- This topic has 794 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 21, 2014 at 11:17 PM #779214October 21, 2014 at 11:20 PM #779215
CA renter
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]
So What if my father wasn’t the best? Why would he be the best, water seeks it’s own level. But let’s shift attention back to my father because my mother doesn’t build your case. Pathetic. As to your other points, you don’t get that score keeping without insight is stupid so I am not going to bother. You WILL reject anything that does not build your case.
You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe. There are all kinds of books out there, but your stack proves women are better than men. Everything you can or will think about proves that women are better than men. Yet a few posts back you denied you ever even say it.[/quote]
Are you describing yourself? It sure looks like it.
Yes, I would love to see the research you’d like to provide to show that women have not been oppressed by men throughout history. I’d like to see evidence to show that “women’s work” is perceived to be lower-status and lower-value because of some other reason than the fact that they were essentially owned slaves for most of human history (they should want to do it for free…they should be honored to spend their lives serving their men, lucky them!).
Honestly, I’m not being facetious here. Please show us how women have been treated as well as men throughout history. I’d love to be proven wrong.[/quote]
You are standing in front of the water trough and you won’t drink. Good night.[/quote]
Likewise. Good night.
Would still love to see the evidence that would prove your point. I will be completely open to listening to you if you should choose to share it.
October 22, 2014 at 12:15 AM #779217bearishgurl
Participant[quote=CA renter]Please read that post again. I included the costs for both preschool AND after-school care for when they were all in “free” (not free…somebody else is paying actual money for that!) school.
And the prices were not just for in-home daycare. They included both in-home and care at the school site or other institution (like the YMCA’s own preschool).
The numbers are all there, but the taxes were understated (by quite a bit, if the other spouse earns a decent income) because I didn’t count the first income. You keep insisting that you don’t see them, but all you have to do is look. I’ve done all the work for you![/quote]
[quote=CA renter]Edited to add some quick, back-of-the-envelope numbers. Please double check my numbers, as I did this quickly.
If a woman has a gross income of $45,000…[/quote]
Okay, I found the above edit to your post near the top of the page before this one. It was not there when I first read it and I have a couple of appts tomorrow morning so can’t address it now.
Just a couple of observations: Your “subject” makes $45K (a grunt worker/worker-bee salary) yet you stated:
Childcare (3 kids)
, with one infant, one toddler, and preschool…and this is one of the less expensive options, as most professionals would want a “better”/more prestigious preschool option (using North County Coastal numbers…weekly expense X 50 weeks/12 to get a monthly number, allowing for 2-week vacation)
Childcare: $3,118.05/month
A “better”/more prestigious preschool (Montessori?) is clearly out of this worker’s league. A $45K worker is not in the group of “most professionals” and is not even a professional at all! Regardless of what you say here that they “wanted,” they wouldn’t be able to afford what you consider a “better” preschool option. Your subject worker makes $10K LESS than my subject worker who has 3 kids of similar ages and takes home at 30-50% of their gross income. Your subject likely needs to get at least one kid in school most of the day (1st grade) before attempting to work FT if the salary level they can command is $45K. It is even possible (depending on partner income) that this worker can qualify for a childcare subsidy and most certainly to use $6,000 of their childcare expense to claim the childcare tax credit on their Federal return.
I haven’t checked your payroll taxes or any of your figures yet but will attempt to do so tomorrow afternoon. What is the filing status of your subject?
October 22, 2014 at 12:32 AM #779218Participant[quote=kev374]Two interesting videos to add to this conversation, since we are on the topic of marriage and feminism anyway…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU1isJvsTCw
[/quote]I’ll cop to being a “feminist.” But I’ve been wondering over the last few years why we tried so hard to “pave the way” for our sisters in succeeding generations as we did. Gen Y, in particular, doesn’t seem to appreciate it. The young female workers of today seem to be dropping like flies from FT jobs once they have kids. If they can’t get the exact “flex-schedules” they want after coming off maternity leave (unreasonable in my mind and unheard of in my day), they walk. Given that most of them have varying amounts of student loan debt gathering interest by the month, it is all incredulous to me.
OTOH, employers don’t want older, very experienced workers, even though WE know how to get up in the morning and dress properly for business and actually have a work ethic when we get to the office (we don’t text and stare at our phones all day).
It seems employers would rather play games repeatedly replacing Gen Y, only to get another employee asking for 6 months of FMLA after only six months on the job!
Go figure….
October 22, 2014 at 4:03 AM #779219Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]Please read that post again. I included the costs for both preschool AND after-school care for when they were all in “free” (not free…somebody else is paying actual money for that!) school.
And the prices were not just for in-home daycare. They included both in-home and care at the school site or other institution (like the YMCA’s own preschool).
The numbers are all there, but the taxes were understated (by quite a bit, if the other spouse earns a decent income) because I didn’t count the first income. You keep insisting that you don’t see them, but all you have to do is look. I’ve done all the work for you![/quote]
[quote=CA renter]Edited to add some quick, back-of-the-envelope numbers. Please double check my numbers, as I did this quickly.
If a woman has a gross income of $45,000…[/quote]
Okay, I found the above edit to your post near the top of the page before this one. It was not there when I first read it and I have a couple of appts tomorrow morning so can’t address it now.
Just a couple of observations: Your “subject” makes $45K (a grunt worker/worker-bee salary) yet you stated:
Childcare (3 kids)
, with one infant, one toddler, and preschool…and this is one of the less expensive options, as most professionals would want a “better”/more prestigious preschool option (using North County Coastal numbers…weekly expense X 50 weeks/12 to get a monthly number, allowing for 2-week vacation)
Childcare: $3,118.05/month
A “better”/more prestigious preschool (Montessori?) is clearly out of this worker’s league. A $45K worker is not in the group of “most professionals” and is not even a professional at all! Regardless of what you say here that they “wanted,” they wouldn’t be able to afford what you consider a “better” preschool option. Your subject worker makes $10K LESS than my subject worker who has 3 kids of similar ages and takes home at 30-50% of their gross income. Your subject likely needs to get at least one kid in school most of the day (1st grade) before attempting to work FT if the salary level they can command is $45K. It is even possible (depending on partner income) that this worker can qualify for a childcare subsidy and most certainly to use $6,000 of their childcare expense to claim the childcare tax credit on their Federal return.
I haven’t checked your payroll taxes or any of your figures yet but will attempt to do so tomorrow afternoon. What is the filing status of your subject?[/quote]
I wasn’t saying that this person would be classified as a professional. Just saying that this preschool/daycare option would be one of the less expensive options, and that’s why I used those lower numbers. Again, I was trying to give your side the benefit of the doubt on all of these costs. Knowing what many families really spend on these things, the real costs would likely be much higher.
You had brought up the “professional” woman with a college degree. This woman would probably not choose a less expensive daycare. Also, a woman earning $45K/year might not be wealthy or professional, but if her husband earns good money, she would likely also choose to send their children to a better/more prestigious school.
The more the primary earner makes, the more likely it is that they will spend more on these other expenses (taxes, school/childcare, cars, food, domestic help, etc.) because they will probably be in a higher socioeconomic class. And the more the primary earner makes, the less the second income earner will bring home as a result (taxes alone could create a huge hit to her income). Their expectations would be different from a single mother/sole supporter who makes $45K/year. I think you’re thinking from the perspective of the latter.
And tax status is married filing jointly, but you can work with the different numbers to see if you get a better result using a different filing status.
October 22, 2014 at 4:15 AM #779220Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=kev374]Two interesting videos to add to this conversation, since we are on the topic of marriage and feminism anyway…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU1isJvsTCw
[/quote]I’ll cop to being a “feminist.” But I’ve been wondering over the last few years why we tried so hard to “pave the way” for our sisters in succeeding generations as we did. Gen Y, in particular, doesn’t seem to appreciate it. The young female workers of today seem to be dropping like flies from FT jobs once they have kids. If they can’t get the exact “flex-schedules” they want after coming off maternity leave (unreasonable in my mind and unheard of in my day), they walk. Given that most of them have varying amounts of student loan debt gathering interest by the month, it is all incredulous to me.
OTOH, employers don’t want older, very experienced workers, even though WE know how to get up in the morning and dress properly for business and actually have a work ethic when we get to the office (we don’t text and stare at our phones all day).
It seems employers would rather play games repeatedly replacing Gen Y, only to get another employee asking for 6 months of FMLA after only six months on the job!
Go figure….[/quote]
The feminists lied. We cannot “have it all.” I know a lot of beautiful and charming single, childless women in their forties who listened to the feminist propaganda, and who would now love to have a do-over because they feel their lives have been wasted. Instead of feeling fulfilled, they feel empty, alone, and used-up. They feel utterly betrayed. Too bad they only get one life.
The younger women are smart enough to look at the experiences of these women instead of following the rhetoric of the feminists who have destroyed the family unit, made women and children even more vulnerable, and denigrated the very important work that women have traditionally done. May they (collective feminists, not you personally) rot in hell. They have destroyed so many lives.
At least the feminists are self-extinguishing as fewer of them have children; and when they do, it’s often one or (maybe) two. The feminist movement cannot die soon enough.
October 22, 2014 at 4:47 AM #779221Participant[quote=kev374]Two interesting videos to add to this conversation, since we are on the topic of marriage and feminism anyway…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU1isJvsTCw
Men on Strike..apparently…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6r3B9RU8IA%5B/quote%5D
Excellent finds, Kev. I’ve read Crittenden’s book shortly after it first came out, and found that it really resonated with me and many of the other older Gen X women that I knew. I think a lot of women are coming around to this way of thinking. My husband and I have discussed how we would advise our daughters regarding education, career, marriage, and family; and we plan to encourage them to do exactly what Crittenden suggests in this clip: marry and have children at a fairly young age. Most of the men who have a strong desire to get married and have children will be married off by the time they are thirty. That’s why women are so shocked when they finally feel “ready” to marry in their early thirties, but when the look around for a husband, nobody’s there. The marriage strike is very real when a woman reaches that age.
There IS a biological clock for women, but feminism suggests that there’s no such thing. Unfortunately, what BG said is also true about employers not wanting to hire older women. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. A bit like Logan’s Run…perhaps we should just kill them off at age thirty since they don’t seem have any value beyond that. 🙁
I don’t envy young girls and women today.
This is a clip of Sheryl Sandberg’s commencement speech at Barnard College (a women’s college). I think she hits on a lot of points here. She wants to fight the turning tide against traditional feminism. Not sure it’s realistic.
October 22, 2014 at 7:22 AM #779223scaredyclassic
ParticipantIn general more people are unnecessary.
We need less on the planet.
Therefore raising them is not worth much.
Except mine who make the world much better.
October 22, 2014 at 7:31 AM #779224ParticipantSo if you have 15 children you’ll be even richer, since you’ll get so much more real savings from all that imputed income, 5x as much than if you’d just had 3 kids!
Rich! We’re rich!
Except we are broke…
October 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM #779225CDMA ENG
ParticipantIdentify!
October 22, 2014 at 12:11 PM #779230njtosd
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=njtosd][quote=svelte][quote=CA renter][quote=svelte][quote=flyer]Not all beautiful women are vacuous gold diggers, just as not all handsome men are shallow trophy wife collectors, and I have to agree, to each his/her own when choosing a partner for all of the right
reasons–love, happiness, achieving life goals, etc., etc.The wedding, the ring, the fabulous honeymoon, the great house, and all of the “stuff” are nice, and we’ve all been there, but, IMO, what makes the relationship lasting and beautiful is the deeper bond that’s been forged by things that money can’t buy.[/quote]
Agree with every word.
That’s why alarm bells would go off if I even caught a whiff of a potential spouse that was marrying me for the money. To those who are together for the $$, that’s A-OK with me as long as it works for them. But that’s not what I want my relationships built upon.[/quote]
Should alarm bells go off when a woman catches a whiff of a potential suitor/spouse wanting her for her beauty? (I would say yes.)
It goes both ways.[/quote]
Hmmm – that’s a sexist thought!
By using the pronoun “she” and the phrase “it goes both ways”, you’re implying that my response was for women marrying men for money and not men marrying women for money. It was not – my sentences were gender neutral on purpose.
If your sentence was rephrased “should alarm bells go off when someone catches a whiff of a potential spouse wanting them for their beauty? (I would say yes)”, then I would agree that one should run if a suitor was after them only for their beauty. Keyword “only”.
The beauty thing is a slippery slope. You have to be physically attracted to your spouse for it to work – so yeah I partly married for beauty. But beauty alone would not have been enough for me to marry her. Not even close.
She had a nice dowry too.
(j/k)[/quote]
Wait, your sentence was talking about someone marrying you for your money. Unless you were open to marrying a man or a woman, you weren’t being gender neutral.
What if someone said they married their spouse partly for the money?[/quote]
Yes, ntojd, all of my statements where gender neutral. I can only have one spouse at a time in the US until we adopt more Mormonesque rules, and I would make the same statement whether the spouse I pick(ed) was male or female. So all of my statements are indeed gender neutral! Nice try at spin, though.[/quote]
You have a wife (always a woman, I think). You’ve mentioned that in other postings. So I guess what you’re saying is that you’re open to marrying a man. Which is fine.
October 22, 2014 at 12:47 PM #779232zk
Participant[quote=CA renter]May they (collective feminists, not you personally) rot in hell. They have destroyed so many lives.
[/quote]
I don’t think that’s fair. Even assuming they’ve hurt more than they harmed (which I don’t agree with). They were and are doing what they thought was best for women.Obviously women, to paraphrase you, have been getting screwed for millenia. (Insert your own joke here).
So feminists have been trying to fix that. Whatever their results, it’s pretty hard to argue with their intentions. I’m not sure how you can rail against men for having beat up and held down women for eons and then rail against feminists for trying their best to fix it. It’s obviously an extremely complicated subject, and to expect feminists to get it perfectly right on what is essentially the first try is absurd.
October 22, 2014 at 1:29 PM #779233NotCranky
ParticipantThere is nothing sacred about the absentee bread winner stay at home parent paradigm, in fact it is a pretty bad one . It’s also very new and If the old school feminists did some good things, bringing that into question was one of them.
October 22, 2014 at 2:10 PM #779235Participant[quote=CA renter]…
The younger women are smart enough to look at the experiences of these women instead of following the rhetoric of the feminists who have destroyed the family unit, made women and children even more vulnerable, and denigrated the very important work that women have traditionally done. May they (collective feminists, not you personally) rot in hell. They have destroyed so many lives.
At least the feminists are self-extinguishing as fewer of them have children; and when they do, it’s often one or (maybe) two. The feminist movement cannot die soon enough.[/quote]
Wow. I don’t know that I am anything that ends in -ist. I guess I’m somewhere between CA Renter and BG. I worked full time until I had kids, was a stay at home mom and now I’m a PT working mom and so far our family unit has not been destroyed. I am probably what would be considered highly educated (MS, JD) but my mind didn’t turn to mush when I was home with the kids and, frankly, I had a lot of fun with them. Sooner than I think, they will be at college and I want to be working when they are, as otherwise I will be bored and will fixate on whatever they are doing. They say I do that already. Live and let live – my favorite moms are the ones who are not sure whether they’ve taken the right path. The ones who are sure they are right always puzzle me.
October 22, 2014 at 2:58 PM #779239FlyerInHi
GuestCAr, one minute you’re a feminist, and the next min you wish feminists would rot in hell.
You complain a lot about the past and present fate of women… but think about it a moment.
Women have the uterus and the eggs… they don’t need men. They can buy the best quality sperm for cheap; and in today’s tech world, they could cast men aside. Pretty soon, they could control the whole economy and write their own tickets.
By wanting to be a housewife, you’re giving men power. So stop bitching.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.