- This topic has 840 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
justme.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 19, 2009 at 11:03 AM #447257August 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM #446623
CA renter
Participant[quote=CBad][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? :)[/quote]
The three happiest days of my life are absolutely the days my kids were born — made happiest of all because my best friend/husband was there for each of them. In mentioning how men don’t have to “deal with” these things, I’m talking about how children interfere with a woman’s ability to work at the same level as women without children.
I’ve seriously strayed off-topic, and want to clarify that the woman in the story does indeed need to downsize. That’s not really debatable, IMHO. What upset me was what I perceived to be very misogynistic responses to the woman in the story, and older divorcees, in general.
I’m not going off on this topic because of my own marriage or kids. It’s just that I’ve seen the tremendous devastation left in the wake of divorce, and I find the large number of 40-something+ women looking for love to be one of the saddest aspects of divorce, just behind the kids who will permanently be torn between two houses and two families. As a child of divorce, with a mother who was also a child of divorce, and a husband who was a child of divorce (whose father left six kids and four different mothers behind), I see very little humor in it all.
Sorry for the rant. 🙁
August 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM #446815Participant[quote=CBad][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? :)[/quote]
The three happiest days of my life are absolutely the days my kids were born — made happiest of all because my best friend/husband was there for each of them. In mentioning how men don’t have to “deal with” these things, I’m talking about how children interfere with a woman’s ability to work at the same level as women without children.
I’ve seriously strayed off-topic, and want to clarify that the woman in the story does indeed need to downsize. That’s not really debatable, IMHO. What upset me was what I perceived to be very misogynistic responses to the woman in the story, and older divorcees, in general.
I’m not going off on this topic because of my own marriage or kids. It’s just that I’ve seen the tremendous devastation left in the wake of divorce, and I find the large number of 40-something+ women looking for love to be one of the saddest aspects of divorce, just behind the kids who will permanently be torn between two houses and two families. As a child of divorce, with a mother who was also a child of divorce, and a husband who was a child of divorce (whose father left six kids and four different mothers behind), I see very little humor in it all.
Sorry for the rant. 🙁
August 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM #447154Participant[quote=CBad][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? :)[/quote]
The three happiest days of my life are absolutely the days my kids were born — made happiest of all because my best friend/husband was there for each of them. In mentioning how men don’t have to “deal with” these things, I’m talking about how children interfere with a woman’s ability to work at the same level as women without children.
I’ve seriously strayed off-topic, and want to clarify that the woman in the story does indeed need to downsize. That’s not really debatable, IMHO. What upset me was what I perceived to be very misogynistic responses to the woman in the story, and older divorcees, in general.
I’m not going off on this topic because of my own marriage or kids. It’s just that I’ve seen the tremendous devastation left in the wake of divorce, and I find the large number of 40-something+ women looking for love to be one of the saddest aspects of divorce, just behind the kids who will permanently be torn between two houses and two families. As a child of divorce, with a mother who was also a child of divorce, and a husband who was a child of divorce (whose father left six kids and four different mothers behind), I see very little humor in it all.
Sorry for the rant. 🙁
August 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM #447226Participant[quote=CBad][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? :)[/quote]
The three happiest days of my life are absolutely the days my kids were born — made happiest of all because my best friend/husband was there for each of them. In mentioning how men don’t have to “deal with” these things, I’m talking about how children interfere with a woman’s ability to work at the same level as women without children.
I’ve seriously strayed off-topic, and want to clarify that the woman in the story does indeed need to downsize. That’s not really debatable, IMHO. What upset me was what I perceived to be very misogynistic responses to the woman in the story, and older divorcees, in general.
I’m not going off on this topic because of my own marriage or kids. It’s just that I’ve seen the tremendous devastation left in the wake of divorce, and I find the large number of 40-something+ women looking for love to be one of the saddest aspects of divorce, just behind the kids who will permanently be torn between two houses and two families. As a child of divorce, with a mother who was also a child of divorce, and a husband who was a child of divorce (whose father left six kids and four different mothers behind), I see very little humor in it all.
Sorry for the rant. 🙁
August 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM #447407Participant[quote=CBad][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? :)[/quote]
The three happiest days of my life are absolutely the days my kids were born — made happiest of all because my best friend/husband was there for each of them. In mentioning how men don’t have to “deal with” these things, I’m talking about how children interfere with a woman’s ability to work at the same level as women without children.
I’ve seriously strayed off-topic, and want to clarify that the woman in the story does indeed need to downsize. That’s not really debatable, IMHO. What upset me was what I perceived to be very misogynistic responses to the woman in the story, and older divorcees, in general.
I’m not going off on this topic because of my own marriage or kids. It’s just that I’ve seen the tremendous devastation left in the wake of divorce, and I find the large number of 40-something+ women looking for love to be one of the saddest aspects of divorce, just behind the kids who will permanently be torn between two houses and two families. As a child of divorce, with a mother who was also a child of divorce, and a husband who was a child of divorce (whose father left six kids and four different mothers behind), I see very little humor in it all.
Sorry for the rant. 🙁
August 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM #446668ParticipantFWIW, way back before the housing bubble, I used to study the economic effects of family formation trends and divorce/family law. That’s probably why I feel especially passionate about this subject. 😉
As to the notion that women — especially mothers — somehow come out the winners after divorce, here is the reality of the situation:
——————–
Motherhood carries a steep price tag, mostly in lost wages and benefits. Crittenden estimates that the “mommy tax” easily comes to more than $1 million for many college-educated women, not including other compensation, such as retirement savings. For example, Crittenden worked for some 20 years, the last eight of them at The New York Times, before leaving to raise her son. She earned some $50,000 a year at The Times, plus speaking fees, freelance income, and award money. Her annual freelance income since leaving The Times has averaged about $15,000. Just looking at lost wages alone, she figures motherhood has cost her between $600,000 and $700,000 by “conservative estimate” for the 15 years she devoted to full-time motherhood.Divorced women with kids are especially at risk financially. Indeed, the most intriguing discussion in the book is when Crittenden details the troubling economic inequities of divorce. Even when property and other assets are split in half, the difference in future earnings between the primary breadwinner (usually the husband) and the dependent spouse with a part-time job or less demanding career (typically the wife) is wide.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2001/nf2001032_060.htm
Rather, for those who do leave the labor force, many are driven primarily by lack of economic opportunities or workplace pressures. (Stone 2008; Bennetts 2007; Boushey 2005). Those pressures often include work environments incompatible or even hostile to the needs of parents with young children at home. Opting out, or merely reducing their levels of labor force participation, requires parents to forfeit future earnings. As such, it presents a major parenting penalty, paid mostly by women.
We find a “child penalty” in retirement, analogous to the penalty to earnings during the
employment years. That is, women who have had (more) children have lower retirement income. We
also find a reduction in retirement income for those who have spent substantial time caring for
grandchildren or parents. Much of this “child penalty” is explained by having fewer years of
employment, and lower lifetime earnings.http://www.pop.upenn.edu/rc/parc/aging_center/2002/PARCwps02-06.pdf
On average, and man’s standard of living increases by 10%, while a woman’s standard of living decreases by 27% after divorce. [for some reason, couldn’t copy the actual quote over, but it’s on page 5. BTW, this is actually from a “fathers’ rights” activist who is trying to debunk numbers published by Lenore Weitzman]
August 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM #446860ParticipantFWIW, way back before the housing bubble, I used to study the economic effects of family formation trends and divorce/family law. That’s probably why I feel especially passionate about this subject. 😉
As to the notion that women — especially mothers — somehow come out the winners after divorce, here is the reality of the situation:
——————–
Motherhood carries a steep price tag, mostly in lost wages and benefits. Crittenden estimates that the “mommy tax” easily comes to more than $1 million for many college-educated women, not including other compensation, such as retirement savings. For example, Crittenden worked for some 20 years, the last eight of them at The New York Times, before leaving to raise her son. She earned some $50,000 a year at The Times, plus speaking fees, freelance income, and award money. Her annual freelance income since leaving The Times has averaged about $15,000. Just looking at lost wages alone, she figures motherhood has cost her between $600,000 and $700,000 by “conservative estimate” for the 15 years she devoted to full-time motherhood.Divorced women with kids are especially at risk financially. Indeed, the most intriguing discussion in the book is when Crittenden details the troubling economic inequities of divorce. Even when property and other assets are split in half, the difference in future earnings between the primary breadwinner (usually the husband) and the dependent spouse with a part-time job or less demanding career (typically the wife) is wide.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2001/nf2001032_060.htm
Rather, for those who do leave the labor force, many are driven primarily by lack of economic opportunities or workplace pressures. (Stone 2008; Bennetts 2007; Boushey 2005). Those pressures often include work environments incompatible or even hostile to the needs of parents with young children at home. Opting out, or merely reducing their levels of labor force participation, requires parents to forfeit future earnings. As such, it presents a major parenting penalty, paid mostly by women.
We find a “child penalty” in retirement, analogous to the penalty to earnings during the
employment years. That is, women who have had (more) children have lower retirement income. We
also find a reduction in retirement income for those who have spent substantial time caring for
grandchildren or parents. Much of this “child penalty” is explained by having fewer years of
employment, and lower lifetime earnings.http://www.pop.upenn.edu/rc/parc/aging_center/2002/PARCwps02-06.pdf
On average, and man’s standard of living increases by 10%, while a woman’s standard of living decreases by 27% after divorce. [for some reason, couldn’t copy the actual quote over, but it’s on page 5. BTW, this is actually from a “fathers’ rights” activist who is trying to debunk numbers published by Lenore Weitzman]
August 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM #447199ParticipantFWIW, way back before the housing bubble, I used to study the economic effects of family formation trends and divorce/family law. That’s probably why I feel especially passionate about this subject. 😉
As to the notion that women — especially mothers — somehow come out the winners after divorce, here is the reality of the situation:
——————–
Motherhood carries a steep price tag, mostly in lost wages and benefits. Crittenden estimates that the “mommy tax” easily comes to more than $1 million for many college-educated women, not including other compensation, such as retirement savings. For example, Crittenden worked for some 20 years, the last eight of them at The New York Times, before leaving to raise her son. She earned some $50,000 a year at The Times, plus speaking fees, freelance income, and award money. Her annual freelance income since leaving The Times has averaged about $15,000. Just looking at lost wages alone, she figures motherhood has cost her between $600,000 and $700,000 by “conservative estimate” for the 15 years she devoted to full-time motherhood.Divorced women with kids are especially at risk financially. Indeed, the most intriguing discussion in the book is when Crittenden details the troubling economic inequities of divorce. Even when property and other assets are split in half, the difference in future earnings between the primary breadwinner (usually the husband) and the dependent spouse with a part-time job or less demanding career (typically the wife) is wide.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2001/nf2001032_060.htm
Rather, for those who do leave the labor force, many are driven primarily by lack of economic opportunities or workplace pressures. (Stone 2008; Bennetts 2007; Boushey 2005). Those pressures often include work environments incompatible or even hostile to the needs of parents with young children at home. Opting out, or merely reducing their levels of labor force participation, requires parents to forfeit future earnings. As such, it presents a major parenting penalty, paid mostly by women.
We find a “child penalty” in retirement, analogous to the penalty to earnings during the
employment years. That is, women who have had (more) children have lower retirement income. We
also find a reduction in retirement income for those who have spent substantial time caring for
grandchildren or parents. Much of this “child penalty” is explained by having fewer years of
employment, and lower lifetime earnings.http://www.pop.upenn.edu/rc/parc/aging_center/2002/PARCwps02-06.pdf
On average, and man’s standard of living increases by 10%, while a woman’s standard of living decreases by 27% after divorce. [for some reason, couldn’t copy the actual quote over, but it’s on page 5. BTW, this is actually from a “fathers’ rights” activist who is trying to debunk numbers published by Lenore Weitzman]
August 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM #447271ParticipantFWIW, way back before the housing bubble, I used to study the economic effects of family formation trends and divorce/family law. That’s probably why I feel especially passionate about this subject. 😉
As to the notion that women — especially mothers — somehow come out the winners after divorce, here is the reality of the situation:
——————–
Motherhood carries a steep price tag, mostly in lost wages and benefits. Crittenden estimates that the “mommy tax” easily comes to more than $1 million for many college-educated women, not including other compensation, such as retirement savings. For example, Crittenden worked for some 20 years, the last eight of them at The New York Times, before leaving to raise her son. She earned some $50,000 a year at The Times, plus speaking fees, freelance income, and award money. Her annual freelance income since leaving The Times has averaged about $15,000. Just looking at lost wages alone, she figures motherhood has cost her between $600,000 and $700,000 by “conservative estimate” for the 15 years she devoted to full-time motherhood.Divorced women with kids are especially at risk financially. Indeed, the most intriguing discussion in the book is when Crittenden details the troubling economic inequities of divorce. Even when property and other assets are split in half, the difference in future earnings between the primary breadwinner (usually the husband) and the dependent spouse with a part-time job or less demanding career (typically the wife) is wide.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2001/nf2001032_060.htm
Rather, for those who do leave the labor force, many are driven primarily by lack of economic opportunities or workplace pressures. (Stone 2008; Bennetts 2007; Boushey 2005). Those pressures often include work environments incompatible or even hostile to the needs of parents with young children at home. Opting out, or merely reducing their levels of labor force participation, requires parents to forfeit future earnings. As such, it presents a major parenting penalty, paid mostly by women.
We find a “child penalty” in retirement, analogous to the penalty to earnings during the
employment years. That is, women who have had (more) children have lower retirement income. We
also find a reduction in retirement income for those who have spent substantial time caring for
grandchildren or parents. Much of this “child penalty” is explained by having fewer years of
employment, and lower lifetime earnings.http://www.pop.upenn.edu/rc/parc/aging_center/2002/PARCwps02-06.pdf
On average, and man’s standard of living increases by 10%, while a woman’s standard of living decreases by 27% after divorce. [for some reason, couldn’t copy the actual quote over, but it’s on page 5. BTW, this is actually from a “fathers’ rights” activist who is trying to debunk numbers published by Lenore Weitzman]
August 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM #447452ParticipantFWIW, way back before the housing bubble, I used to study the economic effects of family formation trends and divorce/family law. That’s probably why I feel especially passionate about this subject. 😉
As to the notion that women — especially mothers — somehow come out the winners after divorce, here is the reality of the situation:
——————–
Motherhood carries a steep price tag, mostly in lost wages and benefits. Crittenden estimates that the “mommy tax” easily comes to more than $1 million for many college-educated women, not including other compensation, such as retirement savings. For example, Crittenden worked for some 20 years, the last eight of them at The New York Times, before leaving to raise her son. She earned some $50,000 a year at The Times, plus speaking fees, freelance income, and award money. Her annual freelance income since leaving The Times has averaged about $15,000. Just looking at lost wages alone, she figures motherhood has cost her between $600,000 and $700,000 by “conservative estimate” for the 15 years she devoted to full-time motherhood.Divorced women with kids are especially at risk financially. Indeed, the most intriguing discussion in the book is when Crittenden details the troubling economic inequities of divorce. Even when property and other assets are split in half, the difference in future earnings between the primary breadwinner (usually the husband) and the dependent spouse with a part-time job or less demanding career (typically the wife) is wide.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2001/nf2001032_060.htm
Rather, for those who do leave the labor force, many are driven primarily by lack of economic opportunities or workplace pressures. (Stone 2008; Bennetts 2007; Boushey 2005). Those pressures often include work environments incompatible or even hostile to the needs of parents with young children at home. Opting out, or merely reducing their levels of labor force participation, requires parents to forfeit future earnings. As such, it presents a major parenting penalty, paid mostly by women.
We find a “child penalty” in retirement, analogous to the penalty to earnings during the
employment years. That is, women who have had (more) children have lower retirement income. We
also find a reduction in retirement income for those who have spent substantial time caring for
grandchildren or parents. Much of this “child penalty” is explained by having fewer years of
employment, and lower lifetime earnings.http://www.pop.upenn.edu/rc/parc/aging_center/2002/PARCwps02-06.pdf
On average, and man’s standard of living increases by 10%, while a woman’s standard of living decreases by 27% after divorce. [for some reason, couldn’t copy the actual quote over, but it’s on page 5. BTW, this is actually from a “fathers’ rights” activist who is trying to debunk numbers published by Lenore Weitzman]
August 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM #446683ParticipantOne more, then I’m done… 😉
TG,
I hope you are feeling better! Just wanted you to know that your posts are always very insightful and lots of fun to read. Thanks for being such a level-headed and diplomatic member of our little club here. Not singling you out at all. 😉
August 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM #446875ParticipantOne more, then I’m done… 😉
TG,
I hope you are feeling better! Just wanted you to know that your posts are always very insightful and lots of fun to read. Thanks for being such a level-headed and diplomatic member of our little club here. Not singling you out at all. 😉
August 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM #447214ParticipantOne more, then I’m done… 😉
TG,
I hope you are feeling better! Just wanted you to know that your posts are always very insightful and lots of fun to read. Thanks for being such a level-headed and diplomatic member of our little club here. Not singling you out at all. 😉
August 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM #447286ParticipantOne more, then I’m done… 😉
TG,
I hope you are feeling better! Just wanted you to know that your posts are always very insightful and lots of fun to read. Thanks for being such a level-headed and diplomatic member of our little club here. Not singling you out at all. 😉
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.