The intellectual dark web

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's a kind of populism of the left. Any policy expert who understands statistics knows the gap is almost entirely about choices families make over child care and work-life balance. And yet politicians portray it as an issue of discrimination and systemic oppression. That's demagoguery, pure and simple. And it's frankly patronizing to women in its assumption that they don't understand statistics, or recognize why the disparity really exists. The decision of a mother to ease off her career in order to devote herself more to family life is only a problem for society if its not a choice entered into freely. And women like my wife deeply resent the stance of hardline feminists and the federal Liberals that it's a public duty to encourage women to spend more hours working outside the home. She doesn't want to.

There are systemic issues that lead to the decisions of women to choose to work less to raise kids. The biggest is the social norm of mother as primary caregiver. If that norm didn't exist and you only had nature rather than nurture the balance would be different than today.

Labour participation amoung women is significantly higher in Quebec where daycare costs less. This clearly demonstrates that there are systemic affects that lead to the "choice" of women spending more time raising children. One might argue that the cost of having children is less opportunity for a career but if so that lost opportunity is being born disproportionately by women.

The Quebec evidence suggests she(global she, not your wife in particular) wants too but can't afford too

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by GGG

There are systemic issues that lead to the decisions of women to choose to work less to raise kids. The biggest is the social norm of mother as primary caregiver. If that norm didn't exist and you only had nature rather than nurture the balance would be different than today.

Labour participation amoung women is significantly higher in Quebec where daycare costs less. This clearly demonstrates that there are systemic affects that lead to the "choice" of women spending more time raising children. One might argue that the cost of having children is less opportunity for a career but if so that lost opportunity is being born disproportionately by women.

The Quebec evidence suggests she(global she, not your wife in particular) wants too but can't afford too

Providing women an incentive to work is not the same as providing equal opportunity for women to choose their own fate.

If Quebec offered an equal tax break for stay at home parents, as they do for parents who choose to take advantage of free child care, it would give a more representative sample of what women would prefer to do.

However arguing that more women want to work simply because Quebec chooses to provide a clear advantage to families that choose a state sponsored system of subsidizing third party parenting does not indicate that women prefer to work or raise their own children.

For that matter this could easily extend to men as well, just following your statement for simplicity.

[iggy_oi]

Well at least no one has tried to make the argument that the reason woman are less successful than men in a capitalist system is because they aren’t as naturally smart or productive.

One of the biggest factors contributing the wage gap is that women are the only sex capable of giving birth. Men and women simply don’t face the same issues relating to the impact on their ability to work when they or their spouse are expecting. As supportive as any partner can be they can’t trade places with their spouse when it comes to missing time from work due to complications related to pregnancy, that being the case the burden falls on the mother. This scenario isn’t isolated to just during pregnancy either, for any woman who suffers from things like endometriosis or any issues relating to their menstrual cycles it can be an ongoing issue they deal with monthly.

The decision to have one parent take time off to raise their children is often made for financial reasons, and while there can be many factors to consider when deciding on which parent will stay home and which will work, more often than not the spouse who earns the least is the one who stays at home. This usual ends up being the mother. If she can’t work but the father can continue to earn more, it only furthers the gap.

As our population ages we need future generations to continue growing our society and economy. Creating future generations relies on both sexes, but on average woman face a much greater burden than men in doing so which through no fault of their own puts men in a position to prosper financially at a greater rate. As I mentioned earlier even if you don’t have children, being born as a member of the impregnable sex comes with other roadblocks to financial prosperity throughout life that men will also never face, so all woman face additional struggles, it isn’t just those who chose to have children.

In a society where wealth dictates your quality of life and ability to prosper, woman will never be on a level playing field with men until there is an acknowledgement that woman face natural challenges which put them at a disadvantage as it relates to personal economic growth, and we actually address it. If we understand that future generations are necesary for our society to continue to thrive and that woman and men are both equally required to create those generations, then we need to find a way to eliminate the economic barriers that only woman are naturally forced to face. Otherwise we are basically saying that even though women are just as important as men to the big picture, we’re ok with maintaining the status quo of them having a much harder time than a man does to achieve and maintain the same level of financial success.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

As our population ages we need future generations to continue growing our society and economy. Creating future generations relies on both sexes, but on average woman face a much greater burden than men in doing so which through no fault of their own puts men in a position to prosper financially at a greater rate. As I mentioned earlier even if you don’t have children, being born as a member of the impregnable sex comes with other roadblocks to financial prosperity throughout life that men will also never face, so all woman face additional struggles, it isn’t just those who chose to have children.

The assumption behind this argument is that by earning less money and spending more time with their children, women are making a sacrifice. That may be true of some women who have families, but certainly not all. Or I'd guess even most.

One clue is female doctors. Safe to say that they're highly capable, ambitious people. And yet female doctors in Canada work far fewer hours in their careers than male doctors. Many cut back their hours or take leave when they have children. Why is that a bad decision that needs to be corrected? Can't we give those women enough credit to believe they've made a choice that makes them happier?

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

In a society where wealth dictates your quality of life and ability to prosper, woman will never be on a level playing field with men until there is an acknowledgement that woman face natural challenges which put them at a disadvantage as it relates to personal economic growth, and we actually address it. If we understand that future generations are necesary for our society to continue to thrive and that woman and men are both equally required to create those generations, then we need to find a way to eliminate the economic barriers that only woman are naturally forced to face. Otherwise we are basically saying that even though women are just as important as men to the big picture, we’re ok with maintaining the status quo of them having a much harder time than a man does to achieve and maintain the same level of financial success.

Why is it so difficult to understand that a great many people do not base their major life decisions solely on how much money they will make? Or see themselves in a collective gender struggle?

One of the reasons feminist pundits have such tremendous difficulty understanding this stuff is because they're less likely than the average women to have children, and they tend to be highly career focused. They simply can't put themselves in the shoes of a person for whom a job is simply a way to make money, not the primary source of status and self-worth. And they don't seem to understand families who look at their income collectively. My wife doesn't give a crap whether it's me who earns $10k more or her, it all goes into the same pot. And if me earning 20% more meant she could work one fewer day a week, she'd take that trade in a minute.

And if the concern is that women who make a sacrifice to income are vulnerable in the case of divorce, that's why we have child support and spousal support payments.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's a kind of populism of the left. Any policy expert who understands statistics knows the gap is almost entirely about choices families make over child care and work-life balance. And yet politicians portray it as an issue of discrimination and systemic oppression. That's demagoguery, pure and simple. And it's frankly patronizing to women in its assumption that they don't understand statistics, or recognize why the disparity really exists. The decision of a mother to ease off her career in order to devote herself more to family life is only a problem for society if its not a choice entered into freely. And women like my wife deeply resent the stance of hardline feminists and the federal Liberals that it's a public duty to encourage women to spend more hours working outside the home. She doesn't want to.

Not only that but it all goes against a good family structure. There are many moms across the country who knowingly and willingly sacrifice a good career in order to spend more time raising their kids. Why all of a sudden is there something wrong with that?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

There are systemic issues that lead to the decisions of women to choose to work less to raise kids. The biggest is the social norm of mother as primary caregiver. If that norm didn't exist and you only had nature rather than nurture the balance would be different than today.

Labour participation amoung women is significantly higher in Quebec where daycare costs less. This clearly demonstrates that there are systemic affects that lead to the "choice" of women spending more time raising children. One might argue that the cost of having children is less opportunity for a career but if so that lost opportunity is being born disproportionately by women.

The Quebec evidence suggests she(global she, not your wife in particular) wants too but can't afford too

Why is it a problem that women are the primary caregiver to their children?

Haven't there been numerous studies done that point out that women are simply wired in such a way that they can DO a better job as the primary caregiver?

Why are we so hellbent on creating supposed opportunity for women to be hold positions of power within the business world as opposed to making a bigger effort to strengthen the family structure?

[JohnnyB]

Damn, why is everyone so gung-ho to work? Part of the discussion makes it seem like work is joy and the meaning of life. Or that earning capacity is the best measure of wellbeing and opportunity. It's not.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why is it a problem that women are the primary caregiver to their children?

Haven't there been numerous studies done that point out that women are simply wired in such a way that they can DO a better job as the primary caregiver?

Why are we so hellbent on creating supposed opportunity for women to be hold positions of power within the business world as opposed to making a bigger effort to strengthen the family structure?

Hellbent on creating opportunity or hellbent on removing barriers.

So genetically women could be predisposed to desire staying home and raising children as opposed to working in a job. That could be true. It could also be true that men who are genetically predisposed to stay home and raise children are surpressed and are over represented in the workforce because of patriarchal structures that encourage them to work.

The question that I think is unanswered is do the societal structures as they currently exist surpress Women's involvement in the work place. So go back to the CEO and maximizing value. What portion of women do we lose of those top 20% because they are born women.

I think the biggest outcome you can do to strengthen the family structure is for men to be more involved in it. Looking at outcomes for children without strong male role models shows a significant drop in outcomes. So perhaps as part of eliminating barriers which prevent us from Maximizinf women contributions to the work force we can also eliminate barriers which prevent Men from maximizing their contributions to their families.

So going back to the child care example. Non subsidized daycare devalues the work of the second income earner by reducing the realized wage after expenses. So Cliffs argument that equal subsidies of the stay at home option would be a better test is incorrect.

The real test is at what threshold of income would the average man who makes less than his wife go back to work for And and what income would the average women who makes less than her husband go back to work for. If these values are equal then men and women would value work equally. The fact the women's labour participation jumps dramatically when subsidizes suggests that the reason women choose not to work is that the economic benefit isn't high enough. The fact that men's jumps far less shows that men choosing to stay home is much more of a value choice.

So in the end the goal would be to build societal structures that give choice of expression of each individuals desires without having the societal structures dictate those choices on the basis of gender.

[PepsiFree]

Yeah, incoming equality is only a worthy measure on a per-position, per-situation basis. If the number skews one way or another not based on obvious factors like maternity leave, then that’s a problem, but encouraging more people (men or women) into the workforce instead of into their family lives is insane.

If anything, we’d be better off with shorter work days and more family based time off for everyone. We should be pushing towards that, not turning more people into work-hungry slaves. Work is work. Even when it is good, you can always be doing something more rewarding or fun.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

Hellbent on creating opportunity or hellbent on removing barriers.

I agree that everyone seems hellbent on removing those supposed barriers. However I think those 'barriers' are not something you can actually pin down and 'remove.' At some point everyone deals with some kind of barrier in their life that challenges them with their dreams or goals.

So genetically women could be predisposed to desire staying home and raising children as opposed to working in a job. That could be true. It could also be true that men who are genetically predisposed to stay home and raise children are surpressed and are over represented in the workforce because of patriarchal structures that encourage them to work.

So? Why is solving that 'supposed' problem more important than creating a better family structure? I agree that work or working more should not be the end goal, but I think that the idea of the 'dad' in the family working and primarily providing for the family financially and the 'mom' staying at home and being the primary caregiver can and DOES create a stronger family structure and better kids.

I do not know why we think of that as a problem, and secondly why we then attempt to solve that.

The question that I think is unanswered is do the societal structures as they currently exist surpress Women's involvement in the work place. So go back to the CEO and maximizing value. What portion of women do we lose of those top 20% because they are born women.

I think the biggest outcome you can do to strengthen the family structure is for men to be more involved in it. Looking at outcomes for children without strong male role models shows a significant drop in outcomes. So perhaps as part of eliminating barriers which prevent us from Maximizinf women contributions to the work force we can also eliminate barriers which prevent Men from maximizing their contributions to their families.

So going back to the child care example. Non subsidized daycare devalues the work of the second income earner by reducing the realized wage after expenses. So Cliffs argument that equal subsidies of the stay at home option would be a better test is incorrect.

The real test is at what threshold of income would the average man who makes less than his wife go back to work for And and what income would the average women who makes less than her husband go back to work for. If these values are equal then men and women would value work equally. The fact the women's labour participation jumps dramatically when subsidizes suggests that the reason women choose not to work is that the economic benefit isn't high enough. The fact that men's jumps far less shows that men choosing to stay home is much more of a value choice.

So in the end the goal would be to build societal structures that give choice of expression of each individuals desires without having the societal structures dictate those choices on the basis of gender.

I realize that the structure of our society is generally geared a certain way, even largely in the way you are pointing out.

I also agree and KNOW that the tax law in our country is definitely sexist.

But I also don't necessarily see solving those main 'structural' problems as solving the real problem.

The real problem being how do we raise responsible and ambitious kids.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

So? Why is solving that 'supposed' problem more important than creating a better family structure? I agree that work or working more should not be the end goal, but I think that the idea of the 'dad' in the family working and primarily providing for the family financially and the 'mom' staying at home and being the primary caregiver can and DOES create a stronger family structure and better kids.

I do not know why we think of that as a problem, and secondly why we then attempt to solve that.

I'm calling bull#### here

What studies have ever found a Man in the workplace and the women at home create a stinger facility structure? There are some studies, generally not controlled for income, that suggest one parent in the work force and one parent at home is more successful.

[dre]

Originally Posted by GGG

I'm calling bull#### here

What studies have ever found a Man in the workplace and the women at home create a stinger facility structure? There are some studies, generally not controlled for income, that suggest one parent in the work force and one parent at home is more successful.

Fine call bull####, just post your findings.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

The question that I think is unanswered is do the societal structures as they currently exist surpress Women's involvement in the work place.

My sense is they're somewhat still suppressed, but we're pretty close to the differences being a matter of free choice. Just look at doctors. Women who complete medical school are unlikely to be browbeaten servants to patriarchal values. They're among the most competent, disciplined, and ambitious people we have. But it turns out that once they have kids, a great many dial back their work commitments substantially, even though they could easily afford child care. And they're leaving a lot of money on the table to do so. That's about as close as you can get to a case study of what women choose to do when not compelled by financial necessity or traditional expectations.

Originally Posted by Azure

I agree that work or working more should not be the end goal, but I think that the idea of the 'dad' in the family working and primarily providing for the family financially and the 'mom' staying at home and being the primary caregiver can and DOES create a stronger family structure and better kids.

I don't agree with that. I think it's best if children are raised by two parents, and not great if both of them are highly career-focused. And if you're a highly career-focused person, you have a choice: a spouse who is also highly career-focused, or a child-centered family life. You can't have all three.

I don't think the career-focused person has to be the father. I think a career-focused mom and a dad who has more time to focus on family is a perfectly legitimate family model. However, I do think that if we remove cultural expectations and barriers to women, we'll still have a society where more women are family-focused than men. Or to put it another way, where most of the people who sacrifice everything else in their life for money and status are men. At the population level, some degree of gender difference there is innate.

The broader solution, as Pepsi remarked, is to dial back our expectations around high-status professional work. It's not good for families and not healthy for society to expect 60+ hours work weeks and 24/7 communication availability from professionals. If we reduce those expectations and encourage flexible hours, more mothers will find pursuing a career attractive, and dads will be more available for their families.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, incoming equality is only a worthy measure on a per-position, per-situation basis. If the number skews one way or another not based on obvious factors like maternity leave, then that’s a problem, but encouraging more people (men or women) into the workforce instead of into their family lives is insane.

If anything, we’d be better off with shorter work days and more family based time off for everyone. We should be pushing towards that, not turning more people into work-hungry slaves. Work is work. Even when it is good, you can always be doing something more rewarding or fun.

With technology today I can't see why there shouldn't be more work-from home. That would help a lot of families.

I've heard Peterson's argument that the male-dominated workforce is too crazy for women. Like why are there less female lawyers? Who the hell wants to start out at a firm working 14 hours days for nothing? It's almost abuse.

[indes]

I think a huge failure on the feminist movement has been to put a highly successful career on a pedestal and use it for the measurement of success. IMO it takes value away from stay at home moms and homemakers.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by indes

I think a huge failure on the feminist movement has been to put a highly successful career on a pedestal and use it for the measurement of success. IMO it takes value away from stay at home moms and homemakers.

I'd disagree that it's been devalued as a result of feminism. (Maybe 70/80s feminism, the modern geoups are much more backing choice). I think instead that it's become a luxury that most people can't afford so therefore is looked at with derision.

Another area where Men have failed is increasing the societal acceptance of men staying home. You can see it in the way this discussion has carried out had been should a women choose wot work rather than should both parents. The whole discussion around whose choice and how it's made is evidence ofnthese societal structures that influence decision making.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

I'd disagree that it's been devalued as a result of feminism. (Maybe 70/80s feminism, the modern geoups are much more backing choice). I think instead that it's become a luxury that most people can't afford so therefore is looked at with derision.

Then they don't understand the consequences of the those choices, because they keep banging on about the gender pay gap when it's mostly a matter of choice.

And the choice around child-rearing isn't to work or not to work. The choices run the gamut of:

A) Pursue an intensely time and responsibility heavy career, sacrificing everything to climbing the greasy pole of success.

B) Pursue a professional career that demands a lot of time, leaving little for home or family life.

C) Take a 9-5 job, passing up opportunities for advancement or greater pay if they interfere with home life.

D) Take a year off after each of the kids are born, and then resume 9-5 work.

E) Work a part-time job to bring in money, while devoting most of your time to family life.

F) Full-time dedication to home and family life.

There are many variations in how two-parent families configure themselves, depending on their values and circumstances.

As I've already noted, the discussion around women and pay and gender roles in society is dominated by childless and career-oriented women. They personally regard careers as where people get satisfaction in life, and honestly can't imagine child-rearing as being anything but a unfulfilling chore. But it turns out that the world looks very different when you're 38 and you have kids than it did when you're 28 and climbing the career ladder. Values and priorities change.

Originally Posted by GGG

Another area where Men have failed is increasing the societal acceptance of men staying home. You can see it in the way this discussion has carried out had been should a women choose wot work rather than should both parents. The whole discussion around whose choice and how it's made is evidence ofnthese societal structures that influence decision making.

While I think the corporate world still has a ways to go in making paternity leave an option that won't limit your career, I don't see men in general denigrating parenting. I have a couple close buddies who were the primary caregivers for their kids when they were young, and none of the guys we know thought less of them. If anything, they found it tough to fit into the all-mom coffee clubs and play groups.

And let's not ignore the fact that most women seek out mates with higher earning-power. There's a reason there's a wide income gap (that nobody talks about) between married men and single men, even when you account for age.

[GirlySports]

I was going to say that. It's the women who tease each other about the one who has the stay at home husband. I've heard it on both sides.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, incoming equality is only a worthy measure on a per-position, per-situation basis. If the number skews one way or another not based on obvious factors like maternity leave, then that’s a problem, but encouraging more people (men or women) into the workforce instead of into their family lives is insane.

This isn’t about encouraging more people into the workforce, woman are already in the workforce. In both Canada and the US economic mobility for the majority of the population has been on a steady decline for sometime. As the gender income gap narrowed over the years, we also saw a growing trend in family households that has both parents needing to work in order to maintain the standard of living previous generations were able to achieve on a single income. If an average man’s income isn’t enough to support his family without his wife working anymore, then his wife’s income that is on average lower than a man’s likely won’t be able to either. Maternity leave and Cliff’s doctor example also wouldn’t factor into why the gap exists when comparing average pay per hour worked. Nor would they factor into why the size of the gap isn’t more consistent across all industries, or why in the film industry the top actors on average consistently earn more than the top actresses.

If anything, we’d be better off with shorter work days and more family based time off for everyone. We should be pushing towards that, not turning more people into work-hungry slaves. Work is work. Even when it is good, you can always be doing something more rewarding or fun.

We should always be aiming towards a better work life balance. Why that isn’t happening is a whole other can of worms, but the decrease in the average persons overall economic mobility also makes that much more difficult to achieve. If that trend were reversed(or if the majority of women worked in higher paying field) the income gap likely wouldn’t be as great of an economic burden for women. But so long as economic mobility continues to erode while the gap exists, women will continue to see their economic mobility erode at a faster rate and as a result be pushed closer to or further into poverty at a faster rate as well.

Originally Posted by Azure

The real problem being how do we raise responsible and ambitious kids.

Creating an environment where our daughters can know that the average woman who chooses to have children maintains a level of economic mobility that is consistent with that of a man who choose to have children would help.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Damn, why is everyone so gung-ho to work? Part of the discussion makes it seem like work is joy and the meaning of life. Or that earning capacity is the best measure of wellbeing and opportunity. It's not.

I recently heard of a study, done by Oxford University, that came out with the conclusion that the 3 factors combined 1. Job Satisfaction 2. Relationship Stability and 3. Physical Health, are not as important as Perceived Financial Well Being. And that Perceived Financial Well Being is the key to Overall Well Being.