If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Maybe one day if you have kids you can ask your wife how she feels about her kids and then compare her feelings to yours. I've noticed a pattern of ignorance with you and it always seems to come back to the fact that you're a childless academic that grew up in a privileged family probably in a majority-white area.

This is what it always comes back to--my lack of experience.

If you knew my wife, you'd know that she would find it presumptuous to compare her feelings to mine when it comes to something like our children. Dear god, can you imagine getting into a pissing match with your partner about who cares more about their children? Just the possibility makes my skin crawl.

I did grow up in an affluent neighborhood that was predominantly white. That doesn't make me unqualified to speak on these issues. It's fucking obnoxious when you and other people on here accuse me of being inexperienced because of my history. I may not have suffered the iniquities the American dream, but that doesn't make my opinion less authoritative.

Solution to what?

Nice dodge.

Any proof of this?

You'll get evidence. You'll never get "proof." If that's your bar, it's too high.

https://hbr.org/2002/04/executive-women-and-the-myth-of-having-it-all

I can’t tell you how many times over the course of this research the women I interviewed apologized for “wanting it all.” But it wasn’t as though these women were looking for special treatment. They were quite prepared to shoulder more than their fair share of the work involved in having both career and family. So why on earth shouldn’t they feel entitled to rich, multidimensional lives? At the end of the day, women simply want the choices in love and work that men take for granted.

Instead, they operate in a society where motherhood carries enormous economic penalties. Two recent studies lay out these penalties in very specific terms. In her study, economist Waldfogel finds that mothers earn less than other women do even when you control for marital status, experience, and education. In fact, according to her research, one child produces a “penalty” of 6% of earnings, while two children produce a wage penalty of 13%. In a more recent study, economists Michelle Budig and Paula England find that motherhood results in a penalty of 7% per child.

Given such a huge disincentive, why do women persist in trying to “have it all”? Because, as a large body of research demonstrates, women are happier when they have both career and family.

We all sacrifice things in life, it's part of being an adult. Being bored because you're at home all day and your kids are now at school or whatever, sure that would be boring. But does that mean they regret their choices or just that they're bored?

Do you think that sacrifice is equal/even between men and women?

I've noticed a pattern of ignorance with you and it always seems to come back to the fact that you're not an academic who grew up in an intellectually... lacking community.

Why should they? Because at this point we are trying to reverse what seems to be a natural phenomenon of men preferring to work and raise their children at a distance comparatively and women preferring to raise their children more intimately.

It's cute that you believe human behavior is "natural"; and "preference" here is tenuous at best.

 

[Dak]

Well, that's not what Sowell said in that clip. He said that based on that statistics he's seen, never-married women of comparable experience earn comparable salaries.

Now, maybe they're less satisfied with their lives because they don't have a family. That's perfectly legitimate, and it's true that having a life partner and family may be intensely fulfilling, much more so than having a lot of money to spend on oneself.

But why do women have to choose between being being the primary breadwinner and having a family? Why can't women be the primary breadwinners of their families? This is the issue, see? That when women do have families, they're expected to be the ones who step away from their careers.

Earning an equivalent salary to a man (or better) =/= having more total wealth after everything is computed, and compounded over time.

You can't get around the "problem" of women being the biologically forced persons to bear the children, with all that entails in both time and physical demand. That isn't something that in any way benefits employers or customers. Even the most "iron woman" is going to have to take some amount of time away for pregnancy. In a dual earner relationship, even more. There's also the consideration of the needs of the children. Businesses aren't charities, and they don't remain in business by being the ones burdened by those considerations.

Can you clarify what you mean by "stopping"? As far as economic/income equality, no--I don't believe that everyone in the Western world should have equal incomes.

By stopping I mean limiting egalitarianism to legal considerations. EG, no laws which have sex (or other demographic) based stipulations.

 

[CiG]

Nice dodge.

Ironic. It was a genuine question. Solutions imply a problem to be solved, what is the problem? Nice dodge though.

Do you think that sacrifice is equal/even between men and women?

I don't think it's that simple to begin with. The different kinds of sacrifices we make aren't contextually comparable in most cases and many of our sacrifices depend on the time we live in.

I've noticed a pattern of ignorance with you and it always seems to come back to the fact that you're not an academic who grew up in an intellectually... lacking community.

That's fair, I would never deny it and that's why I don't often debate things I feel are out of my range of experience, something academics should try to do more often imo.
You already made me feel inferior by pointing out that proof and evidence aren't synonymous, I have no pretensions regarding my limitations.

It's cute that you believe human behavior is "natural"; and "preference" here is tenuous at best.

I said "what seems to be" and that's not the same as saying I believe in anything, it's merely me describing what seems to be a pattern that emerges in all societies at all times. Any example that could carry your point would statistically be anomalous.

You'll get evidence. You'll never get "proof." If that's your bar, it's too high.

https://hbr.org/2002/04/executive-women-and-the-myth-of-having-it-all

The article echoes one of the most salient points that I think holds true: men can enjoy the benefits of having children at any age, women have a time-frame to operate within and older, financially successful childless women will wind up unhappy and unfulfilled.
This really seems to be a condemnation of materialism and capitalism that, funnily enough, most leftists seem to ignore. Becoming a powerful businesswoman with money and freedom satiates the desires of women much less than having children and earning less money does.

 

[Einherjar86]

Earning an equivalent salary to a man (or better) =/= having more total wealth after everything is computed, and compounded over time.

Certainly not, but a single woman working in corporate can live more than comfortably in a nice Boston apartment and still not make as much as a family in Newton.

When it comes to fulfillment, it often boils down to family over money.

You can't get around the "problem" of women being the biologically forced persons to bear the children, with all that entails in both time and physical demand. That isn't something that in any way benefits employers or customers. Even the most "iron woman" is going to have to take some amount of time away for pregnancy. In a dual earner relationship, even more. There's also the consideration of the needs of the children. Businesses aren't charities, and they don't remain in business by being the ones burdened by those considerations.

They don't have to be charities to see the benefit in supporting pregnant employees. That you see it as charity is telling.

 

[CiG]

When it comes to fulfillment, it often boils down to family over money.

Given this, why would anybody assume that women are being manipulated to avoid earning more money and choose the more fulfilling lifestyle?

 

[Einherjar86]

Ironic. It was a genuine question. Solutions imply a problem to be solved, what is the problem? Nice dodge though.

My "brilliant solution" comment was a sarcastic jab at your suggestion that all families can simply afford childcare. The problem is needing someone to look after your child. You said "just hire someone!" A brilliant solution.

I'm not going to respond to anything else, because we're just shitting in each other's directions at this point. And I'm going to bed.

Given this, why would anybody assume that women are being manipulated to avoid earning more money and choose the more fulfilling lifestyle?

I'm saying that women who do have fulfilling careers feel they can't balance that with a family. I'm saying at that point, family is what constitutes a lack of fulfillment--not that family is de facto the more important thing.

 

[CiG]

You can look after your own child, or don't have any.
People who can afford to hire babysitters or use a care center are already doing so, that was my point. Each situation is different.

 

[CiG]

If you knew my wife, you'd know that she would find it presumptuous to compare her feelings to mine when it comes to something like our children. Dear god, can you imagine getting into a pissing match with your partner about who cares more about their children? Just the possibility makes my skin crawl.

Not to keep hammering the nail here, but this kind of statement adds to my view that you have some blind spots.

Staying at home to raise your child does not equate to caring or loving your child more, neither does going off to work to put in extra hours to earn more money to better provide for your new family.

What I was getting at was for you to test who between you and your wife would feel more naturally inclined to stay home with the child. I said nothing about a pissing contest of affinity for your child, but rather to demonstrate the priorities of men and women once a child exists.

 

[Einherjar86]

What I was getting at was for you to test who between you and your wife would feel more naturally inclined to stay home with the child. I said nothing about a pissing contest of affinity for your child, but rather to demonstrate the priorities of men and women once a child exists.

I don't think there's any way to compare that legitimately.

I realize that this will probably add to some people's conception of me as a nancy boy, but my wife and I have actually discussed that I'll be the primary caretaker at home when we do have kids. My career will likely afford me more flexibility than hers.

 

[CiG]

Nothing wrong with that, at least you two are actually planning things in advance, unlike retards like myself and others who just do everything ass-backwards.

Furthermore, whatever works for the family is what's best and I personally am in favour of whatever works best for the family, especially if it keeps it intact long enough for the child to have the best chance in life. Growing up in a broken family sucked balls.

 

[Einherjar86]

Nothing wrong with that, at least you two are actually planning things in advance, unlike retards like myself and others who just do everything ass-backwards.

Furthermore, whatever works for the family is what's best and I personally am in favour of whatever works best for the family, especially if it keeps it intact long enough for the child to have the best chance in life. Growing up in a broken family sucked balls.

Thanks, and you're right. But do you think that so many people look upon such a choice as favorably as you do?

Millennials are shifting in terms of the structure/responsibility of childcare, but we often have to put up with traditional expectations that place the wife in the home and the husband at work. Even in the 1980s, when you really began to see more women entering the workforce, there were significant pressures to avoid seeking promotion. As more millennial women make their way through the workplace, the demographics and experiences of women in the workplace may change; but for the time being, I think you still find a lot of women in the workplace who had to contend in the past with a set of expectations as to their performance and responsibilities.

If experience is a factor in judging these issues (and I'm not saying it should be), then my wife has the experience. She worked for a corporation in downtown Tampa when we lived there, and now she works for a corporation in Boston (both for about five years, although she's still at her job here in Boston). Her experiences haven't exactly disillusioned us of the pressures and expectations that women face in the workplace, as opposed to men.

 

[CiG]

But do you think that so many people look upon such a choice as favorably as you do?

Probably not no, but at the same time I bet most people would prefer a stay at home dad than a broken family/single parent household situation.

I'm more interested in seeing how this plan holds up once your wife's pregnancy starts messing with her emotionally and hormonally, like in that article you linked many of the women had planned to continue with their career but once they became a mother their minds changed right in the face of all their plans.

You just never know. Many women completely change as people just in general after a pregnancy.

Millennials are shifting in terms of the structure/responsibility of childcare, but we often have to put up with traditional expectations that place the wife in the home and the husband at work.

I don't quite buy this social pressuring line of thought. If that is the decision the mother and father make, fine. Maybe one partner has more influence over the other partner, striking an off-balanced family system. Sometimes the husband might not want to take on more hours and would rather his wife stay in the job market, other times he might want her to stay at home and leave her job. It's really imo down to what they decide as a union regardless of who has more influence over the other.

Even in the 1980s, when you really began to see more women entering the workforce, there were significant pressures to avoid seeking promotion.

I don't really know if this is true or not, but maybe. In the 80's my mother was a librarian so it wasn't exactly a get-ahead kind of environment to begin with. Many other women at that time were teachers and how do you really get promoted in the teaching industry beyond trying to become vice principal or principal? Even then that's only two spots to fight over.

If experience is a factor in judging these issues (and I'm not saying it should be), then my wife has the experience. She worked for a corporation in downtown Tampa when we lived there, and now she works for a corporation in Boston (both for about five years, although she's still at her job here in Boston). Her experiences haven't exactly disillusioned us of the pressures and expectations that women face in the workplace, as opposed to men.

No offense to your wife but I really don't have a heart that bleeds for corporate people who might be being held back from becoming a CEO or some thing. This obsession with driving women into positions of power in order to satiate the goal of equality is rather insidious, especially since as this worlds smallest violin goal is happening, men are falling further and further into the muck at the very bottom of society.

Also I'm sure she does fine in her job.

Oh and I wasn't saying your views are invalidated because of what I perceive as you lacking experience with certain parts of life, but just that I don't think you realise you have some blindspots because of it. We all have blindspots due to a lack of experience. That article you linked actually nicely demonstrates what a lack of experience can do, as I already said, many women had plans for when they had a child and those plans were completely changed once they had the child, that is a blindspot due to a lack of experience as you just cannot know what it's like to be married/be a parent until you do it.

 

[rms]

Ein the power you give the word "pressure" on women is so strange. Women get pressured, women cave. Apparently.

 

[arg]

2 women at my office are having babies and it is a fucking headache finding temporary replacements, training them, putting up with their mistakes... should have hired men, would've done the jobs just as well or better, and not pull this shit

 

[Einherjar86]

@CASSETTEISGOD--as bad as it sounds, plenty of men in the workplace actually share the perspective of our model citizen argie mcargison here^^^

I'm more interested in seeing how this plan holds up once your wife's pregnancy starts messing with her emotionally and hormonally, like in that article you linked many of the women had planned to continue with their career but once they became a mother their minds changed right in the face of all their plans.

You just never know. Many women completely change as people just in general after a pregnancy.

I know this is true; but I don't think biology should justify imposing expectations that in turn affect employment. This can happen very subtly, and can also be difficult to diagnose. For instance, that some employers hire fewer women because they factor in the potential for a future pregnancy.

I don't quite buy this social pressuring line of thought. If that is the decision the mother and father make, fine. Maybe one partner has more influence over the other partner, striking an off-balanced family system. Sometimes the husband might not want to take on more hours and would rather his wife stay in the job market, other times he might want her to stay at home and leave her job. It's really imo down to what they decide as a union regardless of who has more influence over the other.

Ein the power you give the word "pressure" on women is so strange. Women get pressured, women cave. Apparently.

Especially when women were beginning to enter the corporate workplace they were dissuaded from being proactive in seeking promotion. This wasn't done explicitly or intentionally, but there was a sense that women should feel lucky to be part of the workplace. Women were expected to act modestly, a strategy that's counterproductive to seeking promotion. Women who did seek promotion were viewed as immodest and pushy, behaviors which could get them reprimanded or fired. So many women actively avoided such behavior.

This still exists to some extent.

I don't really know if this is true or not, but maybe. In the 80's my mother was a librarian so it wasn't exactly a get-ahead kind of environment to begin with. Many other women at that time were teachers and how do you really get promoted in the teaching industry beyond trying to become vice principal or principal? Even then that's only two spots to fight over.

I was talking specifically about corporate workplaces, or environments in which women were breaking into but were still outnumbered by men (typically not the case in educational arenas).

No offense to your wife but I really don't have a heart that bleeds for corporate people who might be being held back from becoming a CEO or some thing. This obsession with driving women into positions of power in order to satiate the goal of equality is rather insidious, especially since as this worlds smallest violin goal is happening, men are falling further and further into the muck at the very bottom of society.

Also I'm sure she does fine in her job.

I'm not sure why you see this as an insidious ploy to drive women into positions of power. Shouldn't women who've been working a position for 4-5 years want to earn a promotion? It would strike me that if they didn't, you'd criticize them for a lack of ambition. See, this is the kind of attitude I'm talking about. It sounds like if a woman has a self-promotional drive, you'd criticize her for immodesty; but if she exhibits a lack of self-promotion, you'd criticize her for having no ambition.

I'm not saying you think this, but language kind of makes it sound that way.

Also, I really don't have a heart that bleeds for men who feel like they're victims of women's successes. And plenty of men who do suffer at the very bottom of society blame women for their lot in life. Pretty pathetic.

Oh and I wasn't saying your views are invalidated because of what I perceive as you lacking experience with certain parts of life, but just that I don't think you realise you have some blindspots because of it. We all have blindspots due to a lack of experience. That article you linked actually nicely demonstrates what a lack of experience can do, as I already said, many women had plans for when they had a child and those plans were completely changed once they had the child, that is a blindspot due to a lack of experience as you just cannot know what it's like to be married/be a parent until you do it.

I have to agree with this, as it's a central element of systems theory (which is kind of my determining conceptual framework for my research and politics).

 

[CiG]

2 women at my office are having babies and it is a fucking headache finding temporary replacements, training them, putting up with their mistakes... should have hired men, would've done the jobs just as well or better, and not pull this shit

 

[rms]

This still exists to some extent.

why is every feminist and racial argument cemented in anecdotal stories from the 60s-80s?

There is no doubt pressures were near authortative decades ago, but to act like women are still confined by portrayals in media is ludicrous and adds to this weak female mindset. But that stereotype is OK, women are weak to outside pressures. The rest? Bad stereotypes.

Bleh, it never really changes.

 

[Einherjar86]

why is every feminist and racial argument cemented in anecdotal stories from the 60s-80s?

There is no doubt pressures were near authortative decades ago, but to act like women are still confined by portrayals in media is ludicrous and adds to this weak female mindset. But that stereotype is OK, women are weak to outside pressures. The rest? Bad stereotypes.

Bleh, it never really changes.

Actually, by saying "to some extent" I was implying that the behavior of women in the workplace has changed. Some of these expectations still exist, but women are more capable at combating them (some of this has to do with more women in hiring positions).

 

[CiG]

I know this is true; but I don't think biology should justify imposing expectations that in turn affect employment. This can happen very subtly, and can also be difficult to diagnose. For instance, that some employers hire fewer women because they factor in the potential for a future pregnancy.

That might be specifically more of an American problem, here in Australia there is paid maternity leave in (I'm pretty sure) all businesses.
But at the same time, businesses aren't charities so can you really blame or condemn a company for taking that into account? Other businesses do it with men, for example jobs that require empathy or have an emotionally sophisticated dimension to the job will tend to prefer women.

Especially when women were beginning to enter the corporate workplace they were dissuaded from being proactive in seeking promotion. This wasn't done explicitly or intentionally, but there was a sense that women should feel lucky to be part of the workplace. Women were expected to act modestly, a strategy that's counterproductive to seeking promotion. Women who did seek promotion were viewed as immodest and pushy, behaviors which could get them reprimanded or fired. So many women actively avoided such behavior.

This still exists to some extent.

And women like Margaret Thatcher bulldozed this kind of environment all the way to power and leftist women who claim to want women to be more like that demonize her and even write articles about how she didn't do anything for women.

I think in many ways people want women to continue to have this problem so they can continue to make bank on the victimhood industry.

I'm not sure why you see this as an insidious ploy to drive women into positions of power. Shouldn't women who've been working a position for 4-5 years want to earn a promotion?

Specifically the people who claim equality as their driving ideal I think are insidious with how obsessed they are that there aren't enough female CEOs, politicians, presidents etc. It's a strange power obsession that I feel inherently creepy about, especially since at the same time these people are shitting all over men.

I just fucking tire of corporatists and their progressive pretenses that are just a veil for power-seeking. Takes a lot to make me cry and corporate workers struggling to gain even more power isn't something that triggers my emotions.

It would strike me that if they didn't, you'd criticize them for a lack of ambition. See, this is the kind of attitude I'm talking about. It sounds like if a woman has a self-promotional drive, you'd criticize her for immodesty; but if she exhibits a lack of self-promotion, you'd criticize her for having no ambition.

I'm not saying you think this, but language kind of makes it sound that way.

When it comes to corporatists I don't care about gender. I've worked for female managers many times in my life and many of them I would follow into a damn mine shaft haha. I'm not someone who shames women for being driven and immodest, most of my relationship wreckages have been due to women being too submissive, I like dominant women etc. (TMI sorry.)

Corporate women should drive for promotions, but I'm simply saying I don't care that much about the corporate world.

Also, I really don't have a heart that bleeds for men who feel like they're victims of women's successes. And plenty of men who do suffer at the very bottom of society blame women for their lot in life. Pretty pathetic.

I agree but I'm not talking about those men, I'm talking about the brutally dropping success rate in the education system with males, the suicide rates, the men working unsafe, dangerous jobs that the powers that be and the politicians don't notice. Especially the left because traditionally they're the voice of the poor and working class but all they ever do now is rant about how there aren't enough female corporate powerhouses in the world.

Women who are educated and driven enough to enter the corporate realm to begin with don't need a victim cult constructed around them.

 

[CiG]

Some of these expectations still exist, but women are more capable at combating them (some of this has to do with more women in hiring positions).

Maybe, but I'd say it has much more to do with the work of the worker's rights movements, usually on the political left.