Writes in Timothy B. Lee in "I'm a professional dad who 'leaned out' to support my wife's career/If we want an equal society, we need to get more comfortable with unequal marriages" (Full Stack Economics).
Lee — one of five Washington Post writers who followed Ezra Klein to Vox Media to help start Vox.com in 2014 — writes from personal experience:
Almost everyone—including me pre-baby—worked a lot more than 40 hours per week. Back then I’d spend the workday writing short pieces about breaking news and interviewing sources for longer pieces. Then I’d spend evenings and weekends writing those longer stories. Our baby’s arrival changed everything.
My wife is a doctor who frequently works nights and weekends, so my nights and weekends were usually devoted to child care. I managed to keep up with the piece-a-day pace Vox expected of all its writers, but I could no longer spend my off hours doing in-depth research and writing. The quality of my work suffered as a result.
In the five years since I left Vox, I’ve increasingly “leaned out” of my career.... In recent years, I’ve done the bulk of the child care, laundry, dishes, and other domestic chores. This has enabled my wife to work 50 to 60 hours per week and make three to four times as much as me....
[M]ost of the time it’s the mom who steps back from her career when a baby arrives. Because of that, some feminists seem skeptical of the very concept of an unequal division of labor within households. But I think that’s a mistake....
This is a position I've taken for a long time. My old posts are collected under the tag "single-earner household," but that's a little inaccurate, because the home-focused spouse can have some kind of income-producing work, just something more leaned-out. I think a lot of people are afraid they'll run into trouble with an arrangement like this, but there's potential trouble on all paths, even the ultra-risk-averse path of never coupling and never having children.
In her 2021 book Career and Family, the Harvard economist Claudia Goldin introduces a concept that’s crucial for thinking about tradeoffs between work and child care: the greedy job. A greedy job is a job where workers who work long and irregular hours earn significantly more per hour than workers with less demanding schedules.... She writes that when greedy jobs lead to a substantial gap in earnings potential, “the average couple will opt for higher family income and, often to their mutual frustration and sorrow, will thereby be forced to throw gender equality and couple equity under the bus.” I don’t feel “frustration and sorrow” about the unequal division of labor within my own household. Quite the contrary!
পোস্টগুলি
৬৮টি মন্তব্য:
this is CRAZY!
women can do WHAT EVER they Want.. As Long as, they have a dick
Chix with dicks, are The ONLY Real women now... None of those "womb people" matter
"If we want an equal society, we need to get more comfortable with unequal marriages"
Jesus, Joseph, and doggy-style Mary...for the last frickin' time it's not men who have the problem with "unequal marriage", it's women.
"I'm a professional dad who "leaned out" to support my wife's career/If we want an equal society, we need to get more comfortable with unequal marriages"
Tell me you're gay without telling me you're gay.
Traditionally women in science courses were always pre-med. Doctor isn't a male job.
That’s important not only because it enables their partners to succeed at work, but also because this kind of work is important in its own right.
And here we have the crux of the problem.
The work isn't something women should aspire to, but the work is necessary and thus important. So men should learn to not only do it, but also aspire to do it. They should do it so that women can fully - meaning all of them - enter the workforce.
This is promoted as "equality".
Here's a crazy idea: How about encouraging people, women AND men, to pursue the things that make the most sense for their circumstances and that make THEM happy?
If a woman wants to pursue a career, whatever the field? Good for her. If she and her significant other decide it's better for her be a stay-at-home mom? Good for her. Same idea applies for men. If they weigh it out and decide that everyone will be happier if he's the stay-at-home dad, good.
This isn't complicated, nor is it feminist or anti-feminist.
I think that female hypergamy is a problem that feminism could work on and help in this regard.
Once all the woman are at work and all the men are at home, Feminism will turn its attention to the inequality of having women produce all of society's goods and services.
They will rally for men to "do their share", for men to "have their labors taxed to support the government", for women to "have a greater stake in raising their children that they, themselves, have produced" and to "live lives free from corporate schedules and dictates".
It will only be fair, they will argue, for men to "lean in" to work outside the home.
Seuss laid it all out in The Sneeches.
When our first child was born a long time ago, my wife took the usual maternity leave and then went back to work.
I stayed home for a couple of years to care for the baby.
The reason is simple; she was making a lot more money and had much better career prospects down the line.
Three decades later she is doing even better, I had a great career, and I was able to spend a lot of time with my kids coaching, etc.
It was a conscious decision, because it was clear that her earning potential was multiple times what mine was.
I am more than fine with how things worked out because it was a team effort.
But I don't think I'm unusual. Two of my best friends do all the cooking in the family (as do I) while running independent businesses.
I feel sorry for women who don't have understanding partners, and who have been brainwashed by crazy feminists that family comes last.
They wake up on the wrong side of 30 and realize that they can have it all, as long as 'all' doesn't include children...
A whole lot of left blatter than can be summed up as follows: whoever earns the most money is the one that carries the freight and the other attends to the home. This is is and has always been the case. If there are no children then the domestic side is much less of a problem.
Glad to see this post. It is a topic I have long been interested in as a 3rd party with no personal experience with the situation. The assumption here is that it is the higher income that drives the decision, but I think the personal preference of the parties needs to be taken into account. Some women who hate being home have husbands who would love the opportunity and vice versa. Definitely needs a ROI review in making the decision,
"we still don’t do enough to encourage men to do traditionally female work..."
How was this measured? What is "enough?" Who is "we?"
Statements of general conclusion that do not rely on any facts whatsoever.
@RideSpaceMountain
You have 2 comments in a row and they are wildly contradictory.
As is so often the case, the solution to women's problems lies in men doing something about it.
Food for thought, but it misses the most important point: The modern feminist movement is a top-down, fundamental restructuring of society. It's not organic. And writers, like Lee, have a disproportional influence.
Without their outsized representation in media and academia, the modern feminist movement would have collapsed years ago.
The pro-feminist Huffington Post found that only 23% of U.S. women identified as "feminist." (This was 2013, I'm sure it changed somewhat.) The number is likely three times that in the fields that have the most power over culture.
Americans have spent a half-century reordering society to fit the demands of modern feminists (who are NOT the same as 'people who want equal opportunity.') There are upsides and downsides to what they brought about. (Professional women did better, children did worse.) Now, the top-down charge is to reorder society to fit the demands of the top-down LGBTQ movement. And top-down 'racial justice' movement. They are artificially popular. The results speak for themselves.
"Here's a crazy idea: How about encouraging people, women AND men, to pursue the things that make the most sense for their circumstances and that make THEM happy?"
How old are you? Have you ever been in a marriage with 2 working partners and then, later, a baby arrived? You know, time passes, and what made you happy on day 1 isn't going to ensure happiness on day 3,000.
The key to making the feminist dream possible is to just swap your husband for your granny.
Part of what makes people unhappy is what they're thinking about what other people think about them. It is hard for the man to lean out and devote himself to childcare and housework. I'd like commenters to reveal whether they have ever been in a marriage with this kind of arrangement — what used to be called "role reversal." The sunny "whatever works best" or "whatever makes them happy" is idealistic but there's a real emotional struggle there.
Thanks for the personal story, Joe Smith.
We have more women than ever with college degrees, advanced degrees, and professional careers. And though they demanded a decade or so ago that the boardrooms and CEO and VP offices get rid of old white men and get filled with women, we couldn't just kill off all of the old white men holding those offices, so we had to wait a few years to let them drift off, until today where we do have boardrooms filled with women; CEO, VP offices filled with women. Directors, leaders, pretty much all of them posting their wonderfulness on Linkedin or InstaMe or some more industry specific source.
Women are fully engaged in the workforce, and many in key positions. Women outnumber men graduating high school, entering and graduating college, getting advanced degrees. Our programming is all about women. Even when the public doesn't want to see it (WNBA), men's sports are required to pay for it (All NCAA sports other than mens football and basketball).
Women have come very far. And the end result is....women seem more unhappy than ever. More suicides. More depression. More drugs to keep them together. More difficulty finding men who they can partner with in a life, men who can make a living, men with drive, men with an active libido and active sperm.
So while women are getting more of the pie than they ever have, and society is doing everything possible to make their days filled with more things about them, they are unhappier than they've ever been. And men? Well, we've turned the men into passive sheep, with little desire for anything other than being taken care of.
So...what's the complaint?
Nobody gets to 'have it all.'
I wonder if Claudia Goldin remembers this song
We’ve been doing things this way for almost 10 years now (JFC, anyone still here who remembers when I got Althouse to do an open thread for me, just so I could announce my pregnancy? Wow.), and it’s sort of shocking how well it’s gone. I can have maximum flexibility to work and do all the other things to shmoze and develop and everything else, knowing my family is well-taken care of, and he’s happy with how my career has developed, and our weekends are free to do what we want rather then struggling to fit everything we need in. We’re a conservative family, in a very red state, with very traditional extended family, but no one’s ever expressed the slightest problem with this arrangement.
The only time I get a negative-ish reaction is from liberal feminist-types who also have high-status type careers, and I can only assume this is some combination of envy and disdain, which is quite easily ignored. I think every woman who wants a demanding job and kids should set her sights on a less ambitious fellow.
I’m glad Althouse pointed out that there are risks to all paths; the stressed and high but not as high as they could be achieving women love to point out how risky someone stepping back is, but I’m sure glad I didn’t miss out on this lifestyle.
When you cant even define woman when suggoth like abrams are denying fetal heartbeat yes its gone too far.
It is hard for the man to lean out and devote himself to childcare and housework...The sunny "whatever works best" or "whatever makes them happy" is idealistic but there's a real emotional struggle there.
In modern times, I think financial necessity eliminates the emotional struggle.
My wife made more than me when we married. (She also bought the house.) But my job provided far greater earning potential. So we hitched our budding family to my career wagon.
To be honest, she likely would have stayed home to raise the kids anyway (while working part time.) That was her desire, and I knew it because we talked about such things before we married.
Ann Althouse said...
"How old are you? Have you ever been in a marriage with 2 working partners and then, later, a baby arrived? You know, time passes, and what made you happy on day 1 isn't going to ensure happiness on day 3,000."
I'm one week shy of my 62nd birthday. My wife had already graduated, but I had a year of college left when we married, so she worked and I studied, then we both worked for a couple of years until kid #1 came along. There were a few factors that led us to decide that she would be a full-time mom. We have very few regrets about the path we chose.
Not sure Lee solved any problems.
What kind of man does a woman want to marry in the first place, though? Does she want a guy who is just looking for a woman to support him and who's ambition is to be a house husband?
Or is she looking for a high achiever who's smart and strong and capable with ambition and who is respected by his peers and desired by other women?
If it's the latter, can the woman reasonably expect that the man she was attracted to will become a different man after they are married?
So the same problem still exists as when a man wants to marry a smart, ambitious, high achieving woman.
As a writer, Lee is a guy with a career he can still engage in at home. That's not the case for most men and women.
When we first got married and had a baby (it happened all at once, basically), I was working for the state while my wife worked in the legal department at an investment bank. My job was somewhat less demanding (though not always totally 9 to 5) and a LOT lower-paying. This arrangement did not make my wife happy; it made her resentful. I went back to a law firm and our incomes were approximately equal and we both worked long hours and we dealt with childcare and household tasks as best we could.
Other men may have wives with different views and aims.
This whole dynamic is out of whack since we have inflated to the necessity of a two-income household. For a typical middle-class home, having a stay-at-home partner is an expensive luxury.
"You have 2 comments in a row and they are wildly contradictory."
Gay people get married and have kids all the time. It's actually a huge problem, so I don't see it that way.
“the average couple will opt for higher family income and, often to their mutual frustration and sorrow, will thereby be forced to throw gender equality and couple equity under the bus.”
Ideological pronouncements not rooted in reality should be thrown under the bus for whatever works for the people involved.
Part of what makes people unhappy is what they're thinking about what other people think about them. It is hard for the man to lean out and devote himself to childcare and housework.
One of the many negative outcomes of the feminist movement is that this is now also true for women. I’m a woman with a professional degree but have mostly sidelined my career. It was the right choice but not an easy one- I can’t honestly say that I have no regrets about it and feel some sense of loss for unrealized ambitions. All of that would be far easier to deal with if it wasn’t for the judgment I feel from other professional women. I shrug it off, if course, and recognize that some of it is due to their own regrets or guilt about not being more present for their kids. But it’s much better for my sense of well being when I spend time with other women who either stay home or have chosen low key careers to prioritize family. I’d say having that network of like minded individuals is probably crucial for people who are primary parents whether that’s a mom or a dad.
"We’ve done a lot to encourage women to pursue careers in traditionally male professions. But we still don’t do enough to encourage men to do traditionally female work in our homes and communities."
I don't know why we need to do any such thing, let alone, should do any such thing. How about we just let people do what they want? If a woman has the capability and desire to frame houses, fine. She can do that. If a man has the capability and desire to be a daycare provider, also fine. He can do that. I don't understand why we ought to be pushing people around though.
I also wonder what a stay-at-home dad would do for a social life. (I know one who started sleeping with the au pair, got divorced, and hit his wife up for alimony, but presumably that isn't what Lee is suggesting.) Where we live (Upper West Side Manhattan), there are all sorts of formal and informal groups for stay-at-home moms, but I never heard of one for dads. And on the soccer field sidelines, at the cocktail and dinner parties, and at the benefit dances, the men mostly talk about business while the women (even the working ones) mostly talk about their children. It would be socially weird as a man not to have a real job (part-time work at home doesn't count).
My husband stayed home with our oldest for a year after my maternity leave was up, and got so bored that he started delivering pizzas at night just to be around other adults (besides me). The house was never so clean. Meanwhile, I, working full time, still attended La Leche League meetings, church choir rehearsals and the church services that went along with them, rehearsals and concerts for the community chorale I was in, and so forth. He tried to go to some playgroups and such, but found that the women there made it clear that they were uncomfortable with him around (we lived in Seattle and every woman was breastfeeding for a long time).
Of course, this was more than twenty years ago. Since then, we've had friends whose wives have been the sole breadwinners, and things have gotten somewhat easier for them, it seems. It does seem to improve once coaching or being "team dad" can enter the picture.
I've been either a SAHM (stay-at-home mom, that is) or "underemployed" ever since that first year, as my career ambitions... aren't; my husband has done very well for us, and the bargain we believe we entered into is that he's off the hook for most household work forever.
We are, however, newly empty-nesters, and he's looking at retirement before 60, which leaves - we hope - a lot of life to fill up. We'll see if he starts delivering pizzas again!
"That’s important not only because it enables their partners to succeed at work, but also because this kind of work is important in its own right."
This really gets to the heart of the issue. While first wave feminists saw "women's work" in the home as valuable, for most of my adult life feminism has dismissed "homemaking" as grunt work- certainly not something to aspire to do and do well. Think of Hillary Clinton's offhand remark "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies". As a professional who chose to "lean out" to care for my children, I was both frustrated and amused by the attitude of feminists who made it clear that they were far too intelligent to limit themselves to such dull work.
Feminist support for equal pay and expanded opportunities for women in the work place has benefitted women in many ways, but devaluing homemaking and childcare has done great harm.
RNB @ 9:15: "As is so often the case, the solution to women's problems lies in men doing something about it."
"Solution"? Really? I submit that these problems are designed and managed to be insoluble. The point is not to fix the problem, it's to beat up on some group (here: "men," a hopelessly broad category) and to permanently ensconce the victim group in a position to demand this, that and the other thing.
Grievance-hustling is a process, not an outcome. It's an eternal and ever-receding horizon.
My wife and I have done this for over twenty years now, and neither of us (I think) have any regrets about it.
When we married, we had been dating long distance and I was the one who moved (and gave up a job to do so.). That was three days before 9/11, so when I arrived in a new city with no job, with 9/11 fresh in the rearview mirror, it wasn't easy to just get a new job. I did, though, in real estate, and when the time came for children, we both wanted someone to be home with the kids as much as possible. Her career was taking off, and mine could be done from home mostly, so it was a natural choice.
Sure, there are social expectations that come with a marriage, and to be perfectly honest, I am certain some people in both of our families (as well as friends) had some "thoughts" about our arrangement. But she has a significant career now, I have a fulfilling job that turned into a career as our kids got older, and we survived with this arrangement to become a strong couple and family. It was the best decision we could have made, and while we might have had occasional doubts along the way, it worked as well as it could have.
People in certain environments seem to want things both ways. They want a striver, somebody who's not contented with little, somebody who can at least keep up with them professionally and intellectually, but they also want somebody who doesn't quite keep up with them and can handle all the little household details that they don't want to bother with. This is a recipe for incompatibility and unhappiness.
'Thanks for the personal story, Joe Smith.'
Btw, I should add that I am very proud of her. She is a very disciplined worker and is well-known in her industry...a 'Playa' if you will : )
We have complimentary skills...I am very good on the creative side and made a decent living.
She has no creative talents at all, but can sell things to millions of people and companies.
Guess which one pays better? : )
Fortunately, our kids take after their mom and will never want for anything...
First and best thing for people to master is to not give crap what other people think unless a particular person or group of people who can affect you negatively do so.
The blogger spouse and I had decent careers in tech for the first part of our marriages. Then the dot bomb event happened. His job disappeared, hers did not, though he did find a lower paying job later.) when we decided to adopt, she had first dibs on staying home. She took the 3 months and decided that she was not cut out for it. She had the better job - more pay, better security. He was better with kids. He stayed at home for 8 years (with more kids coming) until the 2008 crash happened and they were both unemployed. He started working odd jobs - painting, deck repair, gardening, brightwork on boats, whatever was available. Eventually she got hired again. He went back to college to "freshen up the resume" and now both work in IT from home. Still have 2 of our 6 at home. There was never any anxiety or conflict or ego involved. We did what worked best for our family. Today, he does more "manly" chores around the home - lawn care, repairs, firewood, etc. She does the laundry and dishes. If you decide you want a family, just do what's best for it whatever the circumstances occur. You want your "career" to take precedence? Make sure the spouse is on board, but don't sacrifice the kids or marriage. That makes you the baddy.
Feminism has nothing to do with women and hasn't for at least 30 years. It's about 'progressive' politics, nothing else.
Do what works for you. Just keep in mind that if "what works for you" makes you miserable but makes other people happy, it is probably not working.
The average woman does not want a man who is shorter than her, weaker than her, or earns less money than her.
You forget about option 3. If both partners wish to work and have careers and neither wants to be the stay at home parent, just hire a nanny to do the stay home parenting for you. It is what my wife does now (after raising our children). It is not cheap and you need someone you can trust, but given the number of people that are looking for good nannies right now (my wife has been approached by three other couples in the last year), it seems to be a highly sought after option.
""Here's a crazy idea: How about encouraging people, women AND men, to pursue the things that make the most sense for their circumstances and that make THEM happy?"
How old are you? Have you ever been in a marriage with 2 working partners and then, later, a baby arrived? You know, time passes, and what made you happy on day 1 isn't going to ensure happiness on day 3,000."
Because, you know,decisions made on day 1 can not be changed no matter the changes in situation?
I thought the "make the most sense for their circumstances and that make THEM happy" allows for change". Apparently not.
Her career was taking off, and mine could be done from home mostly, so it was a natural choice.
My younger son is a fireman and his wife runs a very successful business from home. They have three kids, one now in college and the other two in high school. When the kids were little, her sister helped out during the day until she got married and had her own kids. By that time the kids were old enough. They are very conservative and they will leave California once he retires (soon ). The arrangement has worked well for them for 20 years. Her boss at one firm started getting very "Woke" so she quit and went to work for another company. She had no trouble finding a job that was not a circus.
As usual, Dr Sowell nailed it:
"There are no solutions, only trade-offs."
Babies are still produced out of women's bodies, and women's bodies still produce milk to nourish the babies.
Men are still bigger and stronger, and more physically (and psychologically) capable of getting important stuff done, except for the important work involved in raising the babies to self sufficiency. It's nice to be able to earn a good living doing graphic design, producing legal documents, or writing for a website, but when it comes to the basics of gathering food, providing shelter, and protecting the family from those who would do it harm, best for the man to do it.
When our current civilization runs out of resources and we devolve to the way humans existed for the first 199,900 year of our existence, all of this frippery will be relegated to history.
Another gem from Dr Sowell:
"Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good."
"... we still don’t do enough to encourage men to do traditionally female work...".
And by "we"I suspect he means the government and bales of taxpayer money.
"And on the soccer field sidelines, at the cocktail and dinner parties, and at the benefit dances, the men mostly talk about business...."
How dreary! I was never one to attend cocktail and dinner parties and benefit dances, but when I did meet with my male friends, we rarely talked about our work, or work in general, (or sports either, given our mutual lack of interest in it).
(BTW, I was an Upper West Sider for a bit over 40 years--mid-1981 to end-2021. Relocated to warmer climes--not Florida, whence I moved to NYC--because my wife, born and bred in Manhattan, wanted to leave. I miss NYC, especially access to good bookstores and the art museums. Enjoy it while you're there!)
"Traditionalists argue that the feminist revolution has gone too far, and we need to get more women back into the home."
Which "traditionalists"? Who exactly? While waiting for an answer, I call BS.
"But we still don’t do enough to encourage men to do traditionally female work in our homes and communities."
Just to illustrate that "feminism" is not about choice and autonomy, even if those "values" are trotted out when convenient, but about imposing a new code.
"we need to get more comfortable with unequal marriages"
But only when the cisman leans down.
"[M]ost of the time it’s the mom who steps back from her career when a baby arrives."
Most of the time the mom is eager to devote herself more to children and family. Feminism is about the delegitimation of actual women's choices.
"even the ultra-risk-averse path of never coupling and never having children"
How is that "risk-averse"? People without partners and offspring face many more risks, especially in old age. Single women seek the support of Big Brother. The risk gets transferred to the rest of us.
"A greedy job is a job where workers who work long and irregular hours earn significantly more per hour than workers with less demanding schedules"
An odd label, even by dismal tone-deaf econ standards.
"forced to throw gender equality and couple equity under the bus.”
Slightly OT: I'm surprised Althouse didn't chide the author for using a terrible cliche.
"We’ve done a lot to encourage women to pursue careers in traditionally male professions."
And look how well that turned out!
@RideSpaceMountain Vulgarity about Mary is over the line.
Jordan Peterson has been talking about this for a long time. Those European countries that have the most freedom of opportunity for women - tend to have some of the biggest gender differences. Women still become nurses, men still become engineers. There are many exceptions, of course.
I'm guessing the same is true for nurturing jobs at home.
Traditionalists argue that women and men are equal in rights and complementary in Nature/nature, reconcile. Traditionalists argue against denying the dignity and agency of women and men, and the life of "our Posterity". Traditionalists argue against keeping women affordable, available, and taxable, and the "burdens" of evidence sequestered in darkness.
I was a stay at home dad for five years. I did do some odd jobs and sub teaching and some volunteer work at that time. My wife was a small wheel in a corporation and made more money - she got pregnant with our second while I was fininsh=ing up a Graduate Degree so it made sense for me to stay at home. When I did get a job, she took another, lower paying less stressful job with less travel in the Fed Gvt to leverage her military time towards retirement. I also ended up in a Fed job. No regrets with what we did. I have a nephew married to a doctor. Both are conservative. Two sons. He stays at home. He's a former Marine and his son's are convinced he was a pirate at one time. It isn't for everyone but it works for them.
Traditionally women in science courses were always pre-med. Doctor isn't a male job.
Women can be doctors, accountants, entrepreneurs, scientists, presidents, wives, and mothers, too. There are few constraints on women dictated or compelled by Nature/nature.
she got pregnant with our second while I was fininsh=ing up a Graduate Degree so it made sense for me to stay at home. When I did get a job, she took another, lower paying less stressful job with less travel in the Fed Gvt to leverage her military time towards retirement. I also ended up in a Fed job. No regrets with what we did. I have a nephew married to a doctor.
Life is not so short... A man and woman reconcile as humans do.
"Have you ever been in a marriage with 2 working partners and then, later, a baby arrived?" Wut! You woke up one morning and OMG, there's a baby here?
I spent 9 months as a single parent with sole custody of my two very young children. Prior to that I was the very traditional career working husband whose wife managed the home life and children. What a giant reality shift it was to be saddled with it all.
But it was actually wonderful because I developed a much closer relationship with my children and a greater appreciation of how important and challenging managing the home life can be. Single parenting is hard work but very rewarding.
Kate said...
@RideSpaceMountain Vulgarity about Mary is over the line.
I agree. When he writes: "Jesus, Joseph, and doggy-style Mary..." that's the point at which I wish there was some moderation to the comments here.
We should be more worried about the decline in 2-parent families than their corresponding jobs and responsibilities.
In 1960, family households with a married couple accounted for 85 percent of households. In 2021 it was only 47 percent.
Classical liberals (e.g. capitalists) argue that couples should consider total cost of family and home, which will influence the roles played by wife and husband, each in a context. Should the husband stay in the kitchen, in the yard, raise your children, maintain home and hearth, perhaps. The handmaid's tale is a handmade tale with dysfunctional, even wicked, allusions.
While a minority feminists are from Venus, masculinists are from Mars, and social progressives are from Uranus, fortunately, the majority of women, men, and "our Posterity" are from Earth.
n.n-
Yes, women can be doctors (etc.).
Nobody in the Western world disputes that.
Women now make up >50% of medical students in USA.
Despite that, women physicians continue to earn substantially less than men.
Is it because Medicare and Blue Cross have a higher fee schedule for men, or that Kaiser and the Mayo Clinic have a lower salary structure for women?
No. Female physicians earn less because they see fewer patients, work fewer hours, seek residencies in shorter and easier specialties that pay less. 40% are working part-time 10 years after residency. Essentially no male physicians work less than 50-60 hours per week until they retire, most commonly in late 60s or early 70s.
They choose this, because they want to spend time with their children, and because many of them are married to men who provide enough support for them to do this.
That is great for them, and for their families.
Not so great for the American taxpayers, who substantially subsidize medical training because we have a major shortage of physicians, only to see a significant portion of them work part time when they complete their training.
'I agree. When he writes: "Jesus, Joseph, and doggy-style Mary..." that's the point at which I wish there was some moderation to the comments here.'
Not sure why, but there seem to be a number of anti-Catholic bigots here...I've called them out before and will continue to do so.
I was a stay-at-home dad for my kids right up to the point that my wife said to get a job or to get out. She was and is very pro-equality like that.
This seems to be talking about upper class people with satisfying careers.
What about the working class with careers of hard work and drudgery?
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন