Also, saying "women can pay child support too so there is no gender equality issue" leads me to counter with:
There are women doctors, engineers, astronauts, CEO's, televangelists and senators.
ergo there is no gender equality issue in employment in this country.
Please refute my statement without applying a higher standard of logic than what you're using for yourself.
Um, these two statements have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you on about?
Child support is not a gendered issue and has nothing to do with gender equality. Where is the connection people? Cause all the reasons you've given (like financial burden) are gender neutral.
Child support is money owed the child by the parents, regardless of gender.
The only way gender has anything to do with this is the whole "but women can get an abortion" part of the argument that's already been hit on many a time.
Because child support is pretty damn close to always paid by the man.
It can, technically, be paid by the mother, but in practice that is not the case. So that's a gender equality issue in the exact same way that "there aren't enough woman scientists" is a gender issue.
Because there's no rule that says women can't be scientists.
Child support is disproportionately a financial burden for men. And while the payments vary from place to place and person to person, they can absolutely lock a young person into a lifetime of poverty.
Obviously, having a kid can lock you into a lifetime of poverty too.
But you'll never see me arguing that a woman should be forced to accept that either.
If that's your connection, then your problem is not child support. It's that women are the default care-givers for children.
Which is, you know, a HUGE issue in feminism.
This is a good argument, but it's not an argument against child support, it's an argument against gender roles in child rearing.
Except, of course, that in many cases the woman defaults as caregiver because she made the unilateral decision to allow a child to be born that needed care.
Right, so you are actually making the asinine spool32 argument that because women can abort, the child is her responsibility. I already covered this.
The women did not make a unilateral decision unless she spontaneously conceived.
Consenting to intercourse is not consenting to procreation.
Yes, and?
Consenting to put a picture on the wall is not consenting to breaking a whole in the drywall but fuck, it might happen anyway and you still gotta deal with it when it happens.
No one but you has actually brought up consent so I'm not sure what you think your point is.
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Nor is it huge. And given that employing a female in any position brings the same risks (to the employer) that contribute to the 25% gap, well....
It's not right, but it's not crazy. Until we can get to a point where men are equally likely to be primary caregivers or stay at home parents, it will persist. Looks like we are moving that direction.
Edit: Women being the ones that take off from work is also partly the result of sexist thoughts that says women should be the one that has to give up their career to raise the child.
Cite?
Or is the reason often more practical - the man is making more money than the woman so it makes more practical sense for the woman to rear the child. Kind like a self feeding catch-22. You are attributing it to being sexist, but I don't think that is often the case in a healthy relationship. Lets say you are married and have 4 children, would you sit down and weigh all your options with input from your significant other? What it would be like if one of you stayed home? Do you weigh things like upword mobility, potential income to determine who should be the one who stays home or do you just flatly say the woman should stay home because she is the mother. I think the majority of people have a rational and logical discussion about it. Gender roles may play a part but I think financial security will override it pretty quickly. (an aside I do know several stay-at-home fathers where the woman is the primary breadwinner of the family).
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Way better than 25%, for sure.
But again, with biology being the way it is, that's often the reason for that discrepancy.
But even when accounting for all that, you still have a large discrepancy. I don't see how that is a farce.
Edit: Women being the ones that take off from work is also partly the result of sexist thoughts that says women should be the one that has to give up their career to raise the child.
-Actually, 5% is just outside of the margin of error.
-Baby Boomers are still in the labor force and likely represent massive outliers.
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Way better than 25%, for sure.
But again, with biology being the way it is, that's often the reason for that discrepancy.
But even when accounting for all that, you still have a large discrepancy. I don't see how that is a farce.
Edit: Women being the ones that take off from work is also partly the result of sexist thoughts that says women should be the one that has to give up their career to raise the child.
It makes it even LESS of a farce actually, since you've controlled for all these huge number of factors and it's still not equal.
That's like the biggest sign of a big inequality problem you could have.
Like I said, that has issues laid out in the biological difference.
The 95 cents to the dollar didn't account for the benefits, IIRC. But I really can't be assed to go digging for the source on it at the moment.
You can't adjust for the consequences of inequality in gender roles, and say there is no inequality.
Women leave the workforce to take care of their kids. Women work part time and lower wage jobs that offer more flexibility to take care of their kids. Women work less dangerous jobs because (among other reasons) they are considered less expendable because they need to take care of their kids.
You can't adjust for gender roles and hand wave away the gender wage gap to make a case that gender roles don't have an impact on wages.
Also, saying "women can pay child support too so there is no gender equality issue" leads me to counter with:
There are women doctors, engineers, astronauts, CEO's, televangelists and senators.
ergo there is no gender equality issue in employment in this country.
Please refute my statement without applying a higher standard of logic than what you're using for yourself.
Um, these two statements have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you on about?
Child support is not a gendered issue and has nothing to do with gender equality. Where is the connection people? Cause all the reasons you've given (like financial burden) are gender neutral.
Child support is money owed the child by the parents, regardless of gender.
The only way gender has anything to do with this is the whole "but women can get an abortion" part of the argument that's already been hit on many a time.
Because child support is pretty damn close to always paid by the man.
It can, technically, be paid by the mother, but in practice that is not the case. So that's a gender equality issue in the exact same way that "there aren't enough woman scientists" is a gender issue.
Because there's no rule that says women can't be scientists.
Child support is disproportionately a financial burden for men. And while the payments vary from place to place and person to person, they can absolutely lock a young person into a lifetime of poverty.
Obviously, having a kid can lock you into a lifetime of poverty too.
But you'll never see me arguing that a woman should be forced to accept that either.
If that's your connection, then your problem is not child support. It's that women are the default care-givers for children.
Which is, you know, a HUGE issue in feminism.
This is a good argument, but it's not an argument against child support, it's an argument against gender roles in child rearing.
Except, of course, that in many cases the woman defaults as caregiver because she made the unilateral decision to allow a child to be born that needed care.
Right, so you are actually making the asinine spool32 argument that because women can abort, the child is her responsibility. I already covered this.
The women did not make a unilateral decision unless she spontaneously conceived.
Consenting to intercourse is not consenting to procreation.
Yes, and?
Consenting to put a picture on the wall is not consenting to breaking a whole in the drywall but fuck, it might happen anyway and you still gotta deal with it when it happens.
No one but you has actually brought up consent so I'm not sure what you think your point is.
Maybe you missed the conversation, it was back on pages 3 and 4.
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Way better than 25%, for sure.
But again, with biology being the way it is, that's often the reason for that discrepancy.
But even when accounting for all that, you still have a large discrepancy. I don't see how that is a farce.
Edit: Women being the ones that take off from work is also partly the result of sexist thoughts that says women should be the one that has to give up their career to raise the child.
-Actually, 5% is just outside of the margin of error.
-Baby Boomers are still in the labor force and likely represent massive outliers.
So talking about eliminating child support in the name of paternal rights before that happens is basically telling single mothers (and single fathers) to go fuck themselves.
I would say that dwelling on how morally unfair it is that men cannot abandon their biological children at any age, at any time, for any reason, without any legal or economic repercussions is a really petty and pointless thing to be concerned about in comparison to, say, the incredibly negative impact of children being raised in poverty.
Expect you are making that up, because we are specifically talking about right of legal paternal surrender at birth only.
Women have the right to give up children even when they take them to term, so why shouldn't men? Why should women get all the choices and men none?
Nobody is saying single parents shouldn't be supported. Giving men the right to surrender parental rights and responsibilities at birth only would arguably reduce instances of single parenthood by changing behavior, thus benefiting children.
Forcing responsibilities on someone who doesn't want them is not a good model for raising children. It does not serve their interests.
It does make some bizarre legal sense that, prior to delivery, the only two entities that exist at that point are an autonomous man and an autonomous woman, and the autonomous man is completely free to dissociate from the autonomous woman, ignoring what may or may not happen in the future.
.... Regardless of the sociopathy of it all, I cannot at this moment think of a reason why this isn't legally ironclad.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Explaining it away as women taking time off to raise children doesn't really work because the main reason they are the ones that have to take time off even with a married couple is because women are expected to be the ones to take time off.
I don't see how the cause of the wage gap matters when it comes to child support given that the point of child support is to support the child. In a case of joint custody, it still makes sense for the more well off parent to pay for the less well off parent in order to ensure consistent financial support. It shouldn't matter what the cause of the difference is so long as there is a difference that needs to be smoothed out.
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Way better than 25%, for sure.
But again, with biology being the way it is, that's often the reason for that discrepancy.
But even when accounting for all that, you still have a large discrepancy. I don't see how that is a farce.
Edit: Women being the ones that take off from work is also partly the result of sexist thoughts that says women should be the one that has to give up their career to raise the child.
-Actually, 5% is just outside of the margin of error.
-Baby Boomers are still in the labor force and likely represent massive outliers.
Age is also controlled for.
Like, these people aren't stupid.
Lumping all MD specialties is pretty stupid.
If your salary can range from $75,000-1,000,000 then uh, you're probably doing something wrong in your statistics.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
But why is it delusional? Because even in theoretically fiscally and socially liberal circles you have people falling for parents to "take responsibility" for choosing to have sex.
Absent that, it's actually possible time could shift politics in that direction. But we have plenty of liberals who are firmly in the "fuck me paying to care for your kids, just don't have sex" camp. To varying degrees.
Speaking of gender roles, part of that is due to cultural assumptions that fathers should provide for their biological children and mothers should be the ones who nurture them. So the reaction to the realities of widespread, easily obtainable divorce (which I'd posit is a much more common and likely case for child support, not unplanned pregnancies) was to legally mandate that the biological father continue to have to fulfill that role as economic provider.
I'd also suggest that the concept of personal responsibility is pretty common even among most "liberals" in the United States, especially after 30 or so years of pushback against the concept of the welfare state and that government can solve the problem of poverty.
Then there's the more pragmatic concern that since eliminating current child support laws is more likely to happen than the Great Socialist Revolution that would be needed to build a functioning social safety net, agitating to end child support laws because they're unfair to men would have the end result of making things even worse for children raised in poverty by single parents.
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Way better than 25%, for sure.
But again, with biology being the way it is, that's often the reason for that discrepancy.
But even when accounting for all that, you still have a large discrepancy. I don't see how that is a farce.
Edit: Women being the ones that take off from work is also partly the result of sexist thoughts that says women should be the one that has to give up their career to raise the child.
It makes it even LESS of a farce actually, since you've controlled for all these huge number of factors and it's still not equal.
That's like the biggest sign of a big inequality problem you could have.
Like I said, that has issues laid out in the biological difference.
The 95 cents to the dollar didn't account for the benefits, IIRC. But I really can't be assed to go digging for the source on it at the moment.
You can't adjust for the consequences of inequality in gender roles, and say there is no inequality.
Women leave the workforce to take care of their kids. Women work part time and lower wage jobs that offer more flexibility to take care of their kids. Women work less dangerous jobs because (among other reasons) they are considered less expendable because they need to take care of their kids.
You can't adjust for gender roles and hand wave away the gender wage gap to make a case that gender roles don't have an impact on wages.
I'm saying that the gap doesn't exist on equal footing. I'm not saying it doesn't exist period, it exists in a certain set of circumstances, like you've outlined.
But an 18 year old male and female that don't have children and a 35 year old male and female that don't have children are on equal footing to each other.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So talking about eliminating child support in the name of paternal rights before that happens is basically telling single mothers (and single fathers) to go fuck themselves.
I would say that dwelling on how morally unfair it is that men cannot abandon their biological children at any age, at any time, for any reason, without any legal or economic repercussions is a really petty and pointless thing to be concerned about in comparison to, say, the incredibly negative impact of children being raised in poverty.
Expect you are making that up, because we are specifically talking about right of legal paternal surrender at birth only.
Women have the right to give up children even when they take them to term, so why shouldn't men? Why should women get all the choices and men none?
Nobody is saying single parents shouldn't be supported. Giving men the right to surrender parental rights and responsibilities at birth only would arguably reduce instances of single parenthood by changing behavior, thus benefiting children.
Forcing responsibilities on someone who doesn't want them is not a good model for raising children. It does not serve their interests.
It does make some bizarre legal sense that, prior to delivery, the only two entities that exist at that point are an autonomous man and an autonomous woman, and the autonomous man is completely free to dissociate from the autonomous woman, ignoring what may or may not happen in the future.
.... Regardless of the sociopathy of it all, I cannot at this moment think of a reason why this isn't legally ironclad.
He can! Barring other circumstances - like marriage - he can fully disassociate with the woman.
Child support is an obligation to the child, not the woman.
The woman most commonly receives the child support to defray the expenses associated with caring for the child, but that could just as easily be paid to the man, to the child's grandparents, or to the state depending on who has custody.
I'll admit that my social circles are a smallish sample, but out of wedlock children are a significant driver of child support.
Additionally, unplanned pregnancies are a significant driver of marriages, including those that end in divorce.
So unplanned pregnancies among young people who do not (a time of conception) legitimately plan to be life partners are probably a significant driver of child support judgments. But maybe not.
Also, saying "women can pay child support too so there is no gender equality issue" leads me to counter with:
There are women doctors, engineers, astronauts, CEO's, televangelists and senators.
ergo there is no gender equality issue in employment in this country.
Please refute my statement without applying a higher standard of logic than what you're using for yourself.
Um, these two statements have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you on about?
Child support is not a gendered issue and has nothing to do with gender equality. Where is the connection people? Cause all the reasons you've given (like financial burden) are gender neutral.
Child support is money owed the child by the parents, regardless of gender.
The only way gender has anything to do with this is the whole "but women can get an abortion" part of the argument that's already been hit on many a time.
Because child support is pretty damn close to always paid by the man.
It can, technically, be paid by the mother, but in practice that is not the case. So that's a gender equality issue in the exact same way that "there aren't enough woman scientists" is a gender issue.
Because there's no rule that says women can't be scientists.
Child support is disproportionately a financial burden for men. And while the payments vary from place to place and person to person, they can absolutely lock a young person into a lifetime of poverty.
Obviously, having a kid can lock you into a lifetime of poverty too.
But you'll never see me arguing that a woman should be forced to accept that either.
If that's your connection, then your problem is not child support. It's that women are the default care-givers for children.
Which is, you know, a HUGE issue in feminism.
This is a good argument, but it's not an argument against child support, it's an argument against gender roles in child rearing.
Except, of course, that in many cases the woman defaults as caregiver because she made the unilateral decision to allow a child to be born that needed care.
Right, so you are actually making the asinine spool32 argument that because women can abort, the child is her responsibility. I already covered this.
The women did not make a unilateral decision unless she spontaneously conceived.
Consenting to intercourse is not consenting to procreation.
Yes, and?
Consenting to put a picture on the wall is not consenting to breaking a whole in the drywall but fuck, it might happen anyway and you still gotta deal with it when it happens.
No one but you has actually brought up consent so I'm not sure what you think your point is.
Maybe you missed the conversation, it was back on pages 3 and 4.
I'll admit that my social circles are a smallish sample, but out of wedlock children are a significant driver of child support.
Additionally, unplanned pregnancies are a significant driver of marriages, including those that end in divorce.
So unplanned pregnancies among young people who do not (a time of conception) legitimately plan to be life partners are probably a significant driver of child support judgments. But maybe not.
Anecdotally, I'd agree with you.
Based on my social circles, I'd say it's probably a somewhat even split between 'condom broke / missed a pill' and 'trying / not trying not to'.
Explaining it away as women taking time off to raise children doesn't really work because the main reason they are the ones that have to take time off even with a married couple is because women are expected to be the ones to take time off.
This may be a good way to get back to the OP.
It may be the case that in society the general expectation is for women to raise kids. But in each individual marriage, the two biological parents have a choice to make regarding who raises the kid.
Maybe we can talk about the issue of paid maternity leave for fathers, or talk about some generalize (maybe fictional) wage inequality that forces men to continue working, since they always get paid so much more than the women to whom they are married.
But it seems that at this smallest level, looking at two people and how they organize their own child care, I don't think that we can invoke "women are expected" as an explanation. The particular woman could tell the particular man that she wants to keep working, and the man can elect to stay home to raise the kid.
The fact that this does not happen all that often seems relevant. Either we can point to it as a problem, or we can use it as evidence of their not being a problem. But the regularity of "most women stay home, most men continue to work" isn't something we should dismiss, or assume needs to be fixed, or assume is fine.
So talking about eliminating child support in the name of paternal rights before that happens is basically telling single mothers (and single fathers) to go fuck themselves.
I would say that dwelling on how morally unfair it is that men cannot abandon their biological children at any age, at any time, for any reason, without any legal or economic repercussions is a really petty and pointless thing to be concerned about in comparison to, say, the incredibly negative impact of children being raised in poverty.
Expect you are making that up, because we are specifically talking about right of legal paternal surrender at birth only.
Women have the right to give up children even when they take them to term, so why shouldn't men? Why should women get all the choices and men none?
Nobody is saying single parents shouldn't be supported. Giving men the right to surrender parental rights and responsibilities at birth only would arguably reduce instances of single parenthood by changing behavior, thus benefiting children.
Forcing responsibilities on someone who doesn't want them is not a good model for raising children. It does not serve their interests.
It does make some bizarre legal sense that, prior to delivery, the only two entities that exist at that point are an autonomous man and an autonomous woman, and the autonomous man is completely free to dissociate from the autonomous woman, ignoring what may or may not happen in the future.
.... Regardless of the sociopathy of it all, I cannot at this moment think of a reason why this isn't legally ironclad.
Because the two are not completely autonomous since the women is undergoing a process that is the result of both parties actions that will result in a third very needy and distinctly non-autonomous person.
It's not iron-clad because you can't ignore what may or may not happen in the future.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
This thread has gone stupid and I'm stupider for having read it.
Thank you all for contributing to the increasing stupidity of modern America.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If the wage gap was significant, employers would hire nothing but women.
That doesn't make sense since the wage gap exists because they won't hire women.
Why are we assuming perfectly logical employers all of a sudden?
Why wouldn't you hire women if you could pay them less than men? Like I asked, but you live in Canada I guess?
Race to the bottom economics isn't a thing for you ?
Gender roles again.
Women have all their women problems, and you never know when they are going to get knocked up. Plus, they are always missing days or having to leave early to pick up their kids or taking days off because their kids are sick.
Not like these reliable men who are happy to work over and work weekends to provide for their families.
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Way better than 25%, for sure.
But again, with biology being the way it is, that's often the reason for that discrepancy.
But even when accounting for all that, you still have a large discrepancy. I don't see how that is a farce.
Edit: Women being the ones that take off from work is also partly the result of sexist thoughts that says women should be the one that has to give up their career to raise the child.
It makes it even LESS of a farce actually, since you've controlled for all these huge number of factors and it's still not equal.
That's like the biggest sign of a big inequality problem you could have.
I don't think controlling for factors that erroneously create inequality is an indication that there is even more inequality.
Posts
Because fuck your gender roles. Who wants to take a bet I'll get denied?
Yes, and?
Consenting to put a picture on the wall is not consenting to breaking a whole in the drywall but fuck, it might happen anyway and you still gotta deal with it when it happens.
No one but you has actually brought up consent so I'm not sure what you think your point is.
Nor is it huge. And given that employing a female in any position brings the same risks (to the employer) that contribute to the 25% gap, well....
It's not right, but it's not crazy. Until we can get to a point where men are equally likely to be primary caregivers or stay at home parents, it will persist. Looks like we are moving that direction.
Cite?
Or is the reason often more practical - the man is making more money than the woman so it makes more practical sense for the woman to rear the child. Kind like a self feeding catch-22. You are attributing it to being sexist, but I don't think that is often the case in a healthy relationship. Lets say you are married and have 4 children, would you sit down and weigh all your options with input from your significant other? What it would be like if one of you stayed home? Do you weigh things like upword mobility, potential income to determine who should be the one who stays home or do you just flatly say the woman should stay home because she is the mother. I think the majority of people have a rational and logical discussion about it. Gender roles may play a part but I think financial security will override it pretty quickly. (an aside I do know several stay-at-home fathers where the woman is the primary breadwinner of the family).
Age is also controlled for.
Like, these people aren't stupid.
You can't adjust for the consequences of inequality in gender roles, and say there is no inequality.
Women leave the workforce to take care of their kids. Women work part time and lower wage jobs that offer more flexibility to take care of their kids. Women work less dangerous jobs because (among other reasons) they are considered less expendable because they need to take care of their kids.
You can't adjust for gender roles and hand wave away the gender wage gap to make a case that gender roles don't have an impact on wages.
Maybe you missed the conversation, it was back on pages 3 and 4.
etc.
Which survey are you referencing?
It does make some bizarre legal sense that, prior to delivery, the only two entities that exist at that point are an autonomous man and an autonomous woman, and the autonomous man is completely free to dissociate from the autonomous woman, ignoring what may or may not happen in the future.
.... Regardless of the sociopathy of it all, I cannot at this moment think of a reason why this isn't legally ironclad.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't see how the cause of the wage gap matters when it comes to child support given that the point of child support is to support the child. In a case of joint custody, it still makes sense for the more well off parent to pay for the less well off parent in order to ensure consistent financial support. It shouldn't matter what the cause of the difference is so long as there is a difference that needs to be smoothed out.
Lumping all MD specialties is pretty stupid.
If your salary can range from $75,000-1,000,000 then uh, you're probably doing something wrong in your statistics.
Speaking of gender roles, part of that is due to cultural assumptions that fathers should provide for their biological children and mothers should be the ones who nurture them. So the reaction to the realities of widespread, easily obtainable divorce (which I'd posit is a much more common and likely case for child support, not unplanned pregnancies) was to legally mandate that the biological father continue to have to fulfill that role as economic provider.
I'd also suggest that the concept of personal responsibility is pretty common even among most "liberals" in the United States, especially after 30 or so years of pushback against the concept of the welfare state and that government can solve the problem of poverty.
Then there's the more pragmatic concern that since eliminating current child support laws is more likely to happen than the Great Socialist Revolution that would be needed to build a functioning social safety net, agitating to end child support laws because they're unfair to men would have the end result of making things even worse for children raised in poverty by single parents.
I'm saying that the gap doesn't exist on equal footing. I'm not saying it doesn't exist period, it exists in a certain set of circumstances, like you've outlined.
But an 18 year old male and female that don't have children and a 35 year old male and female that don't have children are on equal footing to each other.
He can! Barring other circumstances - like marriage - he can fully disassociate with the woman.
Child support is an obligation to the child, not the woman.
The woman most commonly receives the child support to defray the expenses associated with caring for the child, but that could just as easily be paid to the man, to the child's grandparents, or to the state depending on who has custody.
For those interested.
Additionally, unplanned pregnancies are a significant driver of marriages, including those that end in divorce.
So unplanned pregnancies among young people who do not (a time of conception) legitimately plan to be life partners are probably a significant driver of child support judgments. But maybe not.
Maybe you missed the part where I'm not spool32.
And maybe you should explain why what you said is at all relevant.
Consent is irrelevant to the issue in question.
That doesn't make sense since the wage gap exists because they won't hire women.
Why are we assuming perfectly logical employers all of a sudden?
Anecdotally, I'd agree with you.
Based on my social circles, I'd say it's probably a somewhat even split between 'condom broke / missed a pill' and 'trying / not trying not to'.
Why wouldn't you hire women if you could pay them less than men? Like I asked, but you live in Canada I guess?
Race to the bottom economics isn't a thing for you ?
This may be a good way to get back to the OP.
It may be the case that in society the general expectation is for women to raise kids. But in each individual marriage, the two biological parents have a choice to make regarding who raises the kid.
Maybe we can talk about the issue of paid maternity leave for fathers, or talk about some generalize (maybe fictional) wage inequality that forces men to continue working, since they always get paid so much more than the women to whom they are married.
But it seems that at this smallest level, looking at two people and how they organize their own child care, I don't think that we can invoke "women are expected" as an explanation. The particular woman could tell the particular man that she wants to keep working, and the man can elect to stay home to raise the kid.
The fact that this does not happen all that often seems relevant. Either we can point to it as a problem, or we can use it as evidence of their not being a problem. But the regularity of "most women stay home, most men continue to work" isn't something we should dismiss, or assume needs to be fixed, or assume is fine.
Because the two are not completely autonomous since the women is undergoing a process that is the result of both parties actions that will result in a third very needy and distinctly non-autonomous person.
It's not iron-clad because you can't ignore what may or may not happen in the future.
Thank you all for contributing to the increasing stupidity of modern America.
Gender roles again.
Women have all their women problems, and you never know when they are going to get knocked up. Plus, they are always missing days or having to leave early to pick up their kids or taking days off because their kids are sick.
Not like these reliable men who are happy to work over and work weekends to provide for their families.
Etc.
I don't think controlling for factors that erroneously create inequality is an indication that there is even more inequality.
That isn't how you math.