keeping them on the streets.
That's funny. I'm sure the right is doing their best to fund hospitals and NOT shunting these people to prisons as the only alternative.
And I think it snort-worthy that Leftists totally discount church, charity and voluntary community organizations that feed/clothe/shelter numerous people and families who fall on hard times. But then you'd have to acknowledge the statistics that conservatives give more in time/money to charity than "Let the government do it" Leftists.
Snort away. Oink oink.
It's great that conservatives hate government so much that they're willing to campaign for the opportunity to run for and represent it.
Never hire someone who wants to destroy the organization they're paid to represent.
It is indeed quite funny to see how desperate and theoretical are the arguments that you trot out. After all, look at the situation you gave us. (That you probably, arrogantly blame on Obama, as if Bush and Co's fuck-up was something so minor that John McCain could have turned it around in months! Maybe even in weeks!)
It is your arrogance that makes you believe that your mindset (it's not even an ideology any more) has any place governing.
Again, never hire someone who's mission is to destroy the organization they're paid to represent.
Hilarious. Not very familiar with the demographics of our state correctional institutions, are you?
Not as familiar as I am with the demographics of the market for country music songs.
Not as familiar as I am with the demographics of people who see prisons and their privatization as a growth opportunity.
Not as familiar as I am with the demographics of the fascists who see non-violent drug offenses as a threat to society.
But do enlighten me as to what I'm missing, tech-support Sir!
The years i was a stay at home mom raising our five kids were the best of my life. Money was tight, but it was worth it. Now my grandkids are being raised in daycare, and they and their parents are stressed all the time.
I feel bad that it takes two incomes to make ends meet. And yet none of them realize it is somewhat self induced, as they aren't willing to do without all the "things" they view as necessities Our society is way too "things" oriented.
I am puzzled that the title of the Forbes article raised nary an eyebrow.
"What If Our Daughters Don't Want to Work?"
Don't work?
So, she admits that 'professional employed women believe SAH moms "don't work."
I realize she didn't write the headline, but it's still shocking to read.
I have often argued to my husband that, for a woman/mother, the question of a fulfilling career is measured against the happiness of her children. For men, the question of a fulfilling career is measured against monetary gains.
"For men, the question of a fulfilling career is measured against monetary gains".
Nope. There are few fulfilling careers.
Most men work because it pays the bills. It's been that way since Adam. The monetary aspect is merely Is there enough money to cover what I owe?
Fulfilling?
Meh. Get a dog. LIfe ain't Maslow; we mostly top out at "love and belonging", if we get past "safety."
“No woman should be authorised to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have the choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."
Simone de Beauvior
I have often argued to my husband that, for a woman/mother, the question of a fulfilling career is measured against the happiness of her children. For men, the question of a fulfilling career is measured against monetary gains.
Is there anything more presumptuous than Sex A telling Sex B how they should feel?
SAHMs aren't getting pressure from feminists to "work". The devaluization of a woman's role as the main caretaker and keeper of the house comes from men. When I hear a man say "my wife spends my money" tells it all.
Feminists feel that a woman has the right to fulfill herself in ANY role, deserves equal pay for equal work and respect for a job well done, whatever it may be.
I would've preffered to stay at home to care for my children full time , but circumstances dictated I work full time.My four kids turned out just fine and didn't end up in Federal prison.
Ritmo, you seem to have some trouble coming around to the idea that men and women might be fundamentally different.
You can argue that they should be equal under the law, and assume as you seem to do that such equality is a universal principle to be enshrined in law, but you'd have to reason better than you're doing here.
Same old Ratmo--shallow, bitter, and boring.
"You're not getting paid less because you are a woman. Average salaries in general favor men because women leave the workplace to have a family. As long as you don't leave the workplace you'll get paid as much as a man."
Thought this could use repeating.
The supposed wage inequalities between men and women disappear when controlled for the same, uninterrupted, career progression.
Also, I wanted to point out that "a career you love" is a special perk of being female. Men have to pay the bills. "A career you love" is not equality.
"That's funny. I'm sure the right is doing their best to fund hospitals and NOT shunting these people to prisons as the only alternative."
Who decided that it was bad for us to keep mentally ill people in mental hospitals?
"Never hire someone who wants to destroy the organization they're paid to represent."
This will rock your world Ritmo, but they are paid to represent us - not the government.
Men likely don't get to be in the company of women for long (especially pretty, smart and good women) if they don't work. Especially in a society that has its incentives properly attached to human nature.
The egalitarians and redistributionists are overlooking a lot in their quest.
I suspect if women weren't so desirous of children and emotionally attuned to the ones they have, none of us might be here, or at least our civilization the poorer for it.
@Meade, FWIW I really did groan aloud.
Bagoh, we ARE the Government. We are a Representative Democracy the last I heard.
So is it safe to assume Ritmo is a fag/
Alex said;
So is it safe to assume Ritmo is a fag/
11/27/11 9:46 PM
Not likely . Why are you on the prowl tonight?
I have known and know quite a few homeless people personally, and very few would be helped by a mental hospital, in fact many have been to one. Most do just fine in their chosen career and it is their choice. Most would either choose the life they have or would be unwilling to make the smallest effort to get out of it. This lack of ambition or desire for what most of use need is what makes them homeless. They could of course have more access to showers, shelter, etc., but they would never be productive enough to support a lifestyle much better than living on the street. In short, they aren't crazy - they are different... with low standards. Basically, liberals without credentials.
So Ritmo is a homeless fag?
bagoh - but what about the rotting teeth problem? You can't ever get around that...
For what it's worth... I think men are often better than women are with small children. Once the kid is old enough not to be nursing, ie., fully toothed and ambulatory, chasing around Dad or older kids is probably better than being tied to Mom.
It seems like I know a lot of men who have stayed home with kids or even homeschooled. I suppose there are people who scorn that, but not among the people I know.
For anyone staying at home, though, I think I'd suggest always having something that counts as income, even small, but able to go on a resume or job application.
"Feminists feel that a woman has the right to fulfill herself in ANY role, deserves equal pay for equal work and respect for a job well done, whatever it may be."
Men don't have that right. This is a made-up Feminist fiction. No one gives a fuck if men are "fulfilled." No one cares if they are respected.
And the most conservative, religiously based, "women should stay at home with kids" people I know or know of or have ever met, believe that the best possible thing is if men can stay home with their children as well. How, after all, can scripture be followed, "You shall teach them to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up." if the children aren't with their fathers?
No, Allie we are not the government. If we were, we wouldn't need a Constitution limiting the Government's power over us. Do you want your representatives looking out for what is best for the government or the people? Democracy does not exclude tyranny.
So Ann, I guess you didnt raise lovely children cook great meals and foster family connections? You continually blow my mind.
'Why is Her Paycheck Smaller?'
pm317 has left a new comment on the post ""What If Our Daughters Don't Want to Work?"":
I think pay inequity is mostly the result of this division of labor along gender lines -- the stereotypes hurt women more than men. Men are seen as reliable and productive without the encumbrances of family and children. Work is what they have been expected to do for centuries and by golly, they will do it. Why are there so few women CEOs, women tenured profs, women in positions of power? Why do they earn 78 cents for every $1.00 earned by a man?
Why is it men are expected to sacrifice their family lives for their jobs? In high school I had a buddy whose dad was a lawyer. The dad told me that if I wanted to go to law school and be a successful lawyer, I should expect to work 60-70 hours a week. Where is the personal life in that? Men are more willing to make that trade than women are. I'm not sure we can say men are smarter based on that decision.
When marriage and children are controlled for, women are making 90-95% of what men are making. Yes, that's so unfair. Well, don't get married and don't have children, if making money and having power is what trips your trigger. Both of those, having children and getting married, are in a woman's control. That statistic is old, out-dated, and seriously flawed. Besides, if you would open your eyes and look it is men who are taking dangerous, dirty jobs. Men are the coal miners, the workers on oil drilling operations, the sewer workers. Yes, women do dirty work too. Most women would prefer the nastiness of a hospital orderly job to cleaning sewers, or hauling trash.
We have a serious shortage of large animal vets in this country. Women, who generally do better at academics than men, have taken the majority of the places in vet schools. But most female vets want to be 'personal companion vets', not the vet who gets up at 2 in the morning, in the midst of a blizzard, because some heifer has decided to have a breach delivery. Those vets have gloves that go all the way up to their armpits, and they use all of those gloves sticking their arm up the cow's insides. Girls don't like that so much.
Nice try pm, but that doesn't account for children and marriage. It does re-enforce the idea that part of the problem is women are selecting lower paying careers. Hardly the fault of men. Do you know many women who enjoy messing around with cars? I know lots of men who do. Oil exploration and development has always had higher profit margins than retail sales. That has more to do with the danger of the work, and the boom or bust nature of the business. Men are more willing to gamble their personal fortunes on an oil well than women are. Retail sales are safer, with lower profit margins. Maybe that is an evolutionary result. Men needed to gamble to succeed, but women, who were charged with child rearing, couldn't put their children in jeopardy.
What we need to do is to value women for their contributions to society as women, instead of hoping they could just be better copies of men. Seems to me a stay at home mom feels more grief from her working female acquaintances than from her male ones.
Anyone want to compare deaths, injuries, dismemberment, etc. on the job. I guessing men are earning their pay if not getting the short end.
Ritmo, you seem to have some trouble coming around to the idea that men and women might be fundamentally different.
Hey man. I make no essentialist claims one way or another. And until you get a sex change, neither should you.
You can argue that they should be equal under the law, and assume as you seem to do that such equality is a universal principle to be enshrined in law, but you'd have to reason better than you're doing here.
They ARE considered equal under the law. End of story.
If you think they shouldn't be, I'd say the burden of proof is on you. They have equal rights in the law and no one seems to be contesting that. If you have a "biology"-oriented objection to that, I'd say you're the one who'd have to work on it, as you'd be going against the political and legal precedents of most and increasingly more countries around the world.
chrisnavin said...
Men likely don't get to be in the company of women for long (especially pretty, smart and good women) if they don't work. Especially in a society that has its incentives properly attached to human nature.
It could be those women are far more annoying than you realize. They probably have an exaggerated sense of their own worth. Did you see the streak of women who had won Oscar's, and how many relationships or marriages were broken up afterwards. Seems the kind of woman to win that sort of award attracts equally high-maintenance men. These pretty, smart and good looking females are probably lacking in empathy and humility.
The egalitarians and redistributionists are overlooking a lot in their quest.
I suspect if women weren't so desirous of children and emotionally attuned to the ones they have, none of us might be here, or at least our civilization the poorer for it.
That is rather sexist, assuming women will love their child. Just because a certain human being is encumbered with a womb doesn't mean they have a heart. Lots of women are not particularly nice to their children. While most child sex abuse is perpetrated by men, that only constitutes a small fraction of all child abuse. The vast majority of all child abuse is done by women. Remember, a man can not force a woman to get an abortion: that is her "choice". Millions of American women regular make the choice to kill their unborn child. So much for a mother's love.
I have known and know quite a few homeless people personally
(...)
They could of course have more access to showers, shelter, etc.,
What a generous afterthought on your part, Baggie!
Don't let yourself get bogged down by the details or nuthin' now.
And, BTW, keep telling yourself that your CEO health care is representative of the quality that most Americans have access to.
Hope Allie's schooling of you on the concept of representative self-government didn't land with too much of a THUD!
Both my grandmother and my mother were welders in a steel plant. They worked beside men, did the same work and got the exact same pay. That's equality, and it's been around a long time.
The modern theorizing about gender in the work place is mostly done by people in universities who know a lot about theorizing and not much about work.
Alex is always on the prowl. Problem is, he never knows what he's on the prowl for.
Ritmo, you should read more and type less. Maybe even think about both a little in between.
The modern theorizing about gender in the work place is mostly done by people in universities who know a lot about theorizing and not much about work.
One of my previous places of study was going to have the psyche people a study on why the engineering field was so hostile to women. lol. Because most women don't like that sort of thing, and if they have the talent that would make them successful in engineering, they could probably make more money in another, related field, such as medicine.
I think it was a baseball player, another male dominated area, who said that 'In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they're not.'
I do read, Baggie. I love to read. Read a lot. Maybe I read things you didn't even know about.
But if you're saying that I should read what's written here more often, I only wish I could vouch for the quality of the stuff with the same confidence that you do. I mean, some of the personal anecdotes are touching, but that's the problem. Most people here don't think about others long enough to consider whether their experiences are have relevance to anyone else or not.
It's great to have and relate personal experiences. It's even better to consider how, who or why any given person could/should relate to them in return.
Unless you're a heartless or selfish bastard - which I try to avoid being as often as possible.
Ritmo, What the hell is "CEO health care" Is that a policy just for "fat cats", 1%s and "the man"?
I have the exact same coverage as the lowest paid employee in my company. You think the nurses look up my job title so they can decide if I get a clean needle or a used one?
These pretty, smart and good looking females are probably lacking in empathy and humility.
I can't imagine how you would know this. It could be any number of things that cause these celebrity types to break up. Most of these high profile marriages seem to go off the rails eventually.
The vast majority of all child abuse is done by women.
Could someone tell me where the heck this stat came from? I've seen it mentioned before as gospel with no source...
Beliving that the government and the people are the same thing in our form of government is one of the basic differences between a modern liberal and the rest of us.
"The vast majority of all child abuse is done by women.
Could someone tell me where the heck this stat came from"
I don't have a link, but the idea makes sense if you consider that children are under the control of women far more often than they are under men. Just due to exposure and opportunity alone the amount of abuse should be higher from women.
I think that, as CEO, you get to have a stronger say in the plans offered, and take that privilege for granted when it comes to the options available to the rest of the country at large.
Whether your company has better options available to them or not, or whether you were enough of a decent guy to make better options available or not, to pretend that you don't have a certain amount of privilege and say-so in deciding what's available (and which extras you can pay out-of-pocket for) when it comes to your health care than does the rest of the country, well that just sounds really out of touch.
I'm not saying you're a bad guy. I'm just saying that you don't seem to appreciate that CEOs generally get more "freedom" than a whole lot of other people do.
I think you realize this. You are obviously more of a decent, easy-going, open-minded and intelligent guy than a lot of people here. I just wish that you would appreciate that as a good thing, and something that is not so common or easily taken for granted.
Beliving that the government and the people are the same thing in our form of government is one of the basic differences between a modern liberal and the rest of us.
Believing that the government can or should be surgically excised from society, instead of understood as a part of a democratic society, is what separates right-wing ideologues from the rest of us.
Conservatives didn't always live in 1980. They also used to live in 1950. Lol.
But seriously, to pretend that the prescriptions for 1980 JUST HAVE TO be the same solutions that should apply in 2011, is to not account for the passage of time or changing circumstances.
Reagan would agree.
So would Eisenhower.
Bag, I just read your blog's March 16th, 2010 entry.
You're a decent guy and you deserve recognition for the fight you've put up to get through what life's dealt you.
Just realize that the personal resources alone that are available to us are not always adequate. Neither are personal experiences sufficient for understanding the world.
I'm just saying. I wouldn't want to take away from you the luck you've had in dealing with some horrible bad luck. But luck is just that. Luck.
"But seriously, to pretend that the prescriptions for 1980 JUST HAVE TO be the same solutions that should apply in 2011, is to not account for the passage of time or changing circumstances."
We agree about that. The nation had a small tumor back then - now it's metastasized to systemic failure. Maybe you believe it's pretty healthy. Most of us don't. Reagan never expected us to be as stupid as we have been since then. Neither did I.
I don't think it's healthy and I'd love to have Democrats to blame for the metastasis. It would make it so much easier to be self-deprecating about it then and accept certain defeats, right? ;-)
But I'm just not sure that's the case and I'm not sure that stronger efforts at the same rhetoric (and the same inaction) of the 1980s are the cure anymore. After 30 years, especially...?
More of the same won't work. We also need a change of direction and a less entrenched and entitled power structure. And a more open ideological framework.
Randian ideological posturing didn't keep us out of this. It's been dominant since the Reagan-Greenspan era. It won't get us out.
I appreciate that, Ritmo, and luck is unnervingly important in these things. But, I also am alive because I made some right decisions about taking responsibility for my health care long before I could easily afford it. That was not luck, it was being responsible.
On the course forward with our government the solution is the same:
The problem we are encountering in the U.S. are not unique or new, and they have a pretty clear solution: with or without tax increases, cutting spending dramatically is the only choice. The tax increases have little importance other than to make the cuts politically digestible for those in power.
It's been done in liberal enclaves like Sweden and Canada with great success, and places like Spain, Italy and Greece who have not are crashing. Everyone knows it needs done, the only problem is politics. People in some places still seem to prefer to drown the lifeguard rather than let him save them. The life guard being a combination of drastic cuts and free markets.
Sorry if my rhetoric was harsher with you earlier than it should have been, Bag. Allie just gets me riled up, is all.
She has a way of doing that.
But you are a good guy and I owe you an apology if you think I'd want to take away from you whatever it is that's working for you in whatever you've dealt with in life.
I wish no such thing.
We all deserve the best shot we can get at tackling life's challenges. If those resources are personal, so be it. If they're familial/social, so be it. If they're certain other connections, oh well.
But a story of triumph is a story of triumph. You've not done any ill to anyone else and you shouldn't think that I or anyone else I know would lump you in with a category of people like that.
Post a Comment