I do believe feminists push for women’s ability to be independent and gain actual, recognised power within society. The means of doing that is usually money, the way the world works.
And the fact is that it is more in the interest of society that a woman has children than it is for the woman to have them if it means giving up her life on the altar of said children. People can’t seem to be able to accept that.
Could you clarify that distinction you are drawing? I’m not at all sure what you mean.
[quote=“Lizard_King”]
Could you clarify that distinction you are drawing? I’m not at all sure what you mean.[/quote]
Yeah, I kind of trailed off halfway through.
Our society, which is quite individualistic, puts a good deal of store in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If children make women dependent and limited in their life choices on the job market and such (the things most modern people expect or demand), it stands to reason that the motivation diminishes for women to have children, unless the perceived rewards (which in large part are socially constructed, I think) increase as much as expectations. As it is now, when children are a burden for women in pretty much every aspect of life except (possibly) the family one, it is less in the interest of the individual (which does not need a child to survive), than it is for society as a whole (which does depend on the creation of children).
Well of course there is no benefit to letting people go bonkers.At least you said “intellectual outlet” as well as professional. I’m not denying that mom (or indeed parents to include those fathers who are primary care givers) can indeed be driven nuts by the kids, so they then take a break (yes, moms/stay at home parents need vacations from the family career/work too). Theres a huge myth in society that people can only be fullfilled fully by having a professional career, often at the expense of their family/love relationships. For some folks, they get lucky and can juggle all three aspects in their life. I tend to think thats rare though. Too add, I doubt I’d make a good candidate for many manager jobs if I had a family because I’d rather not spend all my time for the corporate good. In the end, family is more important and its whats going to last, not some goddamn job, especially not in this climate of non corporate loyalty to employees.
Also, don’t get me started on maternity/paternity leave acts. I’m for it in some respects (we as a society need to procreate and build up strong stable families and I generally dont have a problem with family health emergencies leave) but I rankle at the idea that I, personally have to pay for someone else’s choice to have progeny via taxes and especially at a job where Susie Q from human resources decides to pop out a crotch spawn and take maternity leave (and many times, not come back after its up). So now I as a co-worker possibly have to put in more time to pick up the slack since Susie is gone or the boss has to pay for a temp. She chose to have a kid, its her/her partner’s bloody responsibility and that means making sacrifices/planning ahead.
but I rankle at the idea that I, personally have to pay for someone else’s choice to have progeny via taxes
I just can’t fathom what weird sort of sociopathy makes folks say things like that. Suddenly, human beings with basic biological urges are transformed into irresponsible leeches nickel-and-diming hard-working self-described ubermensch into some sort of indentured social servitude. Or something. It blows my mind every time I hear this weird irrational appeal.
If you hate participating in a society, especially one that also pays a number of costs – both monetary and intangible – for YOU, you irresponsible leech, then please go find a hut in the woods. Trust me, I’d rather have good parents on society’s payroll over another lawyer or software engineer or salesman or whatever occupation you have that you think is so very, very much worth your portion of the pie.
Thanks for making this point Karen. It’s spot on and about time somebody said it.
-Amanpour[/quote]
While that is 100% true that was not the point of the study. sure work is not as hard as growing kids. The point was that people see a mom as less reliable than the alt. My point is that is in general a true statement because your average mom will pick kids over work when forced to choose, and they will do it almost ever time. We are talking averages here, and i for one belive that the above is going to be true the majority of the time. Now don’t get me wrong i don’t think its bad for a mom to put her kids first, that is in my opinion the way it should be, but on the other hand i cant call a company mean for knowing this and acting accordingly
Yurislave:
Oftentimes [non parent male] people take that abuse (and is it really abuse if it’s extra work willingly taken on to get more pay or career advancement later?) so that they can get that initial start up phase of a career out of the way before they start a family rather than waiting until after when the stresses are much higher with small children and a spouse.
You make a good point, and then shoot it down all at the same time. Single people will stick around because they want to do well in regards to money and establish them selves before they start a family.
Would those people then not be more unreliable at the point when they become interested in building a family? Do you think its true that the majority of working males will at some time start a relationship and have kids? Would it not be fair to say that a man intently courting a woman or trying to create and stabilize a family could well be less committed to the job he has? This is why i think in this study of perception sees single men as less reliable than men with families.
My point is that is in general a true statement because your average mom will pick kids over work when forced to choose, and they will do it almost ever time.
In other words, just like the people in the study, you believe this with no solid evidence to back it up beyond societal stereotypes?
In this one specific instance yes i do think moms will choose their offspring over their job most of the time. However i would hardly call overt instinct, biological hardwiring, or observable behavior over the last 500 years (for the sake of simplicity) a lack of evidence. By the way if you are going to use that to segue into a nature vs nurture debate, I will tell you now fall 50/50 right in the middle.
As to the other points I made, think of them as illustrations of the thinking behind the order of the list, rather than what i believe since i made no self referential claims concerning those.
However i would hardly call overt instinct and biological hardwiring a lack of evidence.
Oh, good lord. Perhaps you can point to the gene complex that controls “choose offspring over job?” Give me a break, this is just things-my-mother-told-me.
If you say so. A wee bit of google-fu might clear up your overt ignorance on the subject.
Before you further showcase your ignorance, I would suggest you look up the word proof, and evidence. They dont mean the same thing, and my 3 examples fit the evidence bill just fine.
Could you point out a few common dilemmas where the average parent has to make a choice between work and their children? I’m having a hard time coming up with a scenario where a mother will choose kids, but a father won’t. In my own group of friends, I have just as many fathers as mothers who have left jobs or reorganized their full/part-time schedules to accommodate their kids.
AttAdude, you might want to do a lit search or two yourself. I’d like to see references to empirical studies that have found evidence for a biological or genetic mothering instinct in humans.
I don’t think a reasonable person would claim that, if they had to choose, most moms would pick work over kids. I have no blogs to back this up, but it seems to make sense. Is there some survey somewhere which shows that moms tend to pick work first?
[emphasis mine]
Would it be okay with you if a company found a study stating that gamers were less reliable than non-gamers, even if that had nothing whatsoever to do with their job, and “acted accordingly”?
How about smokers? Maybe that’s a better example. What if there was evidence that smokers were more of a drain on a company for a host of reasons–health problems leading to more days off, higher insurance risks, longer breaks, etc.–and “acted accordingly,” offering them lower salaries and fewer opportunities for advancement. Would that be okay with you?
If the answer is yes, thank you for being consistent. You’ll still be wrong, but at least you’ll be consistent.
“Gee I’m really sorry your mom blew up, Ricky.”
-Amanpour
I want to say first, that I would not be okay about the study aspect and it’s use as just a statistic for recruitment or potential value of an employee.
How about smokers? Maybe that’s a better example. What if there was evidence that smokers were more of a drain on a company for a host of reasons–health problems leading to more days off, higher insurance risks, longer breaks, etc.–and “acted accordingly,” offering them lower salaries and fewer opportunities for advancement. Would that be okay with you?
To be fair with my statement above, I would like to say that while it would not be appropriate for you to ask smokers or women with or without children as a gauge of hirability or job performance. That everything else about you is judged while you are employee or hired it’s not a far leap for someone to take into consideration things like this by mistake. That means everything you are and have with you, even down to your handwriting, how you answered a question (trick questions), how you dress, how excited you, physical condition, potential risks are is in question and judged whether or not to fit for the job you either doing and/or interviewing for.
Some might feel this crass, but it is realistic AFAIK.
To a higher extent than fathers in the same situation? (now, personally, I could see societal expectations meaning that kid stuff gets offloaded on the mother, but that’s just because I’m so set in thinking that our society is so god-damn old-fashioned, when you scratch a bit at the surface)
Actually it is legal to discriminate based on smoking, and there was a story on NPR recently about a company which handles health insurance programs for other companies that recently made “non-smoker” a 100% condition of employment. The owner said he had looked at the data and determined that smokers cost a company too much to have on the payroll, he offered to pay for quitting assistance for all his employees who needed it, and that’s it. No more smokers.
[emphasis mine]
Would it be okay with you if a company found a study stating that gamers were less reliable than non-gamers, even if that had nothing whatsoever to do with their job, and “acted accordingly”?
How about smokers? Maybe that’s a better example. What if there was evidence that smokers were more of a drain on a company for a host of reasons–health problems leading to more days off, higher insurance risks, longer breaks, etc.–and “acted accordingly,” offering them lower salaries and fewer opportunities for advancement. Would that be okay with you?
If the answer is yes, thank you for being consistent. You’ll still be wrong, but at least you’ll be consistent.
“Gee I’m really sorry your mom blew up, Ricky.”
-Amanpour[/quote]The answer is i take things on a case by case basis, the idea that the average mother is less reliable and therefore of less value as an employee makes some sense to me. I know quite a few mothers, infact i happen to work with a cross section of people who fit well in this study.
Brandy our secretary is a working mom. She needs scheduling exceptions all the time. My baby is sick, i have to take him to get his pictures made, the baby sitter called to say she could not sit today, so I need a day off, Gavin has his first Tball game, so i cant work Saturday ect ect. All real life examples of how she chose her son over her job in the last 30 days. every single one of those happened. Compare to our Tracy our parts and inventory person who has been here 4 years has no kids and no husband. She has been here every day the last year except for missing 2 days to the flu, infact i just asked her and she claims to have missed 6 days total in those 4 years. Brandy misses that much in a month. that is of course not proof that the statements in this study is true, but it does correlate nicely with the results. If the trend here at the office is mirrored in the real world, and it is at least as far as i have been able to observe, then i fail to see why its bad for a company to keep this in mind when looking for help. I know i for one would hire a single woman over a single mother every single time, if my intent was to hire the most stable employee i could. There may be some morality issues with that, but im pretty convinced it is the best choice for a business, and they are often more concerned with making money as opposed to making everyone happy about them.
Aside from that, im not sure why the off topic examples have anything to do with this study. im not sure what you are trying to prove, could you do me a favor and spell out your point here?
The owner said he had looked at the data and determined that smokers cost a company too much to have on the payroll, he offered to pay for quitting assistance for all his employees who needed it, and that’s it. No more smokers.
I could understand a food manufacturer/restaurant not wanting you to smoke during work hours but a fucking insurance company? What happens if you refuse to quit or say you have but don’t? Can you legally be fired from an insurance company for being a smoker?
Yes. They have random nicotine testing and fire people who fail. Smokers are not a protected class and can legally be excluded from any job the employer wishes to exclude them from.
Can you do that for anything? We’ll fire you for sickle cell, diabetes, eating fast food, drinking outside of work hours, not having had your wisdom teeth removed yet etc?
I’m not sure I’d want to have my life dictated for me by something as mundane as an insurance company. As a driver/pilot/surgeon etc then I can accept the responsibility of not having alcohol in your system or drinking caffeine x hours before an operation etc, but I really can’t see why not smoking allows me to file or flog a policy more efficiently.