Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, 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.[/quote]
Most men don’t have much power by virtue of having a job. People with power hire and/ or don’t need jobs. In a household, power is probably more expressed by who spends the money than who earns it.[/quote]
Power is expressed by who controls the money. That goes in every relationship, including employer/employee. Rarely is the person who isn’t earning a wage the one who has total control over the money. They might have a say, but rarely ever total control. OTOH, there are many wage earners who feel as though every penny earned is 100% theirs, and they often feel that they are doing a favor to those who do the unpaid labor.
ParticipantYes, you do. 🙂
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
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.
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]We need viable write-in candidates. Even better if we could eliminate the party system, altogether. People should vote for individuals, not parties. If a person is too lazy to do the research, then they shouldn’t be voting.
Of course, publicly funded elections would be the best way to go. I would LOVE to see the end of money driving politics, though it would be very difficult to enforce, even if we had publicly funded elections.[/quote]
Some of the biggest money driving politics is in the form of the media. How do we get rid of them?[/quote]
A total media ban, with the exception of completely fair, publicly-funded debates, where all candidates have an equal voice.
There should be no commercials (including commercials disguised as news) when it comes to candidates or parties, IMO. There should be a completely open, public (publicly-funded) venue for people to get all the information they could possibly need to make informed decisions. A public website and/or TV station — along the lines of CSPAN — should work.
What are your thoughts?
Participant[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.
Participant[quote=sdsurfer]I wonder about the stress vs drinking aspect. Of course I do think that people should find other outlets too, but I’m referring to the person that comes home from work and has a beer or two to loosen up from the day.
Say you had two people that were very similar. One of them has a beer or two every day when they get home on the porch as a little stress reliever and the other one does not.
Who would live longer if everything else stays the same?
I really think that as long as it does not lead to Jack Daniels the one that has a beer or two might have a bit more longevity. Let me know if you know of anyone like the second guy. I’ll be test subject #1.[/quote]
Your intuition is probably right.
Researchers found that moderate alcohol drinkers are more likely to live longer over a 20-year follow-up than heavy drinkers and abstainers. Moderate drinking means consuming about one or two drinks per day. A report published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research stressed that the health benefits of drinking alcohol among older individuals are “intrinsically linked to moderation”.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/199398.php
—————-
After living most of my life as a teetotaler, I started drinking moderate amounts of alcohol after seeing this research. Before that, I was a stress case. I still stress out, but the odd drink definitely seems to help with that. And you can’t beat having a glass of wine or a beer in a social setting. All of my neighbors (and my husband) have said that they like me a lot more when I’m drinking.
Participant[quote=joec]I think what this all shows is that society in general clearly values beauty. We can tell ourselves that it doesn’t matter and it’s whats in the inside that counts the most, but that’s just ugly people trying to make themselves feel better.
Every study has shown that more attractive people get better opportunities, get hired more, higher pay, you name it…
Does it suck? Sure, if you’re not high on the looks scale, but that’s how it’s always been and I don’t see it ever changing.
Regarding how people are even if you know them, it still boils down to what people look since everyone can see if without knowing a thing about someone…
I found this article funny when it was first posted…goes back to the reality in society that looks matter a lot, most of the time, more than whatever you do or are good in, especially for girls/women.
Yes, this is true. Will probably always will be true, unfortunately.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]But what if we wouldn’t pay????
The 3500 house is nice, like super quality day care but what if we were only going to rent a 1400 house. Am I really 2100 richer?Am I wealthier cause my kids get better care that I wouldn’t have paid 4?
No[/quote]
We’re talking about equivalent services.
Look at the cost breakdown, above. What part of that do you not get? We’re talking about the YMCA, for goodness sake, not La Jolla Country Day!
Does quality count? Does it have any greater value than something of a lesser quality? I dunno…what do you think?
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]CAR, I’ve never “dictated” how anyone should live their life. Everyone has their own path and far be it from me to suggest anyone stray from their chosen path. I believe in cause and effect (karma?) and that everyone makes their own bed, including myself.
I don’t know where you have read anywhere on this blog that I have “stubbornly insisted” that “professionals” should move to South County. Actually, the opposite is true. Since we already have more than enough “professionals” living here (and everyone else for that matter) and more than enough real estate “suitable” for “professionals” to live in, I feel there are about 200K too many people down here and would never suggest people move here. I would have preferred that no residential construction had occurred here after about 1992 but, alas, the damage is done.
I beg to differ with you in that there is little to no difference between longtime career women making $40 – $80K vs “professional” women. We all have the same hopes for our children and most of us want the same or similar things for ourselves.
I do agree that most longtime low-income working women (ex: housekeepers, hotel maids, etc) mostly do not have the same aspirations as their higher-earning counterparts. But I don’t see myself (as a semi-professional) as any less smarter, more poorly dressed, worse looking, less lucky, to have poorer taste, less resourceful, a worse communicator, etc than a woman who makes twice what I do or even a woman who makes more than $150K per year. In many ways, I am more fortunate because I am now a bit freer in regards to my time.
CAR, the only breakdown you posted here was the YMCA daycare chart (mostly for licensed daycare homes). The chart by itself doesn’t account for the worker-parent taking home only .30 on the dollar as you are asserting unless they make less than $55K gross annually and have three kids in daycare simultaneously … all under school age.
And even then, as scaredy pointed out … the kids will outgrow the situation quickly. One goes to school half day first, then full day. Then the next one goes to school half day, and so on. The ones in school are only using afterschool care (about 1/3 to 1/2 the price of FT daycare). Meanwhile the worker parent is in line for promotions and raises while their kids are aging out of FT daycare. Their raises compound on themselves when it is time for another raise.
All of this can’t happen while the worker-parent’s (expensive) college degree is gathering dust in a drawer at home for years and no employers are even aware of what they can do.[/quote]
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!
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=CA renter]Imputed income is like savings. That’s very real money. Best of all, it’s tax-free.[/quote]
kind of. xecpt no one ever got rich off imputed income. and you dont get to pick a pretend number. it’s what you really really would have had to pay.
whcih is less th an the number we like to imagine.
i get imputed income of 1.50 everytime i iron a shirt. except.. there’s no way in hell im actually paying anyone that much money to iron my shirt. so did I “make” 1.50. kind of sort of.
but not really.[/quote]
You can easily look up the rate for childcare workers, domestic workers, personal assistants, bookkeepers, etc. who are similar in quality to your wife…who would do the same things around the house, educate and care for your children in the same way, etc.
How much do you think you would have to pay for this person work for your family — without having any outside life of their own, every day and night of the year — for many years? What do YOU think you would have to pay?
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Kinda … sometimes …
But only if you really would’ve spent the money and couldn’t have cut corners[/quote]
The numbers detailed in my post to BG are very real numbers. As stated, they are on the (very) low side, if anything.
And stop trying to use cost-shifting as a way to “prove” that these things don’t have value. Just because somebody else is paying for them doesn’t mean that they don’t have value.
And why in the world would anyone cut corners in order to give themselves LESS time with their families (cutting corners to tweak the numbers to make the numbers favor wage-earning over caretaking)? If anything, they would cut corners in order to stay home more (if that is what they would prefer), not so that they could work more.
-
AuthorPosts
