Support NeoGAF

[Kazerei]

They don't have a choice? What's preventing them from choosing to work or stay home?

It seems like most people -- both men and women -- want a balance between work and family. But because America's labour standards are so crappy, one parent is forced to sacrifice their career in order to care for the kids, and usually it's the mother who chooses to.

 

[Zhengi]

In my experience, people who had one parent at home and one working were better achievers academically, financially, and have had better adjusted lives. I understand the need for two working parents - the cost of living has far outpaced rises in incomes, but a lot of the time I get the feeling that it's not cost of living based but personal career based. I personally, think that if you have children you have a moral duty to raise those children as efficiently and healthily as possible. I've always felt sacrificing your children for a career is painfully selfish. This is not to say it should necessarily be women who give up their careers, but if financially possible someone does.

I agree. I didn't want to make it sound like I thought only women should be in the child raising role. Instead, if the mother is earning more than the father, then it makes sense for the father to stay at home to raise the kids. I believe this dynamic is actually starting to happen more and more today.

 

[kirblar]

I've been a stay-at-home dad for 8 years and a lot of people have the same view as your mother. I've got a 16 year old from a previous marriage, 8 year old, and a 3 year old.

I have become socially awkward over the last decade because of it. I hate meeting new people because i know that more than likely, I'm going to judged that way. Every so often I'll run into the occasional Neanderthal who thinks being a stay at home dad means I sit on my ass and play video games all day. Far from it. Had more time for gaming when I had a full time job.

Btw, I'm a stay-at-home dad out of necessity, not by choice. My wife is a doctor and makes about 4 times as much money as I did when I left the workplace. We don't have a village to help us raise our kids. No grandparents, aunts, or uncles around that can help pick up and drop off kids where they need to go, help take care of them when they are sick, or watch them in the summers when they are out of school. Its all on me.

Its not easy. I do everything. Run kids everywhere, have a 4000 sq. foot house to take care of, yard mowing, landscaping, all cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, doctor and dentist appointment running, getting kids on the bus, having to always run one of our 2 dogs and 1 cat to the vet, take care of all vehicle maintenance, i mean this is just the tip of the iceberg. Very few days where I can get an afternoon and not have anything to do. I posted this long list in a similar thread of what I do on a daily basis, and some guy here posted that it was bullshit because the stuff I do is done in every single household, but he failed to realize is that very seldom does all of this stuff completely fall on one person in the household. These kinds of duties are usually split and not fall all on one person.

Its a thankless job, but I don't want to complain too much. I have a good life. Its just very socially isolating, and hard on the male ego. We aren't hard-wired to do this kind of work.

I hate how these stories almost always treat the economic value of having a full-time mom/dad at home as $0, when that's clearly not the case. It's just something that's not easy to measure.

 

[genjiZERO]

I agree. I didn't want to make it sound like I thought only women should be in the child raising role. Instead, if the mother is earning more than the father, then it makes sense for the father to stay at home to raise the kids. I believe this dynamic is actually starting to happen more and more today.

I didn't think you sounded like that at all actually. I was just expanding the thought.

 

[kirblar]

In my experience, people who had one parent at home and one working were better achievers academically, financially, and have had better adjusted lives. I understand the need for two working parents - the cost of living has far outpaced rises in incomes, but a lot of the time I get the feeling that it's not cost of living based but personal career based. I personally, think that if you have children you have a moral duty to raise those children as efficiently and healthily as possible. I've always felt sacrificing your children for a career is painfully selfish. This is not to say it should necessarily be women who give up their careers, but if financially possible someone does.

One of the things they discovered when researching why high-earning professional women would leave the workplace? They would marry other high earning/status professional men, then, because they were high-earners, they would be able to afford to leave the workforce and raise their children.

 

[The Technomancer]

My recommendation if people want a society where women don't have to make sacrifices for children they choose to have would be free 24 hour childcare available in every town. A crèche model would be even more efficient as it uses economies of scale in child raising while both parents work. Such a model wouldn't definitely make women's lives easier; the economy would adjust to a certain dual income and women would now be forced to work.

I just hope what we are trying to accomplish makes people's lives better and not just marching towards an abstract goal that may or may not result in a happier society.

I'd rather incomes rise so that single-income households are a viable option again for many people. Lord knows our country has the raw wealth flowing through it to allow such a thing.

 

[Cyan]

Such a model wouldn't definitely make women's lives easier; the economy would adjust to a certain dual income and women would now be forced to work.

This has arguably already started happening.

 

[Hari Seldon]

One of the things they discovered when researching why high-earning professional women would leave the workplace? They would marry other high earning/status professional men, then, because they were high-earners, they would be able to afford to leave the workforce and raise their children.

That isn't necessarily the conclusion I would come to. In a high earning professional environment, a 40 hour work week is a rare luxury. If you don't have a predictable work schedule, it is extremely hard to even send your kids to daycare unless you have a relative that is able to pick the kids up if you have to work late.

 

[genjiZERO]

One of the things they discovered when researching why high-earning professional women would leave the workplace? They would marry other high earning/status professional men, then, because they were high-earners, they would be able to afford to leave the workforce and raise their children.

That sounds OK to me.

 

[kirblar]

That isn't necessarily the conclusion I would come to. In a high earning professional environment, a 40 hour work week is a rare luxury. If you don't have a predictable work schedule, it is extremely hard to even send your kids to daycare unless you have a relative that is able to pick the kids up if you have to work late.

Being a stay at home parent is unfortunately a "luxury" in today's world.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I'd rather incomes rise so that single-income households are a viable option again for many people. Lord knows our country has the raw wealth flowing through it to allow such a thing.

That is really the crux of the matter. Our parents and grandparents had the ability to support a family on a single income. For most people these days, this is impossible. The quality of life is declining. Even for people who make enough money to support a family, one parent usually needs to sell their sole in order to do it.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I've been a stay-at-home dad for 8 years and a lot of people have the same view as your mother. I've got a 16 year old from a previous marriage, 8 year old, and a 3 year old.

I have become socially awkward over the last decade because of it. I hate meeting new people because i know that more than likely, I'm going to judged that way. Every so often I'll run into the occasional Neanderthal who thinks being a stay at home dad means I sit on my ass and play video games all day. Far from it. Had more time for gaming when I had a full time job.

Btw, I'm a stay-at-home dad out of necessity, not by choice. My wife is a doctor and makes about 4 times as much money as I did when I left the workplace. We don't have a village to help us raise our kids. No grandparents, aunts, or uncles around that can help pick up and drop off kids where they need to go, help take care of them when they are sick, or watch them in the summers when they are out of school. Its all on me.

Its not easy. I do everything. Run kids everywhere, have a 4000 sq. foot house to take care of, yard mowing, landscaping, all cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, doctor and dentist appointment running, getting kids on the bus, having to always run one of our 2 dogs and 1 cat to the vet, take care of all vehicle maintenance, i mean this is just the tip of the iceberg. Very few days where I can get an afternoon and not have anything to do. I posted this long list in a similar thread of what I do on a daily basis, and some guy here posted that it was bullshit because the stuff I do is done in every single household, but he failed to realize is that very seldom does all of this stuff completely fall on one person in the household. These kinds of duties are usually split and not fall all on one person.

Its a thankless job, but I don't want to complain too much. I have a good life. Its just very socially isolating, and hard on the male ego. We aren't hard-wired to do this kind of work.

I wonder why you felt it was a necessity and not a choice? Obviously if one or the other had to leave the workforce it was going to be you, but did you consider hiring help to take care of the household so you could continue a career? Was it too expensive to be worth it?

 

[Kimawolf]

Well it's no secret that the price of goods and services has increased, but we also have to consider that we consume a lot more goods and services than we did in the 50s and 60's, even in the 80's.

Our standards of living and what's acceptable have changed drastically, to the point that even someone making 50k a year can no longer survive "comfortably" (in this sense comfort is defined as not living paycheck to paycheck). Add to that the proliferation of fast food and how it's grown and its no surprise we seem to not be living to as high a standard. Now is overspending and having a far higher standard the sole reason? Of course not, but it certainly is one of the reasons. We consume more and have more things to consume, but our income has not increased high enough to match all the added consumer goods and services now available.

 

[Mumei]

This has arguably already started happening.

Well it's no secret that the price of goods and services has increased, but we also have to consider that we consume a lot more goods and services than we did in the 50s and 60's, even in the 80's.

Our standards of living and what's acceptable have changed drastically, to the point that even someone making 50k a year can no longer survive "comfortably" (in this sense comfort is defined as not living paycheck to paycheck). Add to that the proliferation of fast food and how it's grown and its no surprise we seem to not be living to as high a standard. Now is overspending and having a far higher standard the sole reason? Of course not, but it certainly is one of the reasons. We consume more and have more things to consume, but our income has not increased high enough to match all the added consumer goods and services now available.

Oh, this reminds me of Elizabeth Warren's work on this issue. This Conversations with History interview has a lot of great information. I'm at the library (taking a small break from pacing the aisles and reading), so I can't listen to it or find the exact spot, but she talks about how there has been a transformation in the structure of the economy so that the two income family has become the norm, and despite the fact that we're actually spending less on food (including eating out), less on luxuries, and less on clothing - it is actually the issues of transportation (needing two vehicles), child care (mom isn't necessarily home), and home (increasing mortgage prices, and additionally parents being driven to move to area codes with better schools which are associated with more expensive housing) that are driving the increases in spending, and not profligate spending) we're still working harder to stay ahead in spite of the fact that now a two-income family is the norm. I also saw this in the related videos which also seems like it might be relevant, though I haven't seen it before.

And now back to reading~

 

[kirblar]

Public education also isn't as much of a "trickle down" as you'd think- the localized nature of public schooling means that you greatly benefit from being physically near wealthy people (in areas that likely have far higher property values than the norm.)

 

[ronito]

Here's the thing though, articles like this largely bemoan our organizational structures and I certainly get that. However, I think it goes about it the wrong way. We have come a long way in the way we view women in the home. We're not all the way there but compare even how our generation treats it to our parents and the difference should be obvious we have made leaps and bounds. However, we haven't had a reciprocal progress in how men are viewed.

Sure we have made a few steps where now men are looked at as partners and are on the cusp of accepting men as viable stay at home parents. But we're not there yet. Being a dad I know this first hand whenever I have the kids out and we're doing something and people drop snide comments about how we all can't wait for "Mommy to come and save us." Or "don't forget to give them food and water!" And crap like that. I've even heard several friends that are staunch feminists say that women need to be at home because there's no way a man can do for his kids that their mom can.

I even made a thread about how men are largely played as clueless idiots when it comes to kids. It's like we went from the CEO of the house in Father Knows Best to an idiot third wheel of the family that's more likely to set the kid on fire than keep him alive. Yes that's changing a little but my point is this. If our society largely can't accept a man as just a viable care giver as a woman how then can we get on our organizations for not doing so either?

My company is a prime example. There is maternity leave for women and pretty generous at that too. You're a guy? You have to take vacation or unpaid time under the FMLA if you want anything. And realistically not just in my company but in clients as well when a guy is out more than 2 or 3 weeks for the birth of a kid people are like "When is he going to get his ass back to work?"

Yes, women can't have it all yet. The answer is to let men play a more active part in parenting, and have our organizations allow for that and then leave the choice to each parenting couple as to how they will approach it. However, if our society at large only views it in one way. So our organizations continue to as well.

And don't get me started on the whole "two jobs are necessary now" thing. That's just a terrible sign of the times. And no, it's not to overspending. The economy is built that way now.

 

[bill0527]

I wonder why you felt it was a necessity and not a choice? Obviously if one or the other had to leave the workforce it was going to be you, but did you consider hiring help to take care of the household so you could continue a career? Was it too expensive to be worth it?

Yeah we considered it, but my wife really wasnt going for it. She was abused by a babysitter when she was 7 years old and has trust issues with non-family watching our kids, and I understood that and agreed to it. If financially both of us had to work, we would do whatever we had to do to get by, including babysitters, or whatever else we needed. Since we are fortunate to be able to allow one parent to stay home, it fell on me. As difficult as it is some times, I know that nobody is going to take care of my kids as well as I will take care of them.

 

[Dude Abides]

1000x this. Parents always think they have some special privilege because they decided to breed. Bullshit.

On one hand, I take huge issue with America's obsession with working its employees to death. I'm all for lowering the hours in a work week, whether that's a cultural or a legislative battle. Our culture of "productivity" saps our quality of life.

On the other hand, I resent that many people who want to have a baby treat it as an inalienable right to do so whenever they'd like. Having a child is really just narcissism spurred on by the selfish biological urge to spread your genes.

I mean, if I want to get a dog and take time off to care for it, should I get paid leave? Why is my desire to take time off worth less than yours (Mr and Mrs Imaginary Parents) just because my vacation isn't spent popping out spawn?

Dammit where were you guys in the baby slapping plane thread.

 

[Subitai]

Echos a lot of what was in the highly circulated Atlantic article "Why Women Still Can't Have It All by Anne-Marie Slaughter

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/

Eighteen months into my job as the first woman director of policy planning at the State Department, a foreign-policy dream job that traces its origins back to George Kennan, I found myself in New York, at the United Nations’ annual assemblage of every foreign minister and head of state in the world. On a Wednesday evening, President and Mrs. Obama hosted a glamorous reception at the American Museum of Natural History. I sipped champagne, greeted foreign dignitaries, and mingled. But I could not stop thinking about my 14-year-old son, who had started eighth grade three weeks earlier and was already resuming what had become his pattern of skipping homework, disrupting classes, failing math, and tuning out any adult who tried to reach him. Over the summer, we had barely spoken to each other—or, more accurately, he had barely spoken to me. And the previous spring I had received several urgent phone calls—invariably on the day of an important meeting—that required me to take the first train from Washington, D.C., where I worked, back to Princeton, New Jersey, where he lived. My husband, who has always done everything possible to support my career, took care of him and his 12-year-old brother during the week; outside of those midweek emergencies, I came home only on weekends.

Forbes blogger Brian Reid offers, "Why Young, Single Men Are the Solution to the 'Having it All' Problem".

The issue, as Slaughter notes, is that this flexibility is still something almost exclusively for parents. Everyone else might as well be working in the 1950s. This is the dangerous part of the story.

Because the moment that we start talking about designing the workplace around mothers (or parents in general), we create a ghetto that’s nearly impossible to escape. The reality is that every employee would probably love to design their work to fit into their life, regardless of whether they have kids. But the hordes of Gen Y workers are confined by expectation and tradition to the office all day, every day, for the first decade of their working life. The message that’s sent to them is deviating from the old norms is something you only do when you’re desperate. Or when you have kids. Or, most commonly, both.

But what if we could convince those wet-behind-the-ears junior staff that flexibility is something that should be baked into modern life, regardless of spouses or kids? To borrow one of Slaughter’s hypotheticals, what if we built a workplace that was marathoner-friendly? Or more volunteer-friendly (my local food bank can only accommodate helpers during working hours)? Or more art-friendly or music-friendly or blog-friendly or whatever-friendly?

Because if we can sever the connection between “flexibility” and “parenthood,” we can start looking at policies to see if they impact productivity without making this about moms. And all of this can be done without reducing overall hours worked.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Plenty of further proof in this thread that Americans really, really don't want to think too hard about how awful and inequitable their labour rights are.

 

[The Technomancer]

Oh, this reminds me of Elizabeth Warren's work on this issue. This Conversations with History interview has a lot of great information. I'm at the library (taking a small break from pacing the aisles and reading), so I can't listen to it or find the exact spot, but she talks about how there has been a transformation in the structure of the economy so that the two income family has become the norm, and despite the fact that we're actually spending less on food (including eating out), less on luxuries, and less on clothing - it is actually the issues of transportation (needing two vehicles), child care (mom isn't necessarily home), and home (increasing mortgage prices, and additionally parents being driven to move to area codes with better schools which are associated with more expensive housing) that are driving the increases in spending, and not profligate spending) we're still working harder to stay ahead in spite of the fact that now a two-income family is the norm. I also saw this in the related videos which also seems like it might be relevant, though I haven't seen it before.

And now back to reading~

And lets not forget income stagnation.

 

[Petrie]

Dammit where were you guys in the baby slapping plane thread.

Avoiding such threads after my last ban in a child support rights thread.

Yet here I am!

 

[Nightstick11]

Well, I am glad to see that the genders in the US are more or less equal now, based on the statistics given for people's attitudes post-1994. We're no Sweden, but we're not too bad.

I'm not really seeing the issue here: why is the article advocating a radical transformation of United States professional culture? Nobody, man or woman, can just take off years in the workforce, and expect to be guaranteed a return.

 

[m0dus]

Why gender equality stalled? From NYT?

Probably because someone didn't fully charge it before heading out?

 

[Gotchaye]

I'm not really seeing the issue here: why is the article advocating a radical transformation of United States professional culture? Nobody, man or woman, can just take off years in the workforce, and expect to be guaranteed a return.

Well, why not? Seems to me that almost everybody would be happier if that was the case.

I disagree. If someone decides to devote a lot of time to their family, their career can absolutely suffer and there is nothing wrong with that. Careers require time and if you are not willing to dedicate that time then you don't earn the career rewards. It is irrelevant whether this is due to a child, personal laziness or your passion for rock climbing.

There's a similar idea being expressed here, and I'm scratching my head over it. Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome. The vast majority of people feel like they have to work too much. Very few people enjoy the system we have. But everyone has to put in 50 hours because someone else is willing to put in those 50 hours, and so if you don't you'll fall behind. Careers require too much time - that's the whole problem! But we can fix this!

 

[Kali Ma]

The state of feminism and labor here in the U.S. are terrible at best. We are continuously led to vote against our own interests and in the favor of big business. We have forgotten that unions bargain for workers to be treated fairly. Health care is viewed as a luxury. If both parents work the woman is a terrible mother. If a couple do not have children they are viewed as selfish and the woman is viewed as broken.

I was reading this article at work: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/equal-opportunity-our-national-myth/

It is a really good read because it is relevant to this topic. The poor are getting poorer because we are not take care of our own. We are not all provided equal opportunities; we are continuously misled and our social programs and infrastructure are incessantly being gutted.

I am tired of hearing that the U.S.A is the greatest country in the world because it is not. This is not the land of opportunity. This country is ruled by big business. And big business has no interest in whether or not our families have a high quality of life.

 

[Philia]

I was reading half way with this marqueeing in my mind, women still are paid 75% of what men make. :\ I honestly don't know if that's what ultimately stalled us or we stalled because of it.

 

[Kimawolf]

The state of feminism and labor here in the U.S. are terrible at best. We are continuously led to vote against our own interests and in the favor of big business. We have forgotten that unions bargain for workers to be treated fairly. Health care is viewed as a luxury. If both parents work the woman is a terrible mother. If a couple do not have children they are viewed as selfish and the woman is viewed as broken.

I was reading this article at work: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/equal-opportunity-our-national-myth/

It is a really good read because it is relevant to this topic. The poor are getting poorer because we are not take care of our own. We are not all provided equal opportunities; we are continuously misled and our social programs and infrastructure are incessantly being gutted.

I am tired of hearing that the U.S.A is the greatest country in the world because it is not. This is not the land of opportunity. This country is ruled by big business. And big business has no interest in whether or not our families have a high quality of life.

While I agree with some of this, I think you're being a bit too harsh. Times have changed, and its becoming more acceptable for a woman to work, to even be the "bread winner" in the family. It's no longer a strange sight to see a woman in a business suit running a company of men. Now is it perfect? Hell no it's not perfect, we still have pay inequality, horrible working conditions and leave options and a bit of a glass ceiling at the highest level of management that few have cracked, BUT it's still tough to do.

What needs to change is how we view work period, and how we judge if someone is "hard working" or not. Many people will tell you although technically they have 40 hour work weeks, they get the "wink" to work far more hours to finish that project or job, and if they don't they are seen as lazy, that has to change. I think if employers were more lenient with leave and time off, and had more sensible work schedules which gave familes more time at home we'd have better family structure and social structure, less crime and better quality of life.

And America is still a land of opportunity where generally you can make it if you try. It's not like it was in the 60's and 50's but it's still a place where it can happen.

 

[Zzoram]

Out of nearly 200 countries studied by Jody Heymann, dean of the school of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her team of researchers for their new book, “Children’s Chances,” 180 now offer guaranteed paid leave to new mothers, and 81 offer paid leave to fathers. They found that 175 mandate paid annual leave for workers, and 162 limit the maximum length of the workweek. The United States offers none of these protections.

This is the biggest problem for gender equality. Even if nothing else is done, if these issues are resolved it will have a huge effect.


Ontario, Canada offers up to 17 weeks of paid pregnancy leave, 35 weeks of unpaid parental leave, and the same (or equivalent) job to come back to at the end of the leave without penalty. The 35 weeks of unpaid parental leave is typically allowed to be split between two parents (biological or adoptive, same-sex also covered). This is helpful for when the mother earns more money and money is tight. You qualify as a full-time, part-time, permanent or contract worker as long as you started working there at least 13 weeks before your estimated due date. You also keep getting any benefits your job offered during your leave.

 

[Zzoram]

Well, I am glad to see that the genders in the US are more or less equal now, based on the statistics given for people's attitudes post-1994. We're no Sweden, but we're not too bad.

I'm not really seeing the issue here: why is the article advocating a radical transformation of United States professional culture? Nobody, man or woman, can just take off years in the workforce, and expect to be guaranteed a return.

In Canada you can take about 1 year off to raise a kid and be guaranteed a return. I think most or all of Europe is like that too. The US is the oddball in that regard.

 

[grumble]

In Canada you can take about 1 year off to raise a kid and be guaranteed a return. I think most or all of Europe is like that too. The US is the oddball in that regard.

I'm Canadian. You might be offered a return to a job in Canada, but you will usually have fucked your career. People have learned to live without you, someone else has been doing your job for a while and you often get slotted somewhere random, and you've lost your connections. You're also often seen as unreliable, and you may have missed out on important skill acquistion in the role during your time off. It's a big decision to have kids and take time off, because you can't have it all.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Probably the easiest way to fix this is to mandate required OT pay for a lot more people than it currently is. Companies will be cracking down on overachievers if they start having to pay them overtime.

 

[Guileless]

I didn't read the whole piece carefully, so it may have mentioned contraception in there, but I didn't see it. One of contraception's unintended consequences is that the decision to have kids is now compared to taking time off for rock climbing or getting a dog. Having kids is viewed as a lifestyle choice that must be planned around other aspects of life.

 

[MjFrancis]

I was reading half way with this marqueeing in my mind, women still are paid 75% of what men make. :\ I honestly don't know if that's what ultimately stalled us or we stalled because of it.

It will continue to stall so long as women by and large work less hours over their lifetimes, work safer and more family-friendly jobs that pay less, work more part time jobs than men and quit their jobs to raise children. Aside from the poor labor standards that affect everyone regardless of gender, these statistics won't be remedied so easily with laws or awareness campaigns because of the vast cultural shifts required to change them. Even with some of the pertinent changes needed in labor laws regardless of gender (equal part-time pay/hour to full-time pay/hour, mandatory paid maternity/paternity leave) the gender wage gap will still have a wide structural gap.

Feminists wanting these statistics to change will have to address the elephant in the room that is always hinted at yet rarely explained (much less developed into a practical, workable solution) to fix the structural portion of the wage gap. In this article and a myriad of other musings I've yet to see this idea expanded upon at all. I can only assume what is being silently asked for is financial compensation for raising children in the form of a government salary.

The unintended consequences of such this equality of outcome approach to feminism (rather than an equality of opportunity point of view) would almost certainly encompass the entire breadth of human comedy and tragedy.

Further info regarding the gender wage gap:

Do Men Really Earn More than Women?

Spoiler

Yes, but not as much as you think they do.

 

[Karsticles]

Being a stay at home parent is unfortunately a "luxury" in today's world.

Indeed. My wife and I are working toward the eventual goal of her being stay-at-home.

We're both opposed to daycare. We want to raise our child. I don't want randoms taking care of my children all day and influencing their values.

 

[kirblar]

I was reading half way with this marqueeing in my mind, women still are paid 75% of what men make. :\ I honestly don't know if that's what ultimately stalled us or we stalled because of it.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=47930452&postcount=17


Mumei's post and Francis' above address the issue- that statistic doesn't tell the complete story.

I'm Canadian. You might be offered a return to a job in Canada, but you will usually have fucked your career. People have learned to live without you, someone else has been doing your job for a while and you often get slotted somewhere random, and you've lost your connections. You're also often seen as unreliable, and you may have missed out on important skill acquistion in the role during your time off. It's a big decision to have kids and take time off, because you can't have it all.

Same thing happens with Veterans who get called up from the reserves. The time lost is a huge deal.

 

[MjFrancis]

I don't like the "women make x% of what men make" statistic because the structural gender wage gap and the discriminatory gender wage gap are two separate things. When you say "women make 75 cents for every dollar a man makes" people interpret that to mean they make 25 cents less than men for the same number of hours worked. They interpret it to mean a female teacher makes 75 cents of what a male teacher makes. None of which is the case at all.

 

[Loki]

I'd rather incomes rise so that single-income households are a viable option again for many people. Lord knows our country has the raw wealth flowing through it to allow such a thing.

Good luck with that. I agree with you, though.

 

[Yoritomo]

Gender equality should be concerned with eliminating the notion of Roles. For every pre-requisite to femininity or masculinity there is a result on the other side of the gender divide.

Women fill roles that are abdicated by men because men fear the prejudices leveled at them when they try to participate (Elementary Teacher, Nursing, Day care worker, baby sitting, nannying). Fighting for the ability of men and the protections for men to engage in these careers would help eliminate the feminine "role" associated with those careers.

Divorce law needs to be heavily reworked in order to accommodate the reevaluation of male and female roles

 

[Kali Ma]

I think the problem with labor in this country is that not enough of us challenge it. People in general tend to look at union workers or government workers as having too many perks instead of expecting similar treatment from the private companies in which they work. We expect to put in long hours and work from home.

Women in the workforce have brought parenting into the limelight. Businesses could relax their work hours and make teleworking more available, and arguably, some companies have. But too many haven't. Too many continue to expect people to put in the long hours with pitiful time off to take care of the kids.

I apologize for coming off as bitter, but these upcoming budget cuts have me more than a little upset. I have only seen women treated equally in the government sector and we're all getting the squeeze.

 

[remnant]

I think the problem with labor in this country is that not enough of us challenge it. People in general tend to look at union workers or government workers as having too many perks instead of expecting similar treatment from the private companies in which they work. We expect to put in long hours and work from home.

Women in the workforce have brought parenting into the limelight. Businesses could relax their work hours and make teleworking more available, and arguably, some companies have. But too many haven't. Too many continue to expect people to put in the long hours with pitiful time off to take care of the kids.

I apologize for coming off as bitter, but these upcoming budget cuts have me more than a little upset. I have only seen women treated equally in the government sector and we're all getting the squeeze.

Than let them work for the government. I'm sorry private sector companies expect you to work.

 

[jason10mm]

I find it logistically impossible to wrap my head around 35 WEEKS of leave with an expectation that your job is still waiting for you. Maybe for a cashier or something, but any professional career would have serious issues. Heck, in the US medical field it could cost you your credentials to be out of practice for so long. Does it take almost that long to hire a new employee in Canada?

As for paternity leave, a week or so is just common sense. Trust me, guys without kids, the man taking paternity leave is NOT on vacation, keeping him away from work for a few days is between for everyone involved.

My wife is a housewife, despite her education and skill set. We adjust our spending to accommodate the lack of income, I get daddy time when I am home, and she would rather be with the baby. Our friends are shocked that she isn't working, but I think most women are jealous that she can stay home with the kid. Women are hormonally driven to want to care for their children, breast feeding makes this even stronger. You can try to intellectually side step this biological imperative but it still exists.

But damn, kids are not an option or a choice, without them the human race dies! So we should encourage folks to have kids, and the most educated segment of the population should be the most encouraged. But use some common sense, giving too much leave will just disencentivize employers from hiring young women in the first place.

 

[Kazerei]

I find it logistically impossible to wrap my head around 35 WEEKS of leave with an expectation that your job is still waiting for you. Maybe for a cashier or something, but any professional career would have serious issues. Heck, in the US medical field it could cost you your credentials to be out of practice for so long. Does it take almost that long to hire a new employee in Canada?

People rarely take the full 35 weeks, since it's unpaid

 

[grumble]

I find it logistically impossible to wrap my head around 35 WEEKS of leave with an expectation that your job is still waiting for you. Maybe for a cashier or something, but any professional career would have serious issues. Heck, in the US medical field it could cost you your credentials to be out of practice for so long. Does it take almost that long to hire a new employee in Canada?

As for paternity leave, a week or so is just common sense. Trust me, guys without kids, the man taking paternity leave is NOT on vacation, keeping him away from work for a few days is between for everyone involved.

My wife is a housewife, despite her education and skill set. We adjust our spending to accommodate the lack of income, I get daddy time when I am home, and she would rather be with the baby. Our friends are shocked that she isn't working, but I think most women are jealous that she can stay home with the kid. Women are hormonally driven to want to care for their children, breast feeding makes this even stronger. You can try to intellectually side step this biological imperative but it still exists.

But damn, kids are not an option or a choice, without them the human race dies! So we should encourage folks to have kids, and the most educated segment of the population should be the most encouraged. But use some common sense, giving too much leave will just disencentivize employers from hiring young women in the first place.

I do have two comments:

1. The argument in the article does tend to discount any biological differences between men and women; if women tend to be 'wired' to be the primary caregiver more often than men, then no matter what legal or structural opportunities exist for men to leave the workforce or adjust their hours around having kids there will always be gender inequality, a misnomer in that case (unless women are forced to work and men forced to not work). This does seem to be the history of human child-raising, but this biological imperiative is a big if.

2. We don't have to worry about the human race dying due to lack of reporoduction anytime soon; quite the opposite. We have way, way too many people already, and having children is generally not something people do 'for society and the future'. They do it because there's a healthy mix of innate desire and social pressure to have kids. Our economy depends on a state of growth which does tend to require an increasing population, but our planet's resources are finite and in some cases rapidly dwindling. I agree that those children that are born should be born to an environment which allows them to gain the valuable skills and attitude that will made them productive members of society who can work on these issues more than contribute to them.

 

[Syriel]

Fair enough. Men should absolutely have the same options as women do if they choose to be a primary caregiver or otherwise share in the responsibilities in a less old-school fashion.

Try finding a woman of dating age who is comfortable with the idea of being the breadwinner and making more money than her partner. It doesn't matter what income level a guy is at. If there is an income disparity and the man is making more, it's usually all good. If the woman is making more, she's going to question the relationship. You even see this reflected in online dating profiles when requirements for partners are listed out.

In general, men are not given the option to be stay at home fathers.

Exactly, ultimately business culture has to change to where it's acceptable to for both women and men to take off work/have flexible hours for child care. And anyone who chooses to have a healthy family life shouldn't be punished for it in the workplace.

This I disagree with. If someone wants to raise a family, that's a personal choice.

Someone who values career over family should reap the career benefits.

Someone who values family over career should reap the family benefits.

It's a choice.

If someone wants to take time off to raise a family they shouldn't be demonized, but they shouldn't be surprised when they return to work and find themselves behind their peers who did not take time off and focused on their careers.

 

[Ikael]

This is an outstanding article, thanks for bringing it up, Mummei. Some of my thoughts regarding this matter:

Like I have said before, lots of gender issues as well as the whole "racial problem" in the US have its roots on economical and laboral problems, not personal attitudes (evil misoginist and / or racist boogieman putting women and minorities down) hence why my position against political correction as a harming placebo that avoid dealing with hard problems while radicalizing society. It is far easier to claim for racial and gender quotas on PS4's conferences rather than reforming our laboral laws and social safety networks. This has to stop, and I welcome articles like this for bringing the spotline to math and statistics rather than sensationalist headlines.

I also think that a big part of the reason why the equality movement stalled was because it was always centered around women. That was completely understandable, mind you, for women got undoubtely the end short of the stick when it comes to historical and some current social aillings. But that's the catch: as the article points out, women now have the freedom to choose between becoming a housewife, or work... while men can either work, or work, because hell, male housewives are widely regarded as parasytes by both woman and fellow men alike. That forces parents to choose to either fall back on traditional roles, or giving up a big chunk of their quality time with their sons. That is a perverse choice to make, and a false dilemma to boot.