- This topic has 840 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
justme.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 19, 2009 at 12:23 AM #447077August 19, 2009 at 12:39 AM #446298
zzz
ParticipantTG, clearly I’m being very sarcastic, but I find it interesting how people take such interest and judgement in the quality of others parenting, child bearing or lack thereof, marital status, etc. Lets just say people get rather emotional about these topics which is frankly why I’m surprised I hear people ask about marital status, pregnancy or lack thereof, etc. I think the best answer I heard from a guy when asked if he was going to have kids at a work event. His response: I’m having sex tomorrow night at 9pm, I’ll let you know how it goes.
August 19, 2009 at 12:39 AM #446492ParticipantTG, clearly I’m being very sarcastic, but I find it interesting how people take such interest and judgement in the quality of others parenting, child bearing or lack thereof, marital status, etc. Lets just say people get rather emotional about these topics which is frankly why I’m surprised I hear people ask about marital status, pregnancy or lack thereof, etc. I think the best answer I heard from a guy when asked if he was going to have kids at a work event. His response: I’m having sex tomorrow night at 9pm, I’ll let you know how it goes.
August 19, 2009 at 12:39 AM #446829ParticipantTG, clearly I’m being very sarcastic, but I find it interesting how people take such interest and judgement in the quality of others parenting, child bearing or lack thereof, marital status, etc. Lets just say people get rather emotional about these topics which is frankly why I’m surprised I hear people ask about marital status, pregnancy or lack thereof, etc. I think the best answer I heard from a guy when asked if he was going to have kids at a work event. His response: I’m having sex tomorrow night at 9pm, I’ll let you know how it goes.
August 19, 2009 at 12:39 AM #446902ParticipantTG, clearly I’m being very sarcastic, but I find it interesting how people take such interest and judgement in the quality of others parenting, child bearing or lack thereof, marital status, etc. Lets just say people get rather emotional about these topics which is frankly why I’m surprised I hear people ask about marital status, pregnancy or lack thereof, etc. I think the best answer I heard from a guy when asked if he was going to have kids at a work event. His response: I’m having sex tomorrow night at 9pm, I’ll let you know how it goes.
August 19, 2009 at 12:39 AM #447082ParticipantTG, clearly I’m being very sarcastic, but I find it interesting how people take such interest and judgement in the quality of others parenting, child bearing or lack thereof, marital status, etc. Lets just say people get rather emotional about these topics which is frankly why I’m surprised I hear people ask about marital status, pregnancy or lack thereof, etc. I think the best answer I heard from a guy when asked if he was going to have kids at a work event. His response: I’m having sex tomorrow night at 9pm, I’ll let you know how it goes.
August 19, 2009 at 3:21 AM #446303CA renter
Participant[quote=jonnycsd][quote=CA renter]Again, I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]
Most people, male or female, dont have it all – certainly not all the time. We each have to make choices and trade offs. That’s life.
Anecdotally, my sister just divorced and entered the workforce after a 10 year absence. Took her exactly 2 weeks to find a job, paying about $20K more than the one she left 10 years ago. The child support and alimony will add a huge chunk on top of that – and the alimony will be paid out for decades.
Also, most people, regardless of gender, will have several careers over the course of a lifetime. So I find the assertion that leaving the workforce for a period of time permanently damages employability a bit suspect. Maybe if she **wants** to be a partner in a “whiteshoe” law firm. Maybe if she **chooses** a career like an MD with substantial continuing education requirements. But these are exceptional situations.
The following two little nuggets below explain the earnings differences . . .
“Warren Farrell, Ph.D. shows that there are 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents’ That’s why never-married childless women out earn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now out earn their male counterparts.”
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312“However, if there is a woman paying the “mommy tax” by sacrificing her earning power to be at home full-time or part-time, there has to be a man in the household supporting the family and, by so doing, paying the “daddy tax.” In addition, men do our society’s most hazardous and demanding jobs, in large part because the higher pay allows them to better provide for their families. Nearly 100,000 American workers died from job-related injuries over the past decade and a half, 95% of them men. There were over 100 million workplace injuries in the US between 1976 and 1999, again the overwhelming majority of them suffered by men.“
http://www.glennsacks.com/the_price_of.htm%5B/quote%5DYour sister is fortunate. Nobody is saying 100% of mothers are handicapped by having children, but most of them are.
Yes, people make choices and trade-offs, but men do not have to make the same choices. Men do not have to deal with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, etc. And, more often than not, it is the woman who is expected to stay home with sick kids or leave work in time to pick the kids up from childcare. If a couple has multiple children, this significantly affects a woman’s ability to focus on her job, possibly for many years.
The fact that somebody (usually mom) is expected to be available for the kids explains Warren Farrell’s assertion that men commute longer, spend more time at work, etc.
Glenn Sacks, OTOH, is totally misconstruing the definition of the “Mommy Tax.” The “Mommy Tax” is the difference between what mothers who tend to their children make over their lifetimes vs. what childless or full-time working mothers make over their lifetime. From everything I’ve ever seen, men with children make at least as much, if not more than their childless counterparts. I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?
August 19, 2009 at 3:21 AM #446497Participant[quote=jonnycsd][quote=CA renter]Again, I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]
Most people, male or female, dont have it all – certainly not all the time. We each have to make choices and trade offs. That’s life.
Anecdotally, my sister just divorced and entered the workforce after a 10 year absence. Took her exactly 2 weeks to find a job, paying about $20K more than the one she left 10 years ago. The child support and alimony will add a huge chunk on top of that – and the alimony will be paid out for decades.
Also, most people, regardless of gender, will have several careers over the course of a lifetime. So I find the assertion that leaving the workforce for a period of time permanently damages employability a bit suspect. Maybe if she **wants** to be a partner in a “whiteshoe” law firm. Maybe if she **chooses** a career like an MD with substantial continuing education requirements. But these are exceptional situations.
The following two little nuggets below explain the earnings differences . . .
“Warren Farrell, Ph.D. shows that there are 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents’ That’s why never-married childless women out earn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now out earn their male counterparts.”
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312“However, if there is a woman paying the “mommy tax” by sacrificing her earning power to be at home full-time or part-time, there has to be a man in the household supporting the family and, by so doing, paying the “daddy tax.” In addition, men do our society’s most hazardous and demanding jobs, in large part because the higher pay allows them to better provide for their families. Nearly 100,000 American workers died from job-related injuries over the past decade and a half, 95% of them men. There were over 100 million workplace injuries in the US between 1976 and 1999, again the overwhelming majority of them suffered by men.“
http://www.glennsacks.com/the_price_of.htm%5B/quote%5DYour sister is fortunate. Nobody is saying 100% of mothers are handicapped by having children, but most of them are.
Yes, people make choices and trade-offs, but men do not have to make the same choices. Men do not have to deal with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, etc. And, more often than not, it is the woman who is expected to stay home with sick kids or leave work in time to pick the kids up from childcare. If a couple has multiple children, this significantly affects a woman’s ability to focus on her job, possibly for many years.
The fact that somebody (usually mom) is expected to be available for the kids explains Warren Farrell’s assertion that men commute longer, spend more time at work, etc.
Glenn Sacks, OTOH, is totally misconstruing the definition of the “Mommy Tax.” The “Mommy Tax” is the difference between what mothers who tend to their children make over their lifetimes vs. what childless or full-time working mothers make over their lifetime. From everything I’ve ever seen, men with children make at least as much, if not more than their childless counterparts. I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?
August 19, 2009 at 3:21 AM #446834Participant[quote=jonnycsd][quote=CA renter]Again, I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]
Most people, male or female, dont have it all – certainly not all the time. We each have to make choices and trade offs. That’s life.
Anecdotally, my sister just divorced and entered the workforce after a 10 year absence. Took her exactly 2 weeks to find a job, paying about $20K more than the one she left 10 years ago. The child support and alimony will add a huge chunk on top of that – and the alimony will be paid out for decades.
Also, most people, regardless of gender, will have several careers over the course of a lifetime. So I find the assertion that leaving the workforce for a period of time permanently damages employability a bit suspect. Maybe if she **wants** to be a partner in a “whiteshoe” law firm. Maybe if she **chooses** a career like an MD with substantial continuing education requirements. But these are exceptional situations.
The following two little nuggets below explain the earnings differences . . .
“Warren Farrell, Ph.D. shows that there are 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents’ That’s why never-married childless women out earn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now out earn their male counterparts.”
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312“However, if there is a woman paying the “mommy tax” by sacrificing her earning power to be at home full-time or part-time, there has to be a man in the household supporting the family and, by so doing, paying the “daddy tax.” In addition, men do our society’s most hazardous and demanding jobs, in large part because the higher pay allows them to better provide for their families. Nearly 100,000 American workers died from job-related injuries over the past decade and a half, 95% of them men. There were over 100 million workplace injuries in the US between 1976 and 1999, again the overwhelming majority of them suffered by men.“
http://www.glennsacks.com/the_price_of.htm%5B/quote%5DYour sister is fortunate. Nobody is saying 100% of mothers are handicapped by having children, but most of them are.
Yes, people make choices and trade-offs, but men do not have to make the same choices. Men do not have to deal with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, etc. And, more often than not, it is the woman who is expected to stay home with sick kids or leave work in time to pick the kids up from childcare. If a couple has multiple children, this significantly affects a woman’s ability to focus on her job, possibly for many years.
The fact that somebody (usually mom) is expected to be available for the kids explains Warren Farrell’s assertion that men commute longer, spend more time at work, etc.
Glenn Sacks, OTOH, is totally misconstruing the definition of the “Mommy Tax.” The “Mommy Tax” is the difference between what mothers who tend to their children make over their lifetimes vs. what childless or full-time working mothers make over their lifetime. From everything I’ve ever seen, men with children make at least as much, if not more than their childless counterparts. I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?
August 19, 2009 at 3:21 AM #446907Participant[quote=jonnycsd][quote=CA renter]Again, I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]
Most people, male or female, dont have it all – certainly not all the time. We each have to make choices and trade offs. That’s life.
Anecdotally, my sister just divorced and entered the workforce after a 10 year absence. Took her exactly 2 weeks to find a job, paying about $20K more than the one she left 10 years ago. The child support and alimony will add a huge chunk on top of that – and the alimony will be paid out for decades.
Also, most people, regardless of gender, will have several careers over the course of a lifetime. So I find the assertion that leaving the workforce for a period of time permanently damages employability a bit suspect. Maybe if she **wants** to be a partner in a “whiteshoe” law firm. Maybe if she **chooses** a career like an MD with substantial continuing education requirements. But these are exceptional situations.
The following two little nuggets below explain the earnings differences . . .
“Warren Farrell, Ph.D. shows that there are 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents’ That’s why never-married childless women out earn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now out earn their male counterparts.”
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312“However, if there is a woman paying the “mommy tax” by sacrificing her earning power to be at home full-time or part-time, there has to be a man in the household supporting the family and, by so doing, paying the “daddy tax.” In addition, men do our society’s most hazardous and demanding jobs, in large part because the higher pay allows them to better provide for their families. Nearly 100,000 American workers died from job-related injuries over the past decade and a half, 95% of them men. There were over 100 million workplace injuries in the US between 1976 and 1999, again the overwhelming majority of them suffered by men.“
http://www.glennsacks.com/the_price_of.htm%5B/quote%5DYour sister is fortunate. Nobody is saying 100% of mothers are handicapped by having children, but most of them are.
Yes, people make choices and trade-offs, but men do not have to make the same choices. Men do not have to deal with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, etc. And, more often than not, it is the woman who is expected to stay home with sick kids or leave work in time to pick the kids up from childcare. If a couple has multiple children, this significantly affects a woman’s ability to focus on her job, possibly for many years.
The fact that somebody (usually mom) is expected to be available for the kids explains Warren Farrell’s assertion that men commute longer, spend more time at work, etc.
Glenn Sacks, OTOH, is totally misconstruing the definition of the “Mommy Tax.” The “Mommy Tax” is the difference between what mothers who tend to their children make over their lifetimes vs. what childless or full-time working mothers make over their lifetime. From everything I’ve ever seen, men with children make at least as much, if not more than their childless counterparts. I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?
August 19, 2009 at 3:21 AM #447086Participant[quote=jonnycsd][quote=CA renter]Again, I stand by my assertion that women cannot have it all, and that their income-earning capacity is absolutely **permanently** affected by having children.[/quote]
Most people, male or female, dont have it all – certainly not all the time. We each have to make choices and trade offs. That’s life.
Anecdotally, my sister just divorced and entered the workforce after a 10 year absence. Took her exactly 2 weeks to find a job, paying about $20K more than the one she left 10 years ago. The child support and alimony will add a huge chunk on top of that – and the alimony will be paid out for decades.
Also, most people, regardless of gender, will have several careers over the course of a lifetime. So I find the assertion that leaving the workforce for a period of time permanently damages employability a bit suspect. Maybe if she **wants** to be a partner in a “whiteshoe” law firm. Maybe if she **chooses** a career like an MD with substantial continuing education requirements. But these are exceptional situations.
The following two little nuggets below explain the earnings differences . . .
“Warren Farrell, Ph.D. shows that there are 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents’ That’s why never-married childless women out earn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now out earn their male counterparts.”
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312“However, if there is a woman paying the “mommy tax” by sacrificing her earning power to be at home full-time or part-time, there has to be a man in the household supporting the family and, by so doing, paying the “daddy tax.” In addition, men do our society’s most hazardous and demanding jobs, in large part because the higher pay allows them to better provide for their families. Nearly 100,000 American workers died from job-related injuries over the past decade and a half, 95% of them men. There were over 100 million workplace injuries in the US between 1976 and 1999, again the overwhelming majority of them suffered by men.“
http://www.glennsacks.com/the_price_of.htm%5B/quote%5DYour sister is fortunate. Nobody is saying 100% of mothers are handicapped by having children, but most of them are.
Yes, people make choices and trade-offs, but men do not have to make the same choices. Men do not have to deal with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, etc. And, more often than not, it is the woman who is expected to stay home with sick kids or leave work in time to pick the kids up from childcare. If a couple has multiple children, this significantly affects a woman’s ability to focus on her job, possibly for many years.
The fact that somebody (usually mom) is expected to be available for the kids explains Warren Farrell’s assertion that men commute longer, spend more time at work, etc.
Glenn Sacks, OTOH, is totally misconstruing the definition of the “Mommy Tax.” The “Mommy Tax” is the difference between what mothers who tend to their children make over their lifetimes vs. what childless or full-time working mothers make over their lifetime. From everything I’ve ever seen, men with children make at least as much, if not more than their childless counterparts. I’ve never heard of a single instance where a man took a more dangerous job **after** having children, solely (even largely) because he had children. Are there any statistics to back up his claim?
August 19, 2009 at 7:27 AM #446328CBad
Participant[quote=CA renter]Men do not have to deal with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, etc. [/quote]
Deal with?! Honey I consider my pregnancies, childbirths, and breastfeeding to be of the happiest points in my life! Seriously women need to embrace that which makes them women. I feel lucky that I am able to experience those marvelous things in my life.
Now come on, I know you have kids, do you really feel negativity or resentment towards those things or did the “deal with” verbiage just filter in to make a point? 🙂
August 19, 2009 at 7:27 AM #446522Participant[quote=CA renter]Men do not have to deal with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, etc. [/quote]
Deal with?! Honey I consider my pregnancies, childbirths, and breastfeeding to be of the happiest points in my life! Seriously women need to embrace that which makes them women. I feel lucky that I am able to experience those marvelous things in my life.
Now come on, I know you have kids, do you really feel negativity or resentment towards those things or did the “deal with” verbiage just filter in to make a point? 🙂
August 19, 2009 at 7:27 AM #446859Participant[quote=CA renter]Men do not have to deal with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, etc. [/quote]
Deal with?! Honey I consider my pregnancies, childbirths, and breastfeeding to be of the happiest points in my life! Seriously women need to embrace that which makes them women. I feel lucky that I am able to experience those marvelous things in my life.
Now come on, I know you have kids, do you really feel negativity or resentment towards those things or did the “deal with” verbiage just filter in to make a point? 🙂
August 19, 2009 at 7:27 AM #446932Participant[quote=CA renter]Men do not have to deal with pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, etc. [/quote]
Deal with?! Honey I consider my pregnancies, childbirths, and breastfeeding to be of the happiest points in my life! Seriously women need to embrace that which makes them women. I feel lucky that I am able to experience those marvelous things in my life.
Now come on, I know you have kids, do you really feel negativity or resentment towards those things or did the “deal with” verbiage just filter in to make a point? 🙂
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.