Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
ParticipantI’ve always thought it was odd that we should want to push caregivers into the paid workforce when we already have a saturated labor market and everyone is struggling to find a job; and even if they find one, they still struggle to make ends meet because of the high supply of labor/low wages. Makes no sense at all.
Don’t think we need caregiver tax credits, but the contributions of caregivers, and the sacrifices they make WRT permanently impaired income earning potential, not to mention loss of consortium (compensatory damages?) for older women, should definitely be taken into consideration in legal matters.
ParticipantIt’s tough because it can be such an emotional issue. While it makes logical sense to not pay, can you imagine if the hostage was your spouse or child? I think I’d die trying to free them myself, if the govt didn’t help out. Must be excruciatingly heartbreaking.
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]For me it’s the inside letters that dictate compatibility. I have friends of all kinds, but the ones I most easily fit in with are *NT*.
**F* people, if they are opinionated, tend to drive me nuts.[/quote]
I’m INTJ, and could not agree more with your last sentence! Hadn’t thought about it before, but when thinking about the people who truly drive me up the wall…you’ve hit the nail on the head. Thanks! 🙂
edited to add: But not scaredy. He doesn’t come across as an “F” to me.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]
I have a woman friend who married a widower dude with someolder teenagers and she kinda forced them out and sucks up all his attention.
I hate that.
divorced dudes should never put some new woman way before their kids.[/quote]
I’ve seen a lot of that, more than one would ever imagine. And it goes for both sexes, too. I’ve seen divorcees who started living as though they were 21 again, much to the detriment of their kids.
As we’ve both noted, kids really do suffer, often greatly, as a result of their parents’ divorce.
ParticipantYou don’t need to jump back into the ring…there is no ring. We should be able to discuss these issues without making personal attacks. It’s not a fight, but a desire to find out more about something we know relatively little about. Even the “experts” who study this are in the early stages of their research.
READ THE LINKS, even if you never want to discuss it here, just for self-education.
————-
As for divorcees…I think that a person who doesn’t want (any more) children should seriously consider divorced mates. If the divorcee’s kids are nearly grown, even better, as they both can indulge in DINK-style pursuits, and they would be less likely to have to deal much with former spouses; though men tend to do better with this than women.
Divorced people also tend to have far more realistic expectations of their mates, since the “fairy tale” nonsense should have worn off by then.
OTOH, if a man wants to have biological or adopted children of his own — and wouldn’t be satisfied with helping to raise step-children — and if he doesn’t have a previous marriage and/or children under his belt, I think it’s best if like marries like. No steps, no former spouses, no finances intertwined with other people, and every experience can be a new experience for both members of the couple, if that matters to them.
Just my 2 cents.
ParticipantSome other links to explore:
Do we undervalue the economic and social contributions of women who do “women’s work”?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/calculating-the-true-value-of-womans-work-2009-12-08
Why the value of “women’s work” needs to be reevaluated:
A comparison of the economic impacts of caregiving in Poland and Italy:
Participant[quote=Blogstar]I tried the monetarization idea on very hard. For example the making of my kids
Halloween suit and taking him out to a party until 9 while my wonderful, but exhausted from her weeks work , wife went home to care for and catch up with the other two boys and relax. She also did not monetarize the time she spent with blogstar jr’s 1&2 which is a big help for both of us.My conclusion it that FOR ME, monetarization CHEAPENS everything that has to do with the personal growth , emotional and physical support for my family.
If I started charging my wife for lovemaking I think the best parts would disappear and that would really be hard to live with.
And if by chance, I get kicked to the curb in a vulnerable state of unemployment I can deal with that, my future is not in dire jeopardy .[/quote]
Again, it’s not about what you do personally, nor is it about one job (wage earner vs unpaid labor) being more important than the other. The relative values would be different for every family, and it would fluctuate over time even within those individual families.
The point I’m trying to make is that we value different kinds of labor based on a patriarchal system of values where the value of caregiving and other types of “women’s work” have been intentionally undervalued because of the imbalance of power (and the desire of those in power to keep it that way).
If we had to imagine an economic system that was not market based, but based on the value of one’s contributions to society, things would look very different. Wall Street financiers and other middlemen would be paid very little, while people doing hard labor, nurses, doctors, caregivers, teachers, and scientists would be some of the wealthiest people. Without “women’s work” (childbearing, child rearing, cleaning, shopping, meal preparation, etc.) nobody would be here today; we would all be extinct. And even if one were to suggest that scientists, doctors, etc. were the most important people in the world (which I would largely agree with), it is usually women who give birth to them, raise them, develop their character, and educate them — at least through childhood. Is this really worth nothing to society?
This is what I’m talking about:
“A revaluation of women’s work will thoroughly challenge the present conventions. If women’s work is accurately reflected in national statistics, it will shatter the myth that men are the main breadwinners of the world. Areas where women in most of the world are presently treated as economic non-entities – property rights, terms of divorce settlements, collateral requirements for bank credit – will be completely changed. It will provide information about women’s contributions to society, which will establish their entitlement to human, legal, welfare, economic, civil and social rights. Valuing unwaged work will raise the value of all work, including waged work. And will, according to the Beijing Platform for Action,”…contribute to a better sharing of responsibilities” between the genders.
The case for counting unwaged work was bolstered by the release of the 1995 U.N. Human Development Report. It estimated that unwaged and underwaged work is worth $16 trillion internationally. Over two-thirds of this, or $11 trillion, is the non-monetized, invisible contribution of women. The report clearly linked the devaluation of women’s work to women’s poverty and lowered status in all regions of the world.”
http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/work/value.htm
———–
This is the kind of feminism that I can relate to; not BG’s kind of feminism that insists that we all conform to the patriarchal system that will always leave women in a more vulnerable position.
ParticipantThank you, UCGal and Russ.
I just wish we could have discussions about things without making personal attacks — not directed at you guys, just the general trend on some threads. I’ve never initiated a personal attack in all the years I’ve been here (not that I remember, and certainly not intentionally), so it bums me out when I’m trying to have a logical discussion — always citing statistics, studies, etc. — and get attacked personally instead of having people debate the specific points of the argument.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]I hate to brag but I am awesome at apologizing. I apologized to my kids a lot over the years.
Kids dig being apologized to.
I still really enjoy it.[/quote]
Ditto. I grew up with parents who didn’t apologize. I will never do that to my kids. I apologize on a very regular basis, and also let them have their say, and act on their recommendations if they have a valid point, when they think something is unjust or unfair. It’s incredibly important, and I think kids respect parents more when they do this.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]
Yes, I blew it in that exact way.
What was that saying about not mistaking something else for Malice?
I do think letting things like Men are abandoners and other such claims fly is dangerous. That’t what dialectic is for( without the accusations of lying). Thinking of the Salem Witch trials, though I am not sure it fits. Seems like it does.[/quote]
I can assure you that if we were to invite professors of sociology, economics, psychology, etc. to join our discussion, they would grasp what I’m saying. The fact that you don’t get it doesn’t make it invalid, nor does it make me a liar, nor does it make me stupid.
FWIW, I’d be more than willing to pit my IQ against yours, any day of the week; and “comprehension of social issues” is my strongest score (of a very high score, overall). Care to wager, Russ?
Try reading some of the links, Russ, and educate yourself a bit.
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=CA renter]
You like to blithely ignore that 40 hours/week (and it’s more in many households) when the wage-earning parents are NOT doing these duties. And these are the hours when much of the work is being done.And we’re not talking about what you personally pay for help, or what you do for your family — and we’re NOT talking about my family either, as I’m speaking in general terms — which makes your snarky comment not only rude and unproductive, but entirely unjustified.
I will link to some research so that you can better understand the concept I’m trying to get across.[/quote]
I was not trying to be snarky. Snarky implies mean spirited sarcasm. I was trying to make logical arguments – but clearly our points of view are divergent to the point that even though I agreed with many of your points – but disputed some specific ones, you can’t understand my point.
I’m disengaging because I really like you and don’t want to continue an argument that we apparently can’t find common ground on. I wish you much happiness and peace. I’m sorry it went down this way and in the future I’ll try to stay out of arguments with you.[/quote]
Definition of SNARKY
1
: crotchety, snappish
2
: sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or mannerhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snarky
[quote=UCGal]
Here- maybe this will make you feel better.
CAR – you are a wonderful parent, wife, homemaker, and you are worth billions of dollars to your family!!!! Far more than any other mother anywhere.[/quote]…snarky, and totally uncalled for, as I’ve never attacked you personally (and I’ve never implied, in any way, what you’ve stated there).
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=CA renter]
And please do not do what UCGal did, where she claimed that I said something that was neither stated nor implied.
[/quote]I quoted you directly, previously, showing you directly compared a nanny working 40 hours a week to a SAHP working 24×7 – and pointed out the comparison was invalid because the working parent does the labor for free (like a SAHP) for the rest of the week outside the nanny’s hours.
That and your rants about feminism that seem so far off track to what mainstream feminism is. You’ve chosen some fringe folks to rant about – even though they aren’t representative, they’re fringe.
Here are some quotes of yours that I have issue with. I agree we’re probably talking past each other.
[quote=CA renter]
How much would you have to pay for someone to be there for your children 24/7? How much to make all the appointments and shuttle people to these appointments and manage all the follow-up? How much to manage a family’s finances — including bill paying, negotiating contracts and doing due diligence on service providers, doing investment research and allocating financial resources? How about a family’s financial/legal business like estate planning, insurance, home purchases, etc…especially if that tends to be managed by one spouse? [/quote]My issue here is that many households with 2 working parents manage to do many of these tasks without paying outside people. You are comparing what you do 24×7 to what many working parents cram into the remaining 128 hours of the week that they aren’t at work. I’m not saying it doesn’t have value. But it’s unpaid work in the vast majority of households – whether the parents work or not. And outside that 40 hours of work time, parents are with their kids. (16×5 + 24×2).
I went back and re-read your response – and you clearly miss my point.
[quote=CA renter]
I think that people aren’t getting what I’ve posted for some reason. I never said that a SAHP’s work should be valued more than the same work done by someone who works for wages. The point is that if the SAHP isn’t doing these things, then somebody else is. The cost of these things should be ascribed to the value of what a SAHP does. If the parents are both working outside of the home and both sharing these duties, it doesn’t change a thing. This work still has the same value.[/quote]
To the bolded – most of these things (perhaps outside of 40 hours of childcare) are done by working parents in the remaining 128 hours of the week. The tasks still get done. Usually unpaid. By someone who already spent the day working for wages.My point is: For most households these are unpaid, do it yourself tasks. Sure – you CAN pay to have someone manage your money, run your kids to soccer on the weekends, run the family…. But most of us either can’t afford to pay outside people, or choose not to spend our money that way. You don’t get to count the value as both unpaid earned income and also as saved money. Some families choose to pay for these tasks other choose to do them themselves to save the money.
I am currently not working outside the house and have an 11 year old and 13 year old. I have made the choice to not work outside the home right now – because we were fortunate enough to be able to afford to have this option. It is a CHOICE. It is not one that I get paid for nor do I expect income, imputed or virtual. In fact, it had tangible negative impact on our income stream. (obviously.)
I am mostly doing the same tasks I did prior to retiring – just less time crunched to do it. My house might be a little cleaner, though. I don’t really see that I am owed money or that my “value contributed to the household” went up. My amount of sleep went up because I’m no longer juggling as much… I can pace out the tasks of cleaning/yardwork/estate planning/negotiating contracts/child-rearing/coaching robotics teams/baking bread from scratch/investing/travel planning/meal prep. But I was doing all of that prior to retiring – and working a 32 hour work week.
Obviously you add value to your household with everything you do. That’s why you made the choices you did. Hopefully Mr. CAR isn’t one of the cads you describe who doesn’t appreciate what you do.
But you seem to fail to recognize that many families manage to accomplish most of the tasks you describe, in the hours outside of earning income. Yes – it adds stress to a household and exhaustion to the parents – but it gets done. Usually for no income… but in order to save money so that it can be spent on other things.
Again – You obviously add value to your family. But so do parents who juggle many of the same tasks while working.[/quote]
You like to blithely ignore that 40 hours/week (and it’s more in many households) when the wage-earning parents are NOT doing these duties. And these are the hours when much of the work is being done.
And we’re not talking about what you personally pay for help, or what you do for your family — and we’re NOT talking about my family either, as I’m speaking in general terms — which makes your snarky comment not only rude and unproductive, but entirely unjustified.
I will link to some research so that you can better understand the concept I’m trying to get across.
Participant[quote=flyer][quote=CA renter][quote=flyer]Good observations, FIH, and CAR, I agree connections rule.
This, as my wife reminds me that Romance novels are now the #1 genre in the world, with billions in sales.
Interesting dichotomies to be sure.[/quote]
Interesting about romance novels. Other than Gone With the Wind, I’ve never read them. Does your wife happen to know if this trend been changing over time?[/quote]
Here are the stats she gave me CAR:
Romance novels have grown in popularity over the years, and have always represented a huge percentage (over 50%) of all fiction sales. Currently, 84% of Romance readers are women, 30-54, generally with advanced degrees, and an average income of $60K. 16% of readers are men.
46% of Romance consumers are binge readers, and read at least one book per week, in comparison to the typical American who reads five books a year.
Around 1.5 billion Romance novels are sold in the US each year, and many more worldwide, with CA representing 50% of purchases.
After the kids were grown, my wife started writing under a pseudonym a few years ago as a hobby, along with her career in the film business. She’s able to work from home most of the time, and really enjoys both.[/quote]
Thanks for sharing the info, flyer (and Mrs. flyer!). I’m surprised about the level of education of these readers, and the 1.5 billion number.
Sounds like your wife is in the right field(s). 🙂
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
Like I said, supply and demand. Women are romantics and want to traditional family. Men are less interested. And there’s no societal pressure for men to be the providers anymore.[/quote]
You’d be surprised by the number of men who do want a traditional family. But you’re not likely to be running in those circles (they tend to be more like your brother than like you). I’m just assuming this based on your posts.
-
AuthorPosts
