Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Paying women to stay at home

1246713

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    that seems horribly unfair to businesses and employees. I hope that they are compensated as well (more the employees than the business).

    So are a lot of things. Like limits on how little you can pay people or how much you can work per week and on and on and on. There's lots of times the government prevents people from doing things they'd do freely for a large-scale societal benefit.

    bowenMegaMekKetarKristmas KthulhukimeLord_AsmodeusShadowhope
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Yeah, the articles PantsB brought up are a bit on a different scale than what this thread is discussing. Working while a parent and not being home with your infant child for the first year or two of development are very different case groups.

    There is a shit ton of data on JSTOR supporting the need for constant contact with parental figures during the birth-2-3 years of age.

    spool32
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    edited September 10
    shryke wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Except it's not just about people wanting to stay at home. Children and parents benefit from parents being able to stay at home (at least to some extent) with their children.

    A lot of the issues around parenting are a lack of widespread societal support for parenting as an activity. We basically expect people to just, like, deal with it. Like it's just a thing that happens.

    The research does not show a strong benefit for children from stay at home mothers (or fathers). Some shows a benefit for working mothers, some shows a negative but the effect is certainly not large.

    https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/jobs/working-mother-employment-research/

    Its certainly the more traditional route and that's fine. But the delta of even a fairly slanted reading of the research does not really justify a subsidy specifically to encourage the behavior even before you get the reduced labor participation downside.

    The research shows strong benefits from children spending more time with their parents. This is especially true for fathers who, under traditional roles, tend to spend the least time on childcare for various reasons.

    I mean, no it doesn't? Sure, that's what feels like its true, but that's why I linked actual research.

    Yes, it does. Strong parental relationships in the first few years of life (not coincidentally the many sections of time we are talking about with parental leave and such) are crucial for infant brain development. Along with many other things for both parent and child.

    Random link on some of this:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5330336/

    Shit, just look up the research on premies. Parental bonding and contact has large measurable health gains.

    Giving parents the ability to spend more time with their children, especially early in development, is good for everyone.

    Yes.

    Thus, the ideal(ish) solution (by child age):
    • 0–1: Parental leave 50/50 split mother/father
    • 1–6: Daycare / kindergarten
    • 6+: School

    Edit: Obviously paired with humane working hours (so you can have time with the kids after work / weekends). But we should have human working hours for many other reasons, too.

    Edit2: Paid parental leave and free or heavily subsized daycare and school, of course.

    [Expletive deleted] on
    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Family planning / care is almost always framed as "we should care enough to do the basics post-childbirth but how can we get the worker back to work asap?"
    A single working parent household simply isn't in the discussion from what I can see and I think that's disappointing (personally).

    Well, for one it's because it's difficult to make affordable. But also, and this relates directly to the same things going on with the results of the policy the OP is talking about, because two income households are a major way women enter the workforce.

    As I said back on like page 1, I think the issue at work that we need to tackle is the way we view parenting as like a free add-on to the things people were already doing. They are workers and parenting is like a side-gig they chose to do, the same as playing in a sports league or something.

    Aridhol
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    that seems horribly unfair to businesses and employees. I hope that they are compensated as well (more the employees than the business).

    So your solution is no one gets parental leave and the mother stays home full time?

    Because that's what happened before we instituted the current parental leave scheme. In fact, when we loosened the mother/father split, everything immediately reverted closer to the old days of stay-at-home moms.

    The employer must have a slight over-capacity to handle parental leave, sick days, accidents, vacations, and other leaves of absence.

    It's only hard because you don't want to.

    .... that's not what I said at all .... or even close. but shunting the costs of training a temporary new employee, reassigning duties (either on to existing employees or new ones) from existing projects, taking the time to register a new employee with applicable agencies (taxes, unemployment, unions, etc. etc.), reintegrating an employee back into new projects, and etc. to the employer because we decided to have a baby seems a bit much.

    that said, I am all about subsidized child care!

  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    that seems horribly unfair to businesses and employees. I hope that they are compensated as well (more the employees than the business).

    So are a lot of things. Like limits on how little you can pay people or how much you can work per week and on and on and on. There's lots of times the government prevents people from doing things they'd do freely for a large-scale societal benefit.

    man, everyone is dying to read my comments in the worst possible way.

    there's pretty obvious differences between minimum wage and choosing to have a child

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    that seems horribly unfair to businesses and employees. I hope that they are compensated as well (more the employees than the business).

    So are a lot of things. Like limits on how little you can pay people or how much you can work per week and on and on and on. There's lots of times the government prevents people from doing things they'd do freely for a large-scale societal benefit.

    man, everyone is dying to read my comments in the worst possible way.

    there's pretty obvious differences between minimum wage and choosing to have a child

    In what way that is related to the case here?

    The minimum wage is literally just the government saying "No, you can't work for that little no matter how much you want to because it negatively effects everyone else". The government is literally restricting your behaviour in order to not set harmful standards of behaviour for the rest of the workforce.

    Kristmas Kthulhu
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    that seems horribly unfair to businesses and employees. I hope that they are compensated as well (more the employees than the business).

    So are a lot of things. Like limits on how little you can pay people or how much you can work per week and on and on and on. There's lots of times the government prevents people from doing things they'd do freely for a large-scale societal benefit.

    man, everyone is dying to read my comments in the worst possible way.

    there's pretty obvious differences between minimum wage and choosing to have a child

    In what way that is related to the case here?

    The minimum wage is literally just the government saying "No, you can't work for that little no matter how much you want to because it negatively effects everyone else". The government is literally restricting your behaviour in order to not set harmful standards of behaviour for the rest of the workforce.

    the difference is that no one can work for (say) $1 an hour, where anyone can choose to not have children (or have as many as they want)

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    that seems horribly unfair to businesses and employees. I hope that they are compensated as well (more the employees than the business).

    So are a lot of things. Like limits on how little you can pay people or how much you can work per week and on and on and on. There's lots of times the government prevents people from doing things they'd do freely for a large-scale societal benefit.

    man, everyone is dying to read my comments in the worst possible way.

    there's pretty obvious differences between minimum wage and choosing to have a child

    In what way that is related to the case here?

    The minimum wage is literally just the government saying "No, you can't work for that little no matter how much you want to because it negatively effects everyone else". The government is literally restricting your behaviour in order to not set harmful standards of behaviour for the rest of the workforce.

    the difference is that no one can work for (say) $1 an hour, where anyone can choose to not have children (or have as many as they want)

    No one can work for $1 an hour only because the government says they can't. People totally would if you let them.

    KetarKristmas KthulhuGennenalyse RuebenAntinumericCalicaShadowhope
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    that seems horribly unfair to businesses and employees. I hope that they are compensated as well (more the employees than the business).

    So are a lot of things. Like limits on how little you can pay people or how much you can work per week and on and on and on. There's lots of times the government prevents people from doing things they'd do freely for a large-scale societal benefit.

    man, everyone is dying to read my comments in the worst possible way.

    there's pretty obvious differences between minimum wage and choosing to have a child

    In what way that is related to the case here?

    The minimum wage is literally just the government saying "No, you can't work for that little no matter how much you want to because it negatively effects everyone else". The government is literally restricting your behaviour in order to not set harmful standards of behaviour for the rest of the workforce.

    the difference is that no one can work for (say) $1 an hour, where anyone can choose to not have children (or have as many as they want)

    No one can work for $1 an hour only because the government says they can't. People totally would if you let them.

    I kind of doubt it and either way, I'm not sure what that has to do with the effect that the original comment would have on employers (especially smaller ones).

  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited September 10
    Richy wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    My 2c:
    - Legislate that both parents must stay home for a year after childbirth.

    That is both an assault on personal freedom and wildly impractical for many professions.

    "This doesn't work because work culture in the US is fucking dumb" is basically how this conversation generally boils away.

    I'm not saying that the companies have to pay out salary during that year (and I don't think descrider was either), but, aside from businesses with less than 5 people, mothers and fathers should be legally able (not required) to take a year off if they both would like to.

    Think about what you do every day in your job and how much bullshit there is and how many people barely can function and still remain employed. Most of the US workforce could drop down to 5-10 hours a week and keep the same productivity if we got rid of dumb bullshit and "ass-in-seat" syndrome old fucks think is important.

    We can encourage this to happen a bit more naturally by giving huge tax incentives to move workforces to work from home instead. That accomplished some of the same stuff we're looking for without it looking like we're punishing anyone. Secretaries that answer and direct calls? Probably no longer need to be in office. Software developers? Probably also don't need to be in office. IT people that work with cloud services like AWS? Also probably don't need to be in office. There are very few professional jobs in 2019/2020 that need someone physically in an office setting. Factory workers and manual trades are fucked here and we'd need to address that somehow, but, having that been an exception until we figure something out isn't world ending either.

    Edit: if most people are working from home, raising children becomes a bit easier, especially if you're not traveling to and from work and can devote some of your day to household stuff. Especially since most people don't actually work 40 hours a week, often times that's filled with dumb time wasters and meetings anyways.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
    EddyKristmas KthulhuCalica
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    If you can't run your business because 1 person leaves a role you done fucked up.

    AntinumericShadowhope
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    that seems horribly unfair to businesses and employees. I hope that they are compensated as well (more the employees than the business).

    So are a lot of things. Like limits on how little you can pay people or how much you can work per week and on and on and on. There's lots of times the government prevents people from doing things they'd do freely for a large-scale societal benefit.

    man, everyone is dying to read my comments in the worst possible way.

    there's pretty obvious differences between minimum wage and choosing to have a child

    In what way that is related to the case here?

    The minimum wage is literally just the government saying "No, you can't work for that little no matter how much you want to because it negatively effects everyone else". The government is literally restricting your behaviour in order to not set harmful standards of behaviour for the rest of the workforce.

    the difference is that no one can work for (say) $1 an hour, where anyone can choose to not have children (or have as many as they want)

    No one can work for $1 an hour only because the government says they can't. People totally would if you let them.

    I kind of doubt it and either way, I'm not sure what that has to do with the effect that the original comment would have on employers (especially smaller ones).

    It's literally why the minimum wage exists dude. To stop people from doing it.

    KetarQuidKristmas KthulhukimeGennenalyse RuebenHacksawCalica
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    If you can't run your business because 1 person leaves a role you done fucked up.

    it isn't that they -can't- it's that it can be a huge pain in the ass to do it.

    hey, I'm all for letting people take off, but I don't know if employers (especially as I said, small ones) should be forced to jump through a lot of hoops for it. Paid maternity / paternity leave for a while is one thing, but an entire year is a LOT of billable hours that aren't being billed for. Nor does that address the amount of money it costs to hire and train a new employee, (effectively) Rehire an old employee and get them up to speed on literally everything, etc. None of that is particularly cheap or easy.

  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    that seems horribly unfair to businesses and employees. I hope that they are compensated as well (more the employees than the business).

    So your solution is no one gets parental leave and the mother stays home full time?

    Because that's what happened before we instituted the current parental leave scheme. In fact, when we loosened the mother/father split, everything immediately reverted closer to the old days of stay-at-home moms.

    The employer must have a slight over-capacity to handle parental leave, sick days, accidents, vacations, and other leaves of absence.

    It's only hard because you don't want to.

    .... that's not what I said at all .... or even close. but shunting the costs of training a temporary new employee, reassigning duties (either on to existing employees or new ones) from existing projects, taking the time to register a new employee with applicable agencies (taxes, unemployment, unions, etc. etc.), reintegrating an employee back into new projects, and etc. to the employer because we decided to have a baby seems a bit much.

    that said, I am all about subsidized child care!

    That may not be what you said, but whether you know it or not, that is what you are advocating for.

    "It is too hard on businesses to give people parental leave", has, as its inevitable conclusion, that women stay at home with the kids, and do not enter the workforce.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    Kristmas KthulhuFANTOMAS
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    that seems horribly unfair to businesses and employees. I hope that they are compensated as well (more the employees than the business).

    So your solution is no one gets parental leave and the mother stays home full time?

    Because that's what happened before we instituted the current parental leave scheme. In fact, when we loosened the mother/father split, everything immediately reverted closer to the old days of stay-at-home moms.

    The employer must have a slight over-capacity to handle parental leave, sick days, accidents, vacations, and other leaves of absence.

    It's only hard because you don't want to.

    .... that's not what I said at all .... or even close. but shunting the costs of training a temporary new employee, reassigning duties (either on to existing employees or new ones) from existing projects, taking the time to register a new employee with applicable agencies (taxes, unemployment, unions, etc. etc.), reintegrating an employee back into new projects, and etc. to the employer because we decided to have a baby seems a bit much.

    that said, I am all about subsidized child care!

    That may not be what you said, but whether you know it or not, that is what you are advocating for.

    "It is too hard on businesses to give people parental leave", has, as its inevitable conclusion, that women stay at home with the kids, and do not enter the workforce.

    Or they get daycare which I already mentioned should be subsidized to some extent, or the father could stay home, or maybe some companies can, or are more willing to shoulder that cost, or maybe grandma and grandpa help out, or, or, or

    The point is that there are so many different situations and solutions that the amount of legislation proposed in this thread seems over the top.

    Also, don't make wild extrapolations from my posts then say I'm advocating for them =p

  • ThroThro Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Except it's not just about people wanting to stay at home. Children and parents benefit from parents being able to stay at home (at least to some extent) with their children.

    A lot of the issues around parenting are a lack of widespread societal support for parenting as an activity. We basically expect people to just, like, deal with it. Like it's just a thing that happens.

    The research does not show a strong benefit for children from stay at home mothers (or fathers). Some shows a benefit for working mothers, some shows a negative but the effect is certainly not large.

    https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/jobs/working-mother-employment-research/

    Its certainly the more traditional route and that's fine. But the delta of even a fairly slanted reading of the research does not really justify a subsidy specifically to encourage the behavior even before you get the reduced labor participation downside.

    The research shows strong benefits from children spending more time with their parents. This is especially true for fathers who, under traditional roles, tend to spend the least time on childcare for various reasons.

    I mean, no it doesn't? Sure, that's what feels like its true, but that's why I linked actual research.

    Yes, it does. Strong parental relationships in the first few years of life (not coincidentally the many sections of time we are talking about with parental leave and such) are crucial for infant brain development. Along with many other things for both parent and child.

    Random link on some of this:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5330336/

    Shit, just look up the research on premies. Parental bonding and contact has large measurable health gains.

    Giving parents the ability to spend more time with their children, especially early in development, is good for everyone.

    I think there's a difference between what you linked and what Pants linked though. Just because the primary caregiver has gone back to work doesn't necessarily mean the baby will have an "insecure attachment" to that caregiver. Again, there are also plenty of studies showing benefits of working parents https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/maternity-leave-and-childrens-cognitive-and-behavioral-development/
    There's clearly a need for some Maternity/Paternity leave in the first parts of life; and extra should be granted for extenuating circumstances (Premies as you mentioned, and other cases that would directly benefit from more stay-home care). But for most situations there's a point of diminishing returns, for both the child and primary caregiver.

    Basically both some paternity/maternity leave and subsidized daycare.

  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    Honestly I'm kinda confused why people want men to do more in raising children. Men are already mostly awful even with women doing most of the work raising them. I know I'm thankful I was mostly raised by my mother and great-grandmother rather than my father.

    Those men who are already inclined to parent are probably a cut-above as fathers compared to the average man.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly I'm kinda confused why people want men to do more in raising children. Men are already mostly awful even with women doing most of the work raising them. I know I'm thankful I was mostly raised by my mother and great-grandmother rather than my father.

    Those men who are already inclined to parent are probably a cut-above as fathers compared to the average man.

    I'm sorry you have had bad experiences with male parents. I also had a shitty dad. That doesn't mean all dads, or even the average dad, is a shitty dad.

    bowenXaquin[Expletive deleted]QuidAridholSleepKristmas KthulhushrykeKetariTunesIsEvilspool32lonelyahavakimeGennenalyse RuebenVishNubdispatch.oLabelTNTrooperKetBraLord_AsmodeusDark Raven XCalicaBloodySlothMegaMekTicaldfjamShadowhope
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    If you can't run your business because 1 person leaves a role you done fucked up.

    it isn't that they -can't- it's that it can be a huge pain in the ass to do it.

    hey, I'm all for letting people take off, but I don't know if employers (especially as I said, small ones) should be forced to jump through a lot of hoops for it. Paid maternity / paternity leave for a while is one thing, but an entire year is a LOT of billable hours that aren't being billed for. Nor does that address the amount of money it costs to hire and train a new employee, (effectively) Rehire an old employee and get them up to speed on literally everything, etc. None of that is particularly cheap or easy.

    My proposal was that the government should be paying the parents to take leave, as yeah, paid parental leave for a year would likely sink small employers.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly I'm kinda confused why people want men to do more in raising children. Men are already mostly awful even with women doing most of the work raising them. I know I'm thankful I was mostly raised by my mother and great-grandmother rather than my father.

    Those men who are already inclined to parent are probably a cut-above as fathers compared to the average man.

    I'm sorry you have had bad experiences with male parents. I also had a shitty dad. That doesn't mean all dads, or even the average dad, is a shitty dad.

    Yeah and sex and gender have very little to do with what kind of parent a person is too.

    There are as many equally shitty mothers as there are fathers.

    Straight up kind of offensive to say men suck as parents or that they shouldn't want to spend time with their children. I don't even want children and I'm kind of upset by that.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, don't @ me
    QuidSleepKristmas KthulhuCelloshrykeBloodsheedKetariTunesIsEvilTehSpectrelonelyahavakimeGennenalyse RuebenHacksawredxdispatch.oLabelKetBraNyysjanLord_AsmodeusDark Raven XEncCalicaBloodySloth
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    that seems horribly unfair to businesses and employees. I hope that they are compensated as well (more the employees than the business).

    So your solution is no one gets parental leave and the mother stays home full time?

    Because that's what happened before we instituted the current parental leave scheme. In fact, when we loosened the mother/father split, everything immediately reverted closer to the old days of stay-at-home moms.

    The employer must have a slight over-capacity to handle parental leave, sick days, accidents, vacations, and other leaves of absence.

    It's only hard because you don't want to.

    .... that's not what I said at all .... or even close. but shunting the costs of training a temporary new employee, reassigning duties (either on to existing employees or new ones) from existing projects, taking the time to register a new employee with applicable agencies (taxes, unemployment, unions, etc. etc.), reintegrating an employee back into new projects, and etc. to the employer because we decided to have a baby seems a bit much.

    that said, I am all about subsidized child care!

    That may not be what you said, but whether you know it or not, that is what you are advocating for.

    "It is too hard on businesses to give people parental leave", has, as its inevitable conclusion, that women stay at home with the kids, and do not enter the workforce.

    Or they get daycare which I already mentioned should be subsidized to some extent, or the father could stay home, or maybe some companies can, or are more willing to shoulder that cost, or maybe grandma and grandpa help out, or, or, or

    The point is that there are so many different situations and solutions that the amount of legislation proposed in this thread seems over the top.

    Also, don't make wild extrapolations from my posts then say I'm advocating for them =p

    I'm not accusing you of advocating this deliberately. I am pointing out the outcome of your well-meaning but misguided policy proposal.

    And you can't have daycare from Day 0. The mother needs time off both before, during, and after birth. And since parental leave is too hard on businesses, expectant mothers are fired. And so, inevitably, a woman's place is yet again at home, chained to her kids.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    Kristmas Kthulhu
  • RickRudeRickRude Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    I mean as a dude who's plan potentially includes being the stay at home parent I'd super appreciate getting paid for it

    This is my situation. I'm currently applying for diability but either way I'm going to he a stay at home dad most likely.

  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly I'm kinda confused why people want men to do more in raising children. Men are already mostly awful even with women doing most of the work raising them. I know I'm thankful I was mostly raised by my mother and great-grandmother rather than my father.

    Those men who are already inclined to parent are probably a cut-above as fathers compared to the average man.

    I'm sorry you have had bad experiences with male parents. I also had a shitty dad. That doesn't mean all dads, or even the average dad, is a shitty dad.

    Since mandatory leave for the father (technically use it or lose it) has been a thing here since the early 90's, there is a not insignificant body of research on the effects of parental leave on fathers.

    The short version is that, as long as the father is at home alone with the kid*, it is an incredible bonding experience for father and child alike. And, even after the father has returned to work and the child is growing, there is a stronger, more enduring bond than there would otherwise be.

    Being forces into this role make the father a better father. Great fathers are made, they are not born.

    (Frankly, I suspect the same is true for mothers, but they have less of a choice in the matter by both biology and society.)

    * Some parents time it so that the mother is on vacation at the same time as the father is on parental leave. This apparently vastly diminishes the father/child bonding. (Probably due to the mother assuming a much greater role.)

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    shrykeKristmas KthulhuSynthesis
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    that seems horribly unfair to businesses and employees. I hope that they are compensated as well (more the employees than the business).

    So your solution is no one gets parental leave and the mother stays home full time?

    Because that's what happened before we instituted the current parental leave scheme. In fact, when we loosened the mother/father split, everything immediately reverted closer to the old days of stay-at-home moms.

    The employer must have a slight over-capacity to handle parental leave, sick days, accidents, vacations, and other leaves of absence.

    It's only hard because you don't want to.

    .... that's not what I said at all .... or even close. but shunting the costs of training a temporary new employee, reassigning duties (either on to existing employees or new ones) from existing projects, taking the time to register a new employee with applicable agencies (taxes, unemployment, unions, etc. etc.), reintegrating an employee back into new projects, and etc. to the employer because we decided to have a baby seems a bit much.

    that said, I am all about subsidized child care!

    That may not be what you said, but whether you know it or not, that is what you are advocating for.

    "It is too hard on businesses to give people parental leave", has, as its inevitable conclusion, that women stay at home with the kids, and do not enter the workforce.

    Or they get daycare which I already mentioned should be subsidized to some extent, or the father could stay home, or maybe some companies can, or are more willing to shoulder that cost, or maybe grandma and grandpa help out, or, or, or

    The point is that there are so many different situations and solutions that the amount of legislation proposed in this thread seems over the top.

    Also, don't make wild extrapolations from my posts then say I'm advocating for them =p

    I'm not accusing you of advocating this deliberately. I am pointing out the outcome of your well-meaning but misguided policy proposal.

    And you can't have daycare from Day 0. The mother needs time off both before, during, and after birth. And since parental leave is too hard on businesses, expectant mothers are fired. And so, inevitably, a woman's place is yet again at home, chained to her kids.

    There already is parental leave as far as I know. Probably not long enough in my opinion though. No one mandates a woman take it (though as far as I know, it is pretty important during the first couple months especially)

    I have to admit I'm a little confused by your response. I haven't put forth any policy proposal. also, the bolded statements seem, I don't know, odd when looked at together. The mother needs time to be with her child and once again, she's chained to her children? I don't really think that's mandated anywhere so much as it is just common. If my ex had had a better job than I did at the time, I'd have been fine with her working. As it happened, she wanted to stay with him and I had a higher paying job anyway so there we were.

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    My 2c:
    - Legislate that both parents must stay home for a year after childbirth. Force employers to take them back afterwards, and have the government pay the parents an appropriate amount during.
    - Nationalise childcare, and make it free. Allow parents to return to work maybe after the kid is in childcare.
    - Tax rich people more.

    haha what?!

    edit: whaaaaat?!

    whaaaaaaaaaat?!

    edit2: I guess so this has more content, you want to force parents to stay home regardless of what various work duties are required at their job. Then their office has to keep them on payroll and reintegrate them into whatever is going on in a year (maybe!). What happens to the extra person hired to take over for you a year ago? Are they simply let go whenever a parent is permitted to work again?

    and -maybe- allow parents to work again? How benevolent!

    Yes, and the maybe was for a shortened enforced period if the child is placed in childcare early, because a year is just a number and the parents maybe should be allowed to choose to put the kid in early.

    In any case, I believe the gender wage gap needs a standardised resume time gap across both parents to be fixed.
    The person who is taken on to cover the parent would be in a temporary position.
    And if employers/jobs aren't able to accommodate, then they can be fined until they can accommodate.

    If your solution to the gender wage gap is to have both parents put their careers on hold for a year a kid, that's a hard pass from me. Even guaranteeing re-entry, parents would miss a lot of opportunities to climb the ladder under your policy.

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
    Xaquin
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    that seems horribly unfair to businesses and employees. I hope that they are compensated as well (more the employees than the business).

    So your solution is no one gets parental leave and the mother stays home full time?

    Because that's what happened before we instituted the current parental leave scheme. In fact, when we loosened the mother/father split, everything immediately reverted closer to the old days of stay-at-home moms.

    The employer must have a slight over-capacity to handle parental leave, sick days, accidents, vacations, and other leaves of absence.

    It's only hard because you don't want to.

    .... that's not what I said at all .... or even close. but shunting the costs of training a temporary new employee, reassigning duties (either on to existing employees or new ones) from existing projects, taking the time to register a new employee with applicable agencies (taxes, unemployment, unions, etc. etc.), reintegrating an employee back into new projects, and etc. to the employer because we decided to have a baby seems a bit much.

    that said, I am all about subsidized child care!

    That may not be what you said, but whether you know it or not, that is what you are advocating for.

    "It is too hard on businesses to give people parental leave", has, as its inevitable conclusion, that women stay at home with the kids, and do not enter the workforce.

    Or they get daycare which I already mentioned should be subsidized to some extent, or the father could stay home, or maybe some companies can, or are more willing to shoulder that cost, or maybe grandma and grandpa help out, or, or, or

    The point is that there are so many different situations and solutions that the amount of legislation proposed in this thread seems over the top.

    Also, don't make wild extrapolations from my posts then say I'm advocating for them =p

    I'm not accusing you of advocating this deliberately. I am pointing out the outcome of your well-meaning but misguided policy proposal.

    And you can't have daycare from Day 0. The mother needs time off both before, during, and after birth. And since parental leave is too hard on businesses, expectant mothers are fired. And so, inevitably, a woman's place is yet again at home, chained to her kids.

    There already is parental leave as far as I know. Probably not long enough in my opinion though. No one mandates a woman take it (though as far as I know, it is pretty important during the first couple months especially)

    I have to admit I'm a little confused by your response. I haven't put forth any policy proposal. also, the bolded statements seem, I don't know, odd when looked at together. The mother needs time to be with her child and once again, she's chained to her children? I don't really think that's mandated anywhere so much as it is just common. If my ex had had a better job than I did at the time, I'd have been fine with her working. As it happened, she wanted to stay with him and I had a higher paying job anyway so there we were.

    Is this
    but shunting the costs of training a temporary new employee, reassigning duties (either on to existing employees or new ones) from existing projects, taking the time to register a new employee with applicable agencies (taxes, unemployment, unions, etc. etc.), reintegrating an employee back into new projects, and etc. to the employer because we decided to have a baby seems a bit much.
    not your argument against parental leave? If so, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I thought you were arguing against businesses being forced to allow parents parental leave (which is a policy position).

    The existence of daycare makes things better, but only after the kid is older. Parental leave (at least for the mother) is required. A woman can't give birth on the factory floor.

    Here is the logical chain of my argument:
    Businesses don't have to supply parental leave -> Businesses don't supply parental leave -> A woman gets pregnant -> She is fired, since otherwise she'd need time off, and businesses don't want and don't have to give that -> Woman leaves workforce -> Women, as a group, remain mothers and home-makers.

    Now, some think this is super. I do not.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    My 2c:
    - Legislate that both parents must stay home for a year after childbirth. Force employers to take them back afterwards, and have the government pay the parents an appropriate amount during.
    - Nationalise childcare, and make it free. Allow parents to return to work maybe after the kid is in childcare.
    - Tax rich people more.

    haha what?!

    edit: whaaaaat?!

    whaaaaaaaaaat?!

    edit2: I guess so this has more content, you want to force parents to stay home regardless of what various work duties are required at their job. Then their office has to keep them on payroll and reintegrate them into whatever is going on in a year (maybe!). What happens to the extra person hired to take over for you a year ago? Are they simply let go whenever a parent is permitted to work again?

    and -maybe- allow parents to work again? How benevolent!

    Yes, and the maybe was for a shortened enforced period if the child is placed in childcare early, because a year is just a number and the parents maybe should be allowed to choose to put the kid in early.

    In any case, I believe the gender wage gap needs a standardised resume time gap across both parents to be fixed.
    The person who is taken on to cover the parent would be in a temporary position.
    And if employers/jobs aren't able to accommodate, then they can be fined until they can accommodate.

    If your solution to the gender wage gap is to have both parents put their careers on hold for a year a kid, that's a hard pass from me. Even guaranteeing re-entry, parents would miss a lot of opportunities to climb the ladder under your policy.

    Sure.
    I just suspect that if the fathers have lost the same opportunities as the mothers, then, suddenly, having that uninterrupted work history is going to become less important to employers.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
    [Expletive deleted]shrykekimeNyysjanKristmas Kthulhu
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    My 2c:
    - Legislate that both parents must stay home for a year after childbirth. Force employers to take them back afterwards, and have the government pay the parents an appropriate amount during.
    - Nationalise childcare, and make it free. Allow parents to return to work maybe after the kid is in childcare.
    - Tax rich people more.

    haha what?!

    edit: whaaaaat?!

    whaaaaaaaaaat?!

    edit2: I guess so this has more content, you want to force parents to stay home regardless of what various work duties are required at their job. Then their office has to keep them on payroll and reintegrate them into whatever is going on in a year (maybe!). What happens to the extra person hired to take over for you a year ago? Are they simply let go whenever a parent is permitted to work again?

    and -maybe- allow parents to work again? How benevolent!

    Yes, and the maybe was for a shortened enforced period if the child is placed in childcare early, because a year is just a number and the parents maybe should be allowed to choose to put the kid in early.

    In any case, I believe the gender wage gap needs a standardised resume time gap across both parents to be fixed.
    The person who is taken on to cover the parent would be in a temporary position.
    And if employers/jobs aren't able to accommodate, then they can be fined until they can accommodate.

    If your solution to the gender wage gap is to have both parents put their careers on hold for a year a kid, that's a hard pass from me. Even guaranteeing re-entry, parents would miss a lot of opportunities to climb the ladder under your policy.

    Sure.
    I just suspect that if the fathers have lost the same opportunities as the mothers, then, suddenly, having that uninterrupted work history is going to become less important to employers.

    I wish I had more than one agree to give.

    We are trying to change society here. To make men and women as equal as is possible. And fighting against the weight of thousands (literally) years of history and the regressive forces who wish to keep women down.

    That change ain't coming on its own. Radical change calls for radical action.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly I'm kinda confused why people want men to do more in raising children. Men are already mostly awful even with women doing most of the work raising them. I know I'm thankful I was mostly raised by my mother and great-grandmother rather than my father.

    Those men who are already inclined to parent are probably a cut-above as fathers compared to the average man.

    I'm sorry you have had bad experiences with male parents. I also had a shitty dad. That doesn't mean all dads, or even the average dad, is a shitty dad.

    On top of which, one of the big ways you stop the creation of shitty dads is by raising better boys, for which better more involved fathers is a big help.

    EncKetariTunesIsEvillonelyahavaGennenalyse RuebenQuidHacksawKetBraLord_AsmodeusbowenCalicaKristmas Kthulhu
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    My 2c:
    - Legislate that both parents must stay home for a year after childbirth. Force employers to take them back afterwards, and have the government pay the parents an appropriate amount during.
    - Nationalise childcare, and make it free. Allow parents to return to work maybe after the kid is in childcare.
    - Tax rich people more.

    haha what?!

    edit: whaaaaat?!

    whaaaaaaaaaat?!

    edit2: I guess so this has more content, you want to force parents to stay home regardless of what various work duties are required at their job. Then their office has to keep them on payroll and reintegrate them into whatever is going on in a year (maybe!). What happens to the extra person hired to take over for you a year ago? Are they simply let go whenever a parent is permitted to work again?

    and -maybe- allow parents to work again? How benevolent!

    Yes, and the maybe was for a shortened enforced period if the child is placed in childcare early, because a year is just a number and the parents maybe should be allowed to choose to put the kid in early.

    In any case, I believe the gender wage gap needs a standardised resume time gap across both parents to be fixed.
    The person who is taken on to cover the parent would be in a temporary position.
    And if employers/jobs aren't able to accommodate, then they can be fined until they can accommodate.

    If your solution to the gender wage gap is to have both parents put their careers on hold for a year a kid, that's a hard pass from me. Even guaranteeing re-entry, parents would miss a lot of opportunities to climb the ladder under your policy.

    Sure.
    I just suspect that if the fathers have lost the same opportunities as the mothers, then, suddenly, having that uninterrupted work history is going to become less important to employers.

    As far as I'm aware, the research on the gender pay gap suggests that women giving birth and taking time off for it and caring for the baby afterwords is basically the largest factor at work. So if that's what you are interested in attacking, you are definitely gonna need to deal with how the two are linked.

  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    edited September 10
    .
    shryke wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    My 2c:
    - Legislate that both parents must stay home for a year after childbirth. Force employers to take them back afterwards, and have the government pay the parents an appropriate amount during.
    - Nationalise childcare, and make it free. Allow parents to return to work maybe after the kid is in childcare.
    - Tax rich people more.

    haha what?!

    edit: whaaaaat?!

    whaaaaaaaaaat?!

    edit2: I guess so this has more content, you want to force parents to stay home regardless of what various work duties are required at their job. Then their office has to keep them on payroll and reintegrate them into whatever is going on in a year (maybe!). What happens to the extra person hired to take over for you a year ago? Are they simply let go whenever a parent is permitted to work again?

    and -maybe- allow parents to work again? How benevolent!

    Yes, and the maybe was for a shortened enforced period if the child is placed in childcare early, because a year is just a number and the parents maybe should be allowed to choose to put the kid in early.

    In any case, I believe the gender wage gap needs a standardised resume time gap across both parents to be fixed.
    The person who is taken on to cover the parent would be in a temporary position.
    And if employers/jobs aren't able to accommodate, then they can be fined until they can accommodate.

    If your solution to the gender wage gap is to have both parents put their careers on hold for a year a kid, that's a hard pass from me. Even guaranteeing re-entry, parents would miss a lot of opportunities to climb the ladder under your policy.

    Sure.
    I just suspect that if the fathers have lost the same opportunities as the mothers, then, suddenly, having that uninterrupted work history is going to become less important to employers.

    As far as I'm aware, the research on the gender pay gap suggests that women giving birth and taking time off for it and caring for the baby afterwords is basically the largest factor at work. So if that's what you are interested in attacking, you are definitely gonna need to deal with how the two are linked.

    No. the two largest factors are "occupational segregation"(paying teachers and other poorly because they are majority women) and "unexplained factors" AKA pure sexism.

    This is true of every study I've seen.

    Like this one. http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/43244511.pdf
    Educational attainment and labour market experience typically
    explains only a small or even negligible portion of the gender wage gap. By contrast, labour
    market segmentation by occupation, type of contract, industry as well as firms and
    establishments typically explain a far larger share
    However,evidence based on large-scale matched employer-employee data shows that even taking
    into account a fine disaggregation of occupations, industries and establishments, more
    than 50% of the wage gap remains unexplained.

    BSoB on

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    BSoB wrote: »
    .
    shryke wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    My 2c:
    - Legislate that both parents must stay home for a year after childbirth. Force employers to take them back afterwards, and have the government pay the parents an appropriate amount during.
    - Nationalise childcare, and make it free. Allow parents to return to work maybe after the kid is in childcare.
    - Tax rich people more.

    haha what?!

    edit: whaaaaat?!

    whaaaaaaaaaat?!

    edit2: I guess so this has more content, you want to force parents to stay home regardless of what various work duties are required at their job. Then their office has to keep them on payroll and reintegrate them into whatever is going on in a year (maybe!). What happens to the extra person hired to take over for you a year ago? Are they simply let go whenever a parent is permitted to work again?

    and -maybe- allow parents to work again? How benevolent!

    Yes, and the maybe was for a shortened enforced period if the child is placed in childcare early, because a year is just a number and the parents maybe should be allowed to choose to put the kid in early.

    In any case, I believe the gender wage gap needs a standardised resume time gap across both parents to be fixed.
    The person who is taken on to cover the parent would be in a temporary position.
    And if employers/jobs aren't able to accommodate, then they can be fined until they can accommodate.

    If your solution to the gender wage gap is to have both parents put their careers on hold for a year a kid, that's a hard pass from me. Even guaranteeing re-entry, parents would miss a lot of opportunities to climb the ladder under your policy.

    Sure.
    I just suspect that if the fathers have lost the same opportunities as the mothers, then, suddenly, having that uninterrupted work history is going to become less important to employers.

    As far as I'm aware, the research on the gender pay gap suggests that women giving birth and taking time off for it and caring for the baby afterwords is basically the largest factor at work. So if that's what you are interested in attacking, you are definitely gonna need to deal with how the two are linked.

    No. the two largest factors are "occupational segregation"(paying teachers and other poorly because they are majority women) and "unexplained factors" AKA pure sexism.

    This is true of every study I've seen.

    Like this one. http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/43244511.pdf
    Educational attainment and labour market experience typically
    explains only a small or even negligible portion of the gender wage gap. By contrast, labour
    market segmentation by occupation, type of contract, industry as well as firms and
    establishments typically explain a far larger share
    However,evidence based on large-scale matched employer-employee data shows that even taking
    into account a fine disaggregation of occupations, industries and establishments, more
    than 50% of the wage gap remains unexplained.

    Not true. Here's some data from Denmark from a few years back on this issue:
    https://www.vox.com/2018/2/19/17018380/gender-wage-gap-childcare-penalty

    Some more:
    http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/getting-job-there-motherhood-penalty
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/upshot/the-gender-pay-gap-is-largely-because-of-motherhood.html

    And it basically goes on from there.

    There's no shortage of data on this.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited September 10
    discrider wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    My 2c:
    - Legislate that both parents must stay home for a year after childbirth. Force employers to take them back afterwards, and have the government pay the parents an appropriate amount during.
    - Nationalise childcare, and make it free. Allow parents to return to work maybe after the kid is in childcare.
    - Tax rich people more.

    haha what?!

    edit: whaaaaat?!

    whaaaaaaaaaat?!

    edit2: I guess so this has more content, you want to force parents to stay home regardless of what various work duties are required at their job. Then their office has to keep them on payroll and reintegrate them into whatever is going on in a year (maybe!). What happens to the extra person hired to take over for you a year ago? Are they simply let go whenever a parent is permitted to work again?

    and -maybe- allow parents to work again? How benevolent!

    Yes, and the maybe was for a shortened enforced period if the child is placed in childcare early, because a year is just a number and the parents maybe should be allowed to choose to put the kid in early.

    In any case, I believe the gender wage gap needs a standardised resume time gap across both parents to be fixed.
    The person who is taken on to cover the parent would be in a temporary position.
    And if employers/jobs aren't able to accommodate, then they can be fined until they can accommodate.

    If your solution to the gender wage gap is to have both parents put their careers on hold for a year a kid, that's a hard pass from me. Even guaranteeing re-entry, parents would miss a lot of opportunities to climb the ladder under your policy.

    Sure.
    I just suspect that if the fathers have lost the same opportunities as the mothers, then, suddenly, having that uninterrupted work history is going to become less important to employers.

    Or not having kids becomes more important

    Paladin on
    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.
    Deebaser
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited September 10
    bowen wrote: »
    I don't think there is a good argument for supporting this over supporting subsidized daycare.

    It also seems like one of those programs where the people it benefits most do not need the support. It's not generous enough to replace an entire income, so the people who need 2 incomes still need to work. So it basically serves as a sweetener for people who can afford to single income it, and is only critical for that narrow band where they need like 1.2 incomes to get by.

    I'm not following the logic of "we'll pay your income to not show up for work while taking care of your child" is not immediately better in all situations here. Walk me through it.


    1) Daycares are licensed and regulated. Arguably not enough, but parents just are. There is this beautification of stay at home parents, but there is no intrinsic reason they are better for early child development than someone who does that as their chosen profession. It like most "women's work" fields is probably under compensated but that can be address as well, which would likely attracted more talented people to the career which would increase the outcome difference. I'd argue there would also be a selection bias that would amplify this. More educated parents, having generally better career prospects, thus would be more inclined to choose daycare. It is harder for someone who just got their masters 2 years ago to pause their career for years than someone who never graduated HS to give up their McJob. Yes its not a straight line more educated therefore better parents, but the trend is there. It is the same concept as all the head start type programs, just extended out years earlier.

    2)A single daycare worker can watch up to 4 kids at a time(as 0-2 year olds, and up to 8 3-5 year olds). It's relatively unlikely/uncommon for a single parent to have 4 or more kids too young to attend school. Take 3 kids with 24 month spacing. To pay for home care, till they were 5 would cost 9 years salary. To pay for equivalent child care would be 2.625.

    3) Even if it doesn't save money it is better for the economy. Rather than paying 4 parents to each watching a single kid. It would be better to pay one of them to watch all 4 kids, and then the other 3 to do pretty much any other job. Is it better to have 4 child care providers working at 1/4 capacity, or 1 child care provider, a social worker, a bus driver, and a parks worker. This actually becomes more egregious as the education level continues to increase- not utilizing the investment educating 4 house cleaners or landscapers is a lot less harmful than not utilizing the hours spent training an engineer, a nurse and a speech pathologist.

    4) If set up properly (aka not like the US school system), it helps encourage diversity. It isn't just kids in Whiteburbia, doing play dates with their Whiteburbia neighbors. This is actually easier to do than with schools as well, because the ideal place for daycare centers is near where a parent works and commercial areas aren't as segregated.

    5) It doesn't encourage the lowest earner(typical the women) to ditch their career. Which is potentially isolating/trapping in an abusive relationship and makes it harder to reenter the workforce later - either by choice or by circumstance. This is again, something that is generally more important the more educated the person is. Even if there was no "why this gap in your resume" stigma. A waiter who doesn't work between 24 and 32 can reenter their career pretty seamlessly. A programmer who hasn't worked professionally in 8 years is in a much tougher spot for pure skill maintenance reasons.

    6) This get into a lot of other social safety net policies or lack there of, tax policy etc, it enables dual lower earner households that need two full incomes. Unless it is 100% salary, there is a section of people who will need that gap between the couple making say $50k combined, or them making 25k, plus a 15k kid-stipend.

    7) This is probably a bit US specific, but benefits that are universal are better supported. Everyone gets Medicare, so cutting Medicare is untenable. Only "certain people" get WIC or whatever other benefits, so they are always on the chopping block.

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
    [Expletive deleted]Thro
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    woo boy do I have thoughts here.

    Apologies if I've missed some points or I'm rehashing things, I skipped in from the OP and page one.

    The idea that women staying home to raise kids is something that a) entrenches gender roles, and b) should be discouraged or even prevented, is right up there with TERFs in terms of Bad Things the 2nd Wave Feminists Did. Crafting policy that drives women away from a perfectly valid, legitimate, understandable life choice because you believe that women should be a certain way is pretty terrible, calling that Capital F Feminism is even worse, and taken as a whole the attitude has driven a generation of women out of the movement.

    The thing that entrenches gender roles is a patriarchy taking away a woman's choice for their own good, be that abortion rights, property rights, workplace rights, or any other rights including the right to stay home and raise a child. If government is crafting systems that push women into the workforce when they'd rather raise their children, your government is to that extent sexist.

    It sucks that Norway is having trouble integrating immigrants. I'm not surprised, but maybe they should try supporting and then respecting the choices of immigrant women from other cultures rather than labeling some of them Bad For Women and trying to stop them. Here in the USA, we're trying to move past the 2nd wave feminist ideas but attitudes like this remain, and that's why Belasco doesn't call herself a Feminist very much anymore - she's had plenty of experiences of people treating her as lesser, as a traitor, as an enemy of the cause, because she made the choice that was right for her.

    Labeling that choice inherently bad is antifeminist.

    AridholDeebasersyndalisdavidsdurionsEncSummaryJudgment
  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    BSoB wrote: »
    .
    shryke wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    My 2c:
    - Legislate that both parents must stay home for a year after childbirth. Force employers to take them back afterwards, and have the government pay the parents an appropriate amount during.
    - Nationalise childcare, and make it free. Allow parents to return to work maybe after the kid is in childcare.
    - Tax rich people more.

    haha what?!

    edit: whaaaaat?!

    whaaaaaaaaaat?!

    edit2: I guess so this has more content, you want to force parents to stay home regardless of what various work duties are required at their job. Then their office has to keep them on payroll and reintegrate them into whatever is going on in a year (maybe!). What happens to the extra person hired to take over for you a year ago? Are they simply let go whenever a parent is permitted to work again?

    and -maybe- allow parents to work again? How benevolent!

    Yes, and the maybe was for a shortened enforced period if the child is placed in childcare early, because a year is just a number and the parents maybe should be allowed to choose to put the kid in early.

    In any case, I believe the gender wage gap needs a standardised resume time gap across both parents to be fixed.
    The person who is taken on to cover the parent would be in a temporary position.
    And if employers/jobs aren't able to accommodate, then they can be fined until they can accommodate.

    If your solution to the gender wage gap is to have both parents put their careers on hold for a year a kid, that's a hard pass from me. Even guaranteeing re-entry, parents would miss a lot of opportunities to climb the ladder under your policy.

    Sure.
    I just suspect that if the fathers have lost the same opportunities as the mothers, then, suddenly, having that uninterrupted work history is going to become less important to employers.

    As far as I'm aware, the research on the gender pay gap suggests that women giving birth and taking time off for it and caring for the baby afterwords is basically the largest factor at work. So if that's what you are interested in attacking, you are definitely gonna need to deal with how the two are linked.

    No. the two largest factors are "occupational segregation"(paying teachers and other poorly because they are majority women) and "unexplained factors" AKA pure sexism.

    This is true of every study I've seen.

    Like this one. http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/43244511.pdf
    Educational attainment and labour market experience typically
    explains only a small or even negligible portion of the gender wage gap. By contrast, labour
    market segmentation by occupation, type of contract, industry as well as firms and
    establishments typically explain a far larger share
    However,evidence based on large-scale matched employer-employee data shows that even taking
    into account a fine disaggregation of occupations, industries and establishments, more
    than 50% of the wage gap remains unexplained.

    Not true. Here's some data from Denmark from a few years back on this issue:
    https://www.vox.com/2018/2/19/17018380/gender-wage-gap-childcare-penalty

    Some more:
    http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/getting-job-there-motherhood-penalty
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/upshot/the-gender-pay-gap-is-largely-because-of-motherhood.html

    And it basically goes on from there.

    There's no shortage of data on this.

    None of those links say the Gap is from time taken off. I know it is hard but you read more than the headline.

    Like, you linked an article about a survey where people were asked about identical applicants that found that people are less likely to hire mothers, and has nothing to do with the time they take off. But infact says that the pay Gap comes from a bias against mothers.


  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    My 2c:
    - Legislate that both parents must stay home for a year after childbirth. Force employers to take them back afterwards, and have the government pay the parents an appropriate amount during.
    - Nationalise childcare, and make it free. Allow parents to return to work maybe after the kid is in childcare.
    - Tax rich people more.

    haha what?!

    edit: whaaaaat?!

    whaaaaaaaaaat?!

    edit2: I guess so this has more content, you want to force parents to stay home regardless of what various work duties are required at their job. Then their office has to keep them on payroll and reintegrate them into whatever is going on in a year (maybe!). What happens to the extra person hired to take over for you a year ago? Are they simply let go whenever a parent is permitted to work again?

    and -maybe- allow parents to work again? How benevolent!

    Yes, and the maybe was for a shortened enforced period if the child is placed in childcare early, because a year is just a number and the parents maybe should be allowed to choose to put the kid in early.

    In any case, I believe the gender wage gap needs a standardised resume time gap across both parents to be fixed.
    The person who is taken on to cover the parent would be in a temporary position.
    And if employers/jobs aren't able to accommodate, then they can be fined until they can accommodate.

    If your solution to the gender wage gap is to have both parents put their careers on hold for a year a kid, that's a hard pass from me. Even guaranteeing re-entry, parents would miss a lot of opportunities to climb the ladder under your policy.

    Sure.
    I just suspect that if the fathers have lost the same opportunities as the mothers, then, suddenly, having that uninterrupted work history is going to become less important to employers.

    Or not having kids becomes more important

    I'm not sure that people forgoing kids in pursuit of their career then furthering their career more than parents is necessarily a problem.
    Work demanding that sort of mindset and dedication from all their staff is a problem though, and forcing employers to recognise the parents' choice without retribution is a step against that mindset.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    discrider wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    My 2c:
    - Legislate that both parents must stay home for a year after childbirth. Force employers to take them back afterwards, and have the government pay the parents an appropriate amount during.
    - Nationalise childcare, and make it free. Allow parents to return to work maybe after the kid is in childcare.
    - Tax rich people more.

    haha what?!

    edit: whaaaaat?!

    whaaaaaaaaaat?!

    edit2: I guess so this has more content, you want to force parents to stay home regardless of what various work duties are required at their job. Then their office has to keep them on payroll and reintegrate them into whatever is going on in a year (maybe!). What happens to the extra person hired to take over for you a year ago? Are they simply let go whenever a parent is permitted to work again?

    and -maybe- allow parents to work again? How benevolent!

    Yes, and the maybe was for a shortened enforced period if the child is placed in childcare early, because a year is just a number and the parents maybe should be allowed to choose to put the kid in early.

    In any case, I believe the gender wage gap needs a standardised resume time gap across both parents to be fixed.
    The person who is taken on to cover the parent would be in a temporary position.
    And if employers/jobs aren't able to accommodate, then they can be fined until they can accommodate.

    If your solution to the gender wage gap is to have both parents put their careers on hold for a year a kid, that's a hard pass from me. Even guaranteeing re-entry, parents would miss a lot of opportunities to climb the ladder under your policy.

    Sure.
    I just suspect that if the fathers have lost the same opportunities as the mothers, then, suddenly, having that uninterrupted work history is going to become less important to employers.

    It isn't about how employers care about "uninterrupted work history", it's about winding down your workload for your planned absence and not being able to be put on projects the work that gets you the promotion. Your idea puts families at a distinct disadvantage over childfree couples.
    It’s horrifying and anti-choice.

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    discrider wrote: »
    My 2c:
    - Legislate that both parents must stay home for a year after childbirth. Force employers to take them back afterwards, and have the government pay the parents an appropriate amount during.
    - Nationalise childcare, and make it free. Allow parents to return to work maybe after the kid is in childcare.
    - Tax rich people more.

    haha what?!

    edit: whaaaaat?!

    whaaaaaaaaaat?!

    edit2: I guess so this has more content, you want to force parents to stay home regardless of what various work duties are required at their job. Then their office has to keep them on payroll and reintegrate them into whatever is going on in a year (maybe!). What happens to the extra person hired to take over for you a year ago? Are they simply let go whenever a parent is permitted to work again?

    and -maybe- allow parents to work again? How benevolent!

    Yes, and the maybe was for a shortened enforced period if the child is placed in childcare early, because a year is just a number and the parents maybe should be allowed to choose to put the kid in early.

    In any case, I believe the gender wage gap needs a standardised resume time gap across both parents to be fixed.
    The person who is taken on to cover the parent would be in a temporary position.
    And if employers/jobs aren't able to accommodate, then they can be fined until they can accommodate.

    If your solution to the gender wage gap is to have both parents put their careers on hold for a year a kid, that's a hard pass from me. Even guaranteeing re-entry, parents would miss a lot of opportunities to climb the ladder under your policy.

    Sure.
    I just suspect that if the fathers have lost the same opportunities as the mothers, then, suddenly, having that uninterrupted work history is going to become less important to employers.

    It isn't about how employers care about "uninterrupted work history", it's about winding down your workload for your planned absence and not being able to be put on projects the work that gets you the promotion. Your idea puts families at a distinct disadvantage over childfree couples.
    It’s horrifying and anti-choice.

    Being forced to not have kids or not have a job to come back to is anti-choice.

    Steam Community page: http://steamcommunity.com/id/discrider/
    Oh hey! A knife!
    [Expletive deleted]shryke
Sign In or Register to comment.