fair, it's an inflammatory construction and I don't begrudge anybody the choice to go back to work. My whole intent here is to advocate for the choice, and try to push back against the recurring theme that women choosing to stay home to be the full-time primary caregiver is bad for some or all of kids, women, society, and feminism.
Is it a choice over the entire population? If we were to raise a kid and one of us were required to stay at home there is not really any doubt who it's going to be. That's only a "choice" in the most technical sense.
Edit: by "we" I mean me and my partner, not me and spool.
:winky:
Seriously though, that's why I support a subsidy for staying at home as the primary caregiver - it makes the choice easier for women because it blunts or removes the financial penalty for doing so. Anything that brings stay-home parenting closer to financial parity with daycare + job should make it easier to choose between them.
That's not enough though. You also have to account for basically the entire modern history of the western world. There's discrepancy in pay scales, advancement of careers, career choices and just plain social expectation which makes it less of a free choice and more of a rational one.
If at the macro level, you see that the Government policy is having a disproportionate effect on one population segment, you need to adjust for it.
We already account for it in some respects, like with affirmative action or quotas. Crude methods to be sure, with drawbacks. But they're there to address an imbalance that goes beyond just hiring practice and college admissions.
That doesn't mean that you scrap the whole idea, but tweak it so that it makes it just as attractive for the man to take that position as the woman on a population scale.
Child rearing is a project, no more respectable or societally valuable than the coding project I work on. In fact, if I finish the security I'm working on, it will potentially have a greater net positive effect on the earth than the average of any given person's child, which generally turns out to be a net negative for the planet.
I support giving people more freedom to choose how to spend their time and support their interests, but having children is no more intrinsically valuable than a variety of other projects.
Edit: Good education of children is intrinsically valuable, but on the average we'd do better if individuals didn't choose it. Instead we should have state sponsored creches.
this is amazing to me as a concept. Aren't you, the child of any given person, supposedly creating something of great value to The Earth?
Are we to suppose that you're the outlier and the rest of us, and our kids of course, will generally turn out to be a net negative?
I'm not an outlier but I exist on a bell curve, yeah. Most people are pretty shit at raising children. There's nothing inherently valuable to society about it.
Any discussion about the value of having children or the claimed lack thereof ultimately ends up being pretty irrelevant because people gonna have kids no matter what and unless your belief is that society/the government/etc has no interest in making sure they grow up as stable and productive members of society, you are implicitly supporting funding the existence of children and the raising there-of.
But there is nothing particularly valuable to society in letting a particular individual decide how to raise them. In fact, on the net, people are pretty terrible at deciding how to raise children.
I can assure you that the effect of any coding project you are embarking on will almost certainly be to the detriment of humanity by a standard you set where child raising is a negative to society. If you create comfort, or save lives, all you will enable is more people to be born! A disaster.
Hmm, perhaps you are coding some kind of death ray to slay the weak?
Regardless, it almost certainly wont work anyway, and if it does I'm sure the Russians did it before you in the 70s using a pocket calculator, a socket wrench and a ball of vibrating yarn.
fair, it's an inflammatory construction and I don't begrudge anybody the choice to go back to work. My whole intent here is to advocate for the choice, and try to push back against the recurring theme that women choosing to stay home to be the full-time primary caregiver is bad for some or all of kids, women, society, and feminism.
Is it a choice over the entire population? If we were to raise a kid and one of us were required to stay at home there is not really any doubt who it's going to be. That's only a "choice" in the most technical sense.
Edit: by "we" I mean me and my partner, not me and spool.
:winky:
Seriously though, that's why I support a subsidy for staying at home as the primary caregiver - it makes the choice easier for women because it blunts or removes the financial penalty for doing so. Anything that brings stay-home parenting closer to financial parity with daycare + job should make it easier to choose between them.
That's not enough though. You also have to account for basically the entire modern history of the western world. There's discrepancy in pay scales, advancement of careers, career choices and just plain social expectation which makes it less of a free choice and more of a rational one.
If at the macro level, you see that the Government policy is having a disproportionate effect on one population segment, you need to adjust for it.
We already account for it in some respects, like with affirmative action or quotas. Crude methods to be sure, with drawbacks. But they're there to address an imbalance that goes beyond just hiring practice and college admissions.
That doesn't mean that you scrap the whole idea, but tweak it so that it makes it just as attractive for the man to take that position as the woman on a population scale.
It's not always necessary to adjust for it by reworking or revoking the same law, though.
If you subsidize stay-at-home parents, and it ends up being that women end up being relegated to that role due to a gender pay gap, changing or removing the subsidy isn't going to help the underlying issue.
You kind of prove the point by citing affirmative action and quotas. Even with both of those things, females and minorities are both heavily under-represented in STEM careers, because the underlying issue is never addressed with those band-aids.
I guess I fail to see a reason why we should at great cost subsidize a preference for not working. Especially one with recognized negative social side effects.
I guess I fail to see a reason why we should at great cost subsidize a preference for not working. Especially one with recognized negative social side effects.
The negative social effect isn't from the "not working" part though, it's from the women not working in disproportionate numbers and immigrants not integrating, and then all the other follow-on effects they have While I personally think there are benefits from rather incentivizing childcare option like daycare, it's not from a place of I'd rather see them working. If they want to go hooning around the wop-wops or something instead, go for it.
Hell, even when not subsidized, women tend to much more childhood rearing than their male counterparts. This is a result of millennia of social conditioning that can’t be undone overnight. Best way is to normalize the concept both parents taking care of their kids, and that’s going to take a while as well.
I can kinda see where the child free people could have an issue of it. While you’re slaving away at your corporate job, Jim and Sarah are getting a steady paycheque (that doesn’t depend on the company’s whims and financial status) to do something that to you, looks less stressful.
It’s kinda feels like how pissed I, a non-smoker get that my smoker coworkers get an extra break to take a smoke.
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
My friends get up with their kids at about 7am. Make breakfast. Do some house cleaning while the kids eat. Do an activity. Feed the kids morning tea. Go outside trip a park or other organized event. Make lunch. Go food shopping. Do another activity. If the kids nap, then they do some house work. Kids wake up, make afternoon tea. Do another activity or let them free play. Make dinner. More playing. Have a bath. Start bedtime. Keep doing bedtime. Finally they're asleep. Do more housework. If your kid's sleeping through the night, lucky you! And all of that while also talking to the kids constantly, answering a million questions about why the cow has four feet.
Get to sleep by ten. If your kid's sleeps through, you sleep through. If not, then you don't.
While I would love the childfree advocates to explain how society would function without a next generation, that's beside this thread.
I generally believe there should be substantial subsidy for childcare on top of what we already have. Not fully sold on that being cash, but I'm more or less open to the argument.
Another thing I'd like to see is careers or specific jobs that require employees to choose family or career should be looked into as being exploitative.
+1
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
While I would love the childfree advocates to explain how society would function without a next generation, that's beside this thread.
I generally believe there should be substantial subsidy for childcare on top of what we already have. Not fully sold on that being cash, but I'm more or less open to the argument.
Another thing I'd like to see is careers or specific jobs that require employees to choose family or career should be looked into as being exploitative.
To the latter could you elaborate? I’m guessing you mean jobs that make it literally impossible to have a family, rather than falling behind on career progression.
I would be with you if it was the first example, but not if it was the latter. If you are not working the job for however long it seems pretty natural that you would fall behind the curve when compared to someone that is.
Honestly, your entire argument here doesn't really make much sense in the context of this discussion because the objection you raise is based in some idea that people are saying women shouldn't be stay at home moms. Which is literally not what any of this is about.
Turns out a bunch of people are saying exactly that...
regressive 2nd wave feminism and mathusian eugenics are routinely declared dead, but kick off a topic about the value of raising kids and they just keep popping up
Do you mind quoting where people are saying that? Not "in aggregate" or trying to find a better balance between moms and dads staying home, but where people are actually saying "women shouldn't be stay at home moms"?
I don't remember reading it. But some of these posts make me angry so I may have missed it haha
Edit: Good education of children is intrinsically valuable, but on the average we'd do better if individuals didn't choose it [raising their own kids -spool]. Instead we should have state sponsored creches.
Then there was ED and Abdhy on pg5 both just flat-out saying that the ideal was daycare after age 1. Chokem on that page as well, saying that having kids at all was bad (among other things), Mortious on that page taking a softer line of just letting parents 'do whatever' and only assisting with daycare.
More gentle but still 2nd wave is Javen above on pg 8 saying that a woman engaging in childrearing in any capacity was reinforcing gender roles.
OK so most of those examples are not "women," but men and women. That's a very different thing which I feel is more tangential to your issues re: your SO and feminism.
I don't think that's what Javen is saying either. You may be looking at that post with a bit of bias and reading it with a more negative interpretation than it deserves?
Yeah, uh, I'm not seeing anyone saying "a women is wrong for wanting to be a stay-at-home mom" specifically just talking about women. There's definitely some other silly stuff but none of it seems specifically to be a complaint that a women might decide to stay home with the kids.
It's definitely not what the OP and what they are generally going on is talking about. The issue with the results of Norway's program is not that women were being stay-at-home moms, it's that they were doing so in a disproportionate fashion.
That is itself flawed and regressive as a concept. What is "disproportionate"?
Spool, your last clause is an opinion not held by anyone here that I'm aware of, right? It's specifically refuted on the post you're quoting, for example, in the opening paragraph.
Well, let's be specific here - OP's opinion is that the policy of making it easier for women to stay home and raise their own kids is bad, and the reasons why the policy is bad are that they succeed in letting women stay home, a thing with strong enough downsides that it should be discouraged regardless of the desire to do it.
That's a pretty fine hair to split, and I don't think anyone can credibly do so. if you think staying at home shouldn't be subsidized because it's bad for feminism and for society to support that behavior, you also think at least partially that staying at home is itself bad for feminism and society. If you don't, your position is incoherent.
No, it's not either one of those things. You are again missing the point in the exact way I've pointed out twice now. Disproportionate means exactly what the word has always meant and is the kind of analysis we apply to all sorts of problems of this sort. We look at all sorts of behaviours and actions on a societal level and ask why they fall unevenly across demographics. (eg - arrests by the police as a function of race for a super obvious one) And in this particular case there's tons of supporting evidence for societal gender roles and gender wage differences being a thing that can be influencing the (as far as any numbers I've seen) pretty massive difference in who ends up dealing with childcare. None of that is any sort of judgement on any particular person for their own choice. Because, again, even ideal desired outcome these things are being measured against is not "no women is ever stay at home parent".
Yes, the ideal desired outcome of at least some of the thread is specifically for women to not stay home with their kids.
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.
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.
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
I dunno how you read this as me wanting women to not stay at home with their kids. She'd get 6 months maternity leave, where she would stay at home with her new baby. Is there some sort of minimum amount of time to count?
If she wants to stay at home longer that's her choice, but we shouldn't subsidise or incentivise it due to bad side effects.
fair, it's an inflammatory construction and I don't begrudge anybody the choice to go back to work. My whole intent here is to advocate for the choice, and try to push back against the recurring theme that women choosing to stay home to be the full-time primary caregiver is bad for some or all of kids, women, society, and feminism.
Is it a choice over the entire population? If we were to raise a kid and one of us were required to stay at home there is not really any doubt who it's going to be. That's only a "choice" in the most technical sense.
Edit: by "we" I mean me and my partner, not me and spool.
:winky:
Seriously though, that's why I support a subsidy for staying at home as the primary caregiver - it makes the choice easier for women because it blunts or removes the financial penalty for doing so. Anything that brings stay-home parenting closer to financial parity with daycare + job should make it easier to choose between them.
That's not enough though. You also have to account for basically the entire modern history of the western world. There's discrepancy in pay scales, advancement of careers, career choices and just plain social expectation which makes it less of a free choice and more of a rational one.
If at the macro level, you see that the Government policy is having a disproportionate effect on one population segment, you need to adjust for it.
We already account for it in some respects, like with affirmative action or quotas. Crude methods to be sure, with drawbacks. But they're there to address an imbalance that goes beyond just hiring practice and college admissions.
That doesn't mean that you scrap the whole idea, but tweak it so that it makes it just as attractive for the man to take that position as the woman on a population scale.
Indeed.
Edit. Added this line: Imagine this scenario, if we gave money for new parents to stay at home:
The government pays for women (technically parents, but let's not kid ourselves) to stay at home with kids. As soon as the woman has a child, she can immediately quit her job and never come back, and still get both money and more time with her kid(s). Lots of women take this option.
As an employer, I have the resume of two young people in front of me: a young man and a young woman. Knowing that they might have kids in the nearish future, and that the woman candidate is substantially more likely to choose that time to quit, I hire the man.
And, inevitably, a woman's place remains the home.
While I would love the childfree advocates to explain how society would function without a next generation, that's beside this thread.
I generally believe there should be substantial subsidy for childcare on top of what we already have. Not fully sold on that being cash, but I'm more or less open to the argument.
Another thing I'd like to see is careers or specific jobs that require employees to choose family or career should be looked into as being exploitative.
To the latter could you elaborate? I’m guessing you mean jobs that make it literally impossible to have a family, rather than falling behind on career progression.
I would be with you if it was the first example, but not if it was the latter. If you are not working the job for however long it seems pretty natural that you would fall behind the curve when compared to someone that is.
Yeah I'm not talking about just being x moths or years behind peers if you are out of the workforce for x amount of time.
I mean the practice of screening job candidates behind closed doors looking for those individuals who will not take any vacation time, dependant care time, or generally need time for family. Most states and institutions have certain minimum requirements on paper but also many employers will only promote those willing to forgo those minimum requirements.
Mothers suffer a penalty relative to non-mothers and men in the form of lower perceived competence and commitment, higher professional expectations, lower likelihood of hiring and promotion, and lower recommended salaries. This evidence implies that being a mother leads to discrimination in the workplace.
Just a few quotes from the findings:
- For women, competency ratings were 10% lower for mothers compared to non-mothers among otherwise equal candidates.
- Mothers were considered to be 12.1 percentage points less committed to their jobs than non-mothers while fathers were perceived as being 5 percentage points more committed than non-fathers. Compared to childless men, mothers were rated 6.4 percentage points lower with regard to commitment than childless men.
And it goes on like that.
And the knock-on effects of these perceptions is that then, when given the choice about who should stay home, the mother becomes the obvious choice because the father is probably making more money and advancing his career faster.
And the corollary to the above issue is, of course, that you can't address the gender wage gap without addressing parental leave and childcare policies. Because they cause each other.
shryke on
+3
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
fair, it's an inflammatory construction and I don't begrudge anybody the choice to go back to work. My whole intent here is to advocate for the choice, and try to push back against the recurring theme that women choosing to stay home to be the full-time primary caregiver is bad for some or all of kids, women, society, and feminism.
Is it a choice over the entire population? If we were to raise a kid and one of us were required to stay at home there is not really any doubt who it's going to be. That's only a "choice" in the most technical sense.
Edit: by "we" I mean me and my partner, not me and spool.
:winky:
Seriously though, that's why I support a subsidy for staying at home as the primary caregiver - it makes the choice easier for women because it blunts or removes the financial penalty for doing so. Anything that brings stay-home parenting closer to financial parity with daycare + job should make it easier to choose between them.
That's not enough though. You also have to account for basically the entire modern history of the western world. There's discrepancy in pay scales, advancement of careers, career choices and just plain social expectation which makes it less of a free choice and more of a rational one.
If at the macro level, you see that the Government policy is having a disproportionate effect on one population segment, you need to adjust for it.
We already account for it in some respects, like with affirmative action or quotas. Crude methods to be sure, with drawbacks. But they're there to address an imbalance that goes beyond just hiring practice and college admissions.
That doesn't mean that you scrap the whole idea, but tweak it so that it makes it just as attractive for the man to take that position as the woman on a population scale.
Indeed.
The government pays for women (technically parents, but let's not kid ourselves) to stay at home with kids. As soon as the woman has a child, she can immediately quit her job and never come back, and still get both money and more time with her kid(s). Lots of women take this option.
As an employer, I have the resume of two young people in front of me: a young man and a young woman. Knowing that they might have kids in the nearish future, and that the woman candidate is substantially more likely to choose that time to quit, I hire the man.
And, inevitably, a woman's place remains the home.
And, once again, you are projecting your own values on this decision as if it is an award and not labor and (especially) your assumptions that it is forcing women into the home. Even in your own country, men are using the parental leave by double digits above most other nations. Norway is #2 in the rankings of having the most stay-at-home-dads, which indicates to me that this policy is highly progressive in giving options to couples in terms of their childrearing.
And what you are describing as an employer has nothing at all to do with this discussion, and would continue even if this policy didn't exist, since pregnancy and sick leave also apply in the same fashion. That concern has to be addressed by different legislation, and in the US (at least) is a protected status. You cannot make a choice for that reason here.
+4
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Its interesting to see the breakdowns. A lot of conservative states actually have really high spreads (West Virgina has 30% of stay at home parents being dads) while the higher population states like California, Texas, and Florida stay in the 15% range.
It's not surprising to me that Utah has the lowest percentage, at 7%, given the culture there.
Hell, even when not subsidized, women tend to much more childhood rearing than their male counterparts. This is a result of millennia of social conditioning that can’t be undone overnight. Best way is to normalize the concept both parents taking care of their kids, and that’s going to take a while as well.
I can kinda see where the child free people could have an issue of it. While you’re slaving away at your corporate job, Jim and Sarah are getting a steady paycheque (that doesn’t depend on the company’s whims and financial status) to do something that to you, looks less stressful.
It’s kinda feels like how pissed I, a non-smoker get that my smoker coworkers get an extra break to take a smoke.
Shit, how many people say something to the father when he's watching the kids like, "oh babysitting today?" as if that's what he's doing, instead of, you know, spending time with his own kids.
The whole of the world reinforces this shit constantly, this is an uphill battle to fix.
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
[…] as if [child care] is an award and not labor and (especially) your assumptions that it is forcing women into the home.
Watching kids is absolutely work. Many people enjoy this work and go into it voluntarily by being stay-at-home parents or working at a day care. Others feel pressured by society into this role, or have internalised what their duties should be.
And, once again, you are projecting your own values […]
I am of course talking about my values. I value a future where women are equally participatory in the workforce and public life as men, and where men are equally participatory in child care as women. And I want to use incentives to help push society in that direction.
Other people (few in this thread) value traditional gender roles instead. Others (in this thread) value personal freedom higher, or believe that child care should be monetarily compensated no matter what over (what I consider) negative side effects of that policy. Everything in this thread is a discussion based on our personal values.
Even in your own country, men are using the parental leave by double digits above most other nations. Norway is #2 in the rankings of having the most stay-at-home-dads, which indicates to me that this policy is highly progressive in giving options to couples in terms of their childrearing.
The kontanstøtte is being slowly scaled back. It used to be for older kids and greater amounts of money. Kontantsøtte was instituted to keep women at home, and is being slowly phased out to avoid that outcome. This coincides with a lower over-all rate of parents being stay-at-home.
And what you are describing as an employer has nothing at all to do with this discussion, and would continue even if this policy didn't exist, since pregnancy and sick leave also apply in the same fashion. That concern has to be addressed by different legislation, and in the US (at least) is a protected status. You cannot make a choice for that reason here.
The hypothetical employer I described has everything to do with the discussion. As shryke noted, and I was trying to communicate with my post, unequal employment opportunities is intrinsically linked to child care.
If women and men took equal parental leave and were equally likely to e.g. watch sick kids, a lot of incentives to hire men over women would disappear.
And legality doesn't matter. It's extraordinarily hard to prove the reason you weren't hired was because your employer thought you might get pregnant.
While I would love the childfree advocates to explain how society would function without a next generation, that's beside this thread.
Nobody is advocating "no one should have children, ever."
At least three people have actually advocated that in this thread.
Yeah that was a bunch of dumb eugenics bullshit and shouldn't be given the time of day either.
Sorry, yeah, that's exactly what happened. I read it and my brain didn't even register it. For what it's worth, I don't think that "humans are a burden on the earth" is necessarily a eugenics argument. It's just sophomoric. It's used as a rationale for eugenics, but they're not one-to-one. It's just as often used by people who just haven't done the mental legwork to examine the (obvious) effects of their argument.
For example, I think there's some interesting philosophy in antinatalism especially vis-a-vis creating sentient beings and the impossible nature of obtaining consent before signing them up for the inevitable pain of death, but it's just that - a philosophical thought experiment. Not something to advocate, certainly not something to legislate, and probably not even worth the headache of mentioning anywhere except an online forum.
fair, it's an inflammatory construction and I don't begrudge anybody the choice to go back to work. My whole intent here is to advocate for the choice, and try to push back against the recurring theme that women choosing to stay home to be the full-time primary caregiver is bad for some or all of kids, women, society, and feminism.
Is it a choice over the entire population? If we were to raise a kid and one of us were required to stay at home there is not really any doubt who it's going to be. That's only a "choice" in the most technical sense.
Edit: by "we" I mean me and my partner, not me and spool.
:winky:
Seriously though, that's why I support a subsidy for staying at home as the primary caregiver - it makes the choice easier for women because it blunts or removes the financial penalty for doing so. Anything that brings stay-home parenting closer to financial parity with daycare + job should make it easier to choose between them.
That's not enough though. You also have to account for basically the entire modern history of the western world. There's discrepancy in pay scales, advancement of careers, career choices and just plain social expectation which makes it less of a free choice and more of a rational one.
If at the macro level, you see that the Government policy is having a disproportionate effect on one population segment, you need to adjust for it.
We already account for it in some respects, like with affirmative action or quotas. Crude methods to be sure, with drawbacks. But they're there to address an imbalance that goes beyond just hiring practice and college admissions.
That doesn't mean that you scrap the whole idea, but tweak it so that it makes it just as attractive for the man to take that position as the woman on a population scale.
Indeed.
Edit. Added this line: Imagine this scenario, if we gave money for new parents to stay at home:
The government pays for women (technically parents, but let's not kid ourselves) to stay at home with kids. As soon as the woman has a child, she can immediately quit her job and never come back, and still get both money and more time with her kid(s). Lots of women take this option.
As an employer, I have the resume of two young people in front of me: a young man and a young woman. Knowing that they might have kids in the nearish future, and that the woman candidate is substantially more likely to choose that time to quit, I hire the man.
And, inevitably, a woman's place remains the home.
The US has the worst maternity leave protections around and yet employers in the US make this judgement every single day, right now.
fair, it's an inflammatory construction and I don't begrudge anybody the choice to go back to work. My whole intent here is to advocate for the choice, and try to push back against the recurring theme that women choosing to stay home to be the full-time primary caregiver is bad for some or all of kids, women, society, and feminism.
Is it a choice over the entire population? If we were to raise a kid and one of us were required to stay at home there is not really any doubt who it's going to be. That's only a "choice" in the most technical sense.
Edit: by "we" I mean me and my partner, not me and spool.
:winky:
Seriously though, that's why I support a subsidy for staying at home as the primary caregiver - it makes the choice easier for women because it blunts or removes the financial penalty for doing so. Anything that brings stay-home parenting closer to financial parity with daycare + job should make it easier to choose between them.
That's not enough though. You also have to account for basically the entire modern history of the western world. There's discrepancy in pay scales, advancement of careers, career choices and just plain social expectation which makes it less of a free choice and more of a rational one.
If at the macro level, you see that the Government policy is having a disproportionate effect on one population segment, you need to adjust for it.
We already account for it in some respects, like with affirmative action or quotas. Crude methods to be sure, with drawbacks. But they're there to address an imbalance that goes beyond just hiring practice and college admissions.
That doesn't mean that you scrap the whole idea, but tweak it so that it makes it just as attractive for the man to take that position as the woman on a population scale.
Indeed.
Edit. Added this line: Imagine this scenario, if we gave money for new parents to stay at home:
The government pays for women (technically parents, but let's not kid ourselves) to stay at home with kids. As soon as the woman has a child, she can immediately quit her job and never come back, and still get both money and more time with her kid(s). Lots of women take this option.
As an employer, I have the resume of two young people in front of me: a young man and a young woman. Knowing that they might have kids in the nearish future, and that the woman candidate is substantially more likely to choose that time to quit, I hire the man.
And, inevitably, a woman's place remains the home.
The US has the worst maternity leave protections around and yet employers in the US make this judgement every single day, right now.
I am genuinely unsure what you mean.
Are you saying that, in the US, companies hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
Or are you saying that, in the US, companies don't hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
fair, it's an inflammatory construction and I don't begrudge anybody the choice to go back to work. My whole intent here is to advocate for the choice, and try to push back against the recurring theme that women choosing to stay home to be the full-time primary caregiver is bad for some or all of kids, women, society, and feminism.
Is it a choice over the entire population? If we were to raise a kid and one of us were required to stay at home there is not really any doubt who it's going to be. That's only a "choice" in the most technical sense.
Edit: by "we" I mean me and my partner, not me and spool.
:winky:
Seriously though, that's why I support a subsidy for staying at home as the primary caregiver - it makes the choice easier for women because it blunts or removes the financial penalty for doing so. Anything that brings stay-home parenting closer to financial parity with daycare + job should make it easier to choose between them.
That's not enough though. You also have to account for basically the entire modern history of the western world. There's discrepancy in pay scales, advancement of careers, career choices and just plain social expectation which makes it less of a free choice and more of a rational one.
If at the macro level, you see that the Government policy is having a disproportionate effect on one population segment, you need to adjust for it.
We already account for it in some respects, like with affirmative action or quotas. Crude methods to be sure, with drawbacks. But they're there to address an imbalance that goes beyond just hiring practice and college admissions.
That doesn't mean that you scrap the whole idea, but tweak it so that it makes it just as attractive for the man to take that position as the woman on a population scale.
Indeed.
Edit. Added this line: Imagine this scenario, if we gave money for new parents to stay at home:
The government pays for women (technically parents, but let's not kid ourselves) to stay at home with kids. As soon as the woman has a child, she can immediately quit her job and never come back, and still get both money and more time with her kid(s). Lots of women take this option.
As an employer, I have the resume of two young people in front of me: a young man and a young woman. Knowing that they might have kids in the nearish future, and that the woman candidate is substantially more likely to choose that time to quit, I hire the man.
And, inevitably, a woman's place remains the home.
The US has the worst maternity leave protections around and yet employers in the US make this judgement every single day, right now.
I am genuinely unsure what you mean.
Are you saying that, in the US, companies hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
Or are you saying that, in the US, companies don't hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
In the US, companies don't hire women equally to men despite the US has such garbage maternity leave
Edit: + or - 2 weeks for complications from a C-section, women are basically supposed to be back at work right before most US daycares can legally take a baby (< 3 months). Yet they assume they'll be gone longer, or just never come back, so they're less likely to hire, less likely to promote or give more responsibilities, and more likely to pay less. Which in turn makes it more likely to be the better economic choice for the woman to stay home (assuming 2 parent setup). So it's a self fulfilling prophecy based on what the employer already presumes will happen.
fair, it's an inflammatory construction and I don't begrudge anybody the choice to go back to work. My whole intent here is to advocate for the choice, and try to push back against the recurring theme that women choosing to stay home to be the full-time primary caregiver is bad for some or all of kids, women, society, and feminism.
Is it a choice over the entire population? If we were to raise a kid and one of us were required to stay at home there is not really any doubt who it's going to be. That's only a "choice" in the most technical sense.
Edit: by "we" I mean me and my partner, not me and spool.
:winky:
Seriously though, that's why I support a subsidy for staying at home as the primary caregiver - it makes the choice easier for women because it blunts or removes the financial penalty for doing so. Anything that brings stay-home parenting closer to financial parity with daycare + job should make it easier to choose between them.
That's not enough though. You also have to account for basically the entire modern history of the western world. There's discrepancy in pay scales, advancement of careers, career choices and just plain social expectation which makes it less of a free choice and more of a rational one.
If at the macro level, you see that the Government policy is having a disproportionate effect on one population segment, you need to adjust for it.
We already account for it in some respects, like with affirmative action or quotas. Crude methods to be sure, with drawbacks. But they're there to address an imbalance that goes beyond just hiring practice and college admissions.
That doesn't mean that you scrap the whole idea, but tweak it so that it makes it just as attractive for the man to take that position as the woman on a population scale.
Indeed.
Edit. Added this line: Imagine this scenario, if we gave money for new parents to stay at home:
The government pays for women (technically parents, but let's not kid ourselves) to stay at home with kids. As soon as the woman has a child, she can immediately quit her job and never come back, and still get both money and more time with her kid(s). Lots of women take this option.
As an employer, I have the resume of two young people in front of me: a young man and a young woman. Knowing that they might have kids in the nearish future, and that the woman candidate is substantially more likely to choose that time to quit, I hire the man.
And, inevitably, a woman's place remains the home.
The US has the worst maternity leave protections around and yet employers in the US make this judgement every single day, right now.
I am genuinely unsure what you mean.
Are you saying that, in the US, companies hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
Or are you saying that, in the US, companies don't hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
In the US, companies don't hire women equally to men despite the US has such garbage maternity leave
Ah. I would suggest other factors, such as women quitting when the get pregnant (they get no time off and need it, they earn so little that daycare is too expensive) or that the mother will take time off when the kids are sick. Also, misogyny.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+2
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
fair, it's an inflammatory construction and I don't begrudge anybody the choice to go back to work. My whole intent here is to advocate for the choice, and try to push back against the recurring theme that women choosing to stay home to be the full-time primary caregiver is bad for some or all of kids, women, society, and feminism.
Is it a choice over the entire population? If we were to raise a kid and one of us were required to stay at home there is not really any doubt who it's going to be. That's only a "choice" in the most technical sense.
Edit: by "we" I mean me and my partner, not me and spool.
:winky:
Seriously though, that's why I support a subsidy for staying at home as the primary caregiver - it makes the choice easier for women because it blunts or removes the financial penalty for doing so. Anything that brings stay-home parenting closer to financial parity with daycare + job should make it easier to choose between them.
That's not enough though. You also have to account for basically the entire modern history of the western world. There's discrepancy in pay scales, advancement of careers, career choices and just plain social expectation which makes it less of a free choice and more of a rational one.
If at the macro level, you see that the Government policy is having a disproportionate effect on one population segment, you need to adjust for it.
We already account for it in some respects, like with affirmative action or quotas. Crude methods to be sure, with drawbacks. But they're there to address an imbalance that goes beyond just hiring practice and college admissions.
That doesn't mean that you scrap the whole idea, but tweak it so that it makes it just as attractive for the man to take that position as the woman on a population scale.
Indeed.
Edit. Added this line: Imagine this scenario, if we gave money for new parents to stay at home:
The government pays for women (technically parents, but let's not kid ourselves) to stay at home with kids. As soon as the woman has a child, she can immediately quit her job and never come back, and still get both money and more time with her kid(s). Lots of women take this option.
As an employer, I have the resume of two young people in front of me: a young man and a young woman. Knowing that they might have kids in the nearish future, and that the woman candidate is substantially more likely to choose that time to quit, I hire the man.
And, inevitably, a woman's place remains the home.
The US has the worst maternity leave protections around and yet employers in the US make this judgement every single day, right now.
I am genuinely unsure what you mean.
Are you saying that, in the US, companies hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
Or are you saying that, in the US, companies don't hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
The point is that this decision making happens regardless of the existence of a system like Norway's, and Norway, with the system, is performing better on the equality front than most nations (aside from Iceland) while having the paid parental coverage.
Saying that the coverage is the source of that, or impacts it in a meaningful way, is faulty.
I agree that there is room to fix the employment gap pretty much everywhere, but taking away choice isn't the answer. Passing legislation to ensure equal pay is.
fair, it's an inflammatory construction and I don't begrudge anybody the choice to go back to work. My whole intent here is to advocate for the choice, and try to push back against the recurring theme that women choosing to stay home to be the full-time primary caregiver is bad for some or all of kids, women, society, and feminism.
Is it a choice over the entire population? If we were to raise a kid and one of us were required to stay at home there is not really any doubt who it's going to be. That's only a "choice" in the most technical sense.
Edit: by "we" I mean me and my partner, not me and spool.
:winky:
Seriously though, that's why I support a subsidy for staying at home as the primary caregiver - it makes the choice easier for women because it blunts or removes the financial penalty for doing so. Anything that brings stay-home parenting closer to financial parity with daycare + job should make it easier to choose between them.
That's not enough though. You also have to account for basically the entire modern history of the western world. There's discrepancy in pay scales, advancement of careers, career choices and just plain social expectation which makes it less of a free choice and more of a rational one.
If at the macro level, you see that the Government policy is having a disproportionate effect on one population segment, you need to adjust for it.
We already account for it in some respects, like with affirmative action or quotas. Crude methods to be sure, with drawbacks. But they're there to address an imbalance that goes beyond just hiring practice and college admissions.
That doesn't mean that you scrap the whole idea, but tweak it so that it makes it just as attractive for the man to take that position as the woman on a population scale.
Indeed.
Edit. Added this line: Imagine this scenario, if we gave money for new parents to stay at home:
The government pays for women (technically parents, but let's not kid ourselves) to stay at home with kids. As soon as the woman has a child, she can immediately quit her job and never come back, and still get both money and more time with her kid(s). Lots of women take this option.
As an employer, I have the resume of two young people in front of me: a young man and a young woman. Knowing that they might have kids in the nearish future, and that the woman candidate is substantially more likely to choose that time to quit, I hire the man.
And, inevitably, a woman's place remains the home.
The US has the worst maternity leave protections around and yet employers in the US make this judgement every single day, right now.
I am genuinely unsure what you mean.
Are you saying that, in the US, companies hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
Or are you saying that, in the US, companies don't hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
In the US, companies don't hire women equally to men despite the US has such garbage maternity leave
Ah. I would suggest other factors, such as women quitting when the get pregnant (they get no time off and need it, they earn so little that daycare is too expensive) or that the mother will take time off when the kids are sick. Also, misogyny.
Oh, sorta. See the edit I made above before I saw your reply.
Child rearing is a project, no more respectable or societally valuable than the coding project I work on. In fact, if I finish the security I'm working on, it will potentially have a greater net positive effect on the earth than the average of any given person's child, which generally turns out to be a net negative for the planet.
I support giving people more freedom to choose how to spend their time and support their interests, but having children is no more intrinsically valuable than a variety of other projects.
Edit: Good education of children is intrinsically valuable, but on the average we'd do better if individuals didn't choose it. Instead we should have state sponsored creches.
this is amazing to me as a concept. Aren't you, the child of any given person, supposedly creating something of great value to The Earth?
Are we to suppose that you're the outlier and the rest of us, and our kids of course, will generally turn out to be a net negative?
Having a child in the US or Canada is probably the single worst thing you could do from a climate impact perspective (slightly less bad elsewhere). We consume way too much per capita. At least bringing immigrants in both raises consumption and pollution less and raises average living standards more
Have children if you want them, just recognize the impact. But presumably we can talk about just how pro-natalist society should be. I'm not aware of anywhere where having and raising a child is literally free of all costs so we are already okay with accepting some costs being borne solely by the parents
I am effectively creating no real value for society aside from paying lots of taxes and if all goes according to plan soon I will probably create no value and pay (almost) no taxes and so provide a definitely negative overall value
fair, it's an inflammatory construction and I don't begrudge anybody the choice to go back to work. My whole intent here is to advocate for the choice, and try to push back against the recurring theme that women choosing to stay home to be the full-time primary caregiver is bad for some or all of kids, women, society, and feminism.
Is it a choice over the entire population? If we were to raise a kid and one of us were required to stay at home there is not really any doubt who it's going to be. That's only a "choice" in the most technical sense.
Edit: by "we" I mean me and my partner, not me and spool.
:winky:
Seriously though, that's why I support a subsidy for staying at home as the primary caregiver - it makes the choice easier for women because it blunts or removes the financial penalty for doing so. Anything that brings stay-home parenting closer to financial parity with daycare + job should make it easier to choose between them.
That's not enough though. You also have to account for basically the entire modern history of the western world. There's discrepancy in pay scales, advancement of careers, career choices and just plain social expectation which makes it less of a free choice and more of a rational one.
If at the macro level, you see that the Government policy is having a disproportionate effect on one population segment, you need to adjust for it.
We already account for it in some respects, like with affirmative action or quotas. Crude methods to be sure, with drawbacks. But they're there to address an imbalance that goes beyond just hiring practice and college admissions.
That doesn't mean that you scrap the whole idea, but tweak it so that it makes it just as attractive for the man to take that position as the woman on a population scale.
Indeed.
Edit. Added this line: Imagine this scenario, if we gave money for new parents to stay at home:
The government pays for women (technically parents, but let's not kid ourselves) to stay at home with kids. As soon as the woman has a child, she can immediately quit her job and never come back, and still get both money and more time with her kid(s). Lots of women take this option.
As an employer, I have the resume of two young people in front of me: a young man and a young woman. Knowing that they might have kids in the nearish future, and that the woman candidate is substantially more likely to choose that time to quit, I hire the man.
And, inevitably, a woman's place remains the home.
The US has the worst maternity leave protections around and yet employers in the US make this judgement every single day, right now.
I am genuinely unsure what you mean.
Are you saying that, in the US, companies hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
Or are you saying that, in the US, companies don't hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
In the US, companies don't hire women equally to men despite the US has such garbage maternity leave
Ah. I would suggest other factors, such as women quitting when the get pregnant (they get no time off and need it, they earn so little that daycare is too expensive) or that the mother will take time off when the kids are sick. Also, misogyny.
Yeah, the secret is misogyny. That's also the secret to the survey Shryke posted, where it turns out people judge mothers to be worse workers and treat them more poorly than childless women. And why it also shows that people judge fathers to be better workers and treat them better than childless men.
It's sexism. Sexism is the horse, and women being stay at home parents more often then men is the cart.
The cart does not push the horse around.
BSoB on
+7
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Child rearing is a project, no more respectable or societally valuable than the coding project I work on. In fact, if I finish the security I'm working on, it will potentially have a greater net positive effect on the earth than the average of any given person's child, which generally turns out to be a net negative for the planet.
I support giving people more freedom to choose how to spend their time and support their interests, but having children is no more intrinsically valuable than a variety of other projects.
Edit: Good education of children is intrinsically valuable, but on the average we'd do better if individuals didn't choose it. Instead we should have state sponsored creches.
this is amazing to me as a concept. Aren't you, the child of any given person, supposedly creating something of great value to The Earth?
Are we to suppose that you're the outlier and the rest of us, and our kids of course, will generally turn out to be a net negative?
Having a child in the US or Canada is probably the single worst thing you could do from a climate impact perspective (slightly less bad elsewhere). We consume way too much per capita. At least bringing immigrants in both raises consumption and pollution less and raises average living standards more
Have children if you want them, just recognize the impact. But presumably we can talk about just how pro-natalist society should be. I'm not aware of anywhere where having and raising a child is literally free of all costs so we are already okay with accepting some costs being borne solely by the parents
I am effectively creating no real value for society aside from paying lots of taxes and if all goes according to plan soon I will probably create no value and pay (almost) no taxes and so provide a definitely negative overall value
And here we have another person in the "North Americans should never have children, ever, because nebulous Malthusian reasons" camp. This despite our birth rate being about 1.8 and declining and having been lower than the need to meet our population by any means but immigration since the 1950s.
Literally all of US population growth is driven by immigration since 1956.
I'm curious about the actual average time out of the workforce for parents who stay at home for a length of time with their child(ren). I would expect pausing a career to result in fewer years of experience and if interrupted consistently perhaps missing a promotion due to unavailability.
I'm just interested how the numbers actually suss out because it seems like both pro/anti stay at home people pick the most extreme examples of inequality.
Depending on the average age of parent, it would seem as a guess that the choice to stay at home would be in direct conflict with getting a foothold and/or initial promotion. Stalling further advancement by perhaps more than a simple years of experience metric and missing a vital window in starting a career.
fair, it's an inflammatory construction and I don't begrudge anybody the choice to go back to work. My whole intent here is to advocate for the choice, and try to push back against the recurring theme that women choosing to stay home to be the full-time primary caregiver is bad for some or all of kids, women, society, and feminism.
Is it a choice over the entire population? If we were to raise a kid and one of us were required to stay at home there is not really any doubt who it's going to be. That's only a "choice" in the most technical sense.
Edit: by "we" I mean me and my partner, not me and spool.
:winky:
Seriously though, that's why I support a subsidy for staying at home as the primary caregiver - it makes the choice easier for women because it blunts or removes the financial penalty for doing so. Anything that brings stay-home parenting closer to financial parity with daycare + job should make it easier to choose between them.
That's not enough though. You also have to account for basically the entire modern history of the western world. There's discrepancy in pay scales, advancement of careers, career choices and just plain social expectation which makes it less of a free choice and more of a rational one.
If at the macro level, you see that the Government policy is having a disproportionate effect on one population segment, you need to adjust for it.
We already account for it in some respects, like with affirmative action or quotas. Crude methods to be sure, with drawbacks. But they're there to address an imbalance that goes beyond just hiring practice and college admissions.
That doesn't mean that you scrap the whole idea, but tweak it so that it makes it just as attractive for the man to take that position as the woman on a population scale.
Indeed.
Edit. Added this line: Imagine this scenario, if we gave money for new parents to stay at home:
The government pays for women (technically parents, but let's not kid ourselves) to stay at home with kids. As soon as the woman has a child, she can immediately quit her job and never come back, and still get both money and more time with her kid(s). Lots of women take this option.
As an employer, I have the resume of two young people in front of me: a young man and a young woman. Knowing that they might have kids in the nearish future, and that the woman candidate is substantially more likely to choose that time to quit, I hire the man.
And, inevitably, a woman's place remains the home.
Saying that the way to fix this is to force women to work and leave stay at home parents doing unpaid labor is unconscionable.
If something needs to be done... I prefer market insentives so how about companies get a tax brake for workers that quit after having children?
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
+1
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
Child rearing is a project, no more respectable or societally valuable than the coding project I work on. In fact, if I finish the security I'm working on, it will potentially have a greater net positive effect on the earth than the average of any given person's child, which generally turns out to be a net negative for the planet.
I support giving people more freedom to choose how to spend their time and support their interests, but having children is no more intrinsically valuable than a variety of other projects.
Edit: Good education of children is intrinsically valuable, but on the average we'd do better if individuals didn't choose it. Instead we should have state sponsored creches.
this is amazing to me as a concept. Aren't you, the child of any given person, supposedly creating something of great value to The Earth?
Are we to suppose that you're the outlier and the rest of us, and our kids of course, will generally turn out to be a net negative?
Having a child in the US or Canada is probably the single worst thing you could do from a climate impact perspective (slightly less bad elsewhere). We consume way too much per capita. At least bringing immigrants in both raises consumption and pollution less and raises average living standards more
Have children if you want them, just recognize the impact. But presumably we can talk about just how pro-natalist society should be. I'm not aware of anywhere where having and raising a child is literally free of all costs so we are already okay with accepting some costs being borne solely by the parents
I am effectively creating no real value for society aside from paying lots of taxes and if all goes according to plan soon I will probably create no value and pay (almost) no taxes and so provide a definitely negative overall value
And here we have another person in the "North Americans should never have children, ever, because nebulous Malthusian reasons" camp. This despite our birth rate being about 1.8 and declining and having been lower than the need to meet our population by any means but immigration since the 1950s.
Literally all of US population growth is driven by immigration since 1956.
He doesn't really say you shouldn't
You should just be ashamed about it, for having the bad luck of being born during GCC
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Posts
That's not enough though. You also have to account for basically the entire modern history of the western world. There's discrepancy in pay scales, advancement of careers, career choices and just plain social expectation which makes it less of a free choice and more of a rational one.
If at the macro level, you see that the Government policy is having a disproportionate effect on one population segment, you need to adjust for it.
We already account for it in some respects, like with affirmative action or quotas. Crude methods to be sure, with drawbacks. But they're there to address an imbalance that goes beyond just hiring practice and college admissions.
That doesn't mean that you scrap the whole idea, but tweak it so that it makes it just as attractive for the man to take that position as the woman on a population scale.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I can assure you that the effect of any coding project you are embarking on will almost certainly be to the detriment of humanity by a standard you set where child raising is a negative to society. If you create comfort, or save lives, all you will enable is more people to be born! A disaster.
Hmm, perhaps you are coding some kind of death ray to slay the weak?
Regardless, it almost certainly wont work anyway, and if it does I'm sure the Russians did it before you in the 70s using a pocket calculator, a socket wrench and a ball of vibrating yarn.
It's not always necessary to adjust for it by reworking or revoking the same law, though.
If you subsidize stay-at-home parents, and it ends up being that women end up being relegated to that role due to a gender pay gap, changing or removing the subsidy isn't going to help the underlying issue.
You kind of prove the point by citing affirmative action and quotas. Even with both of those things, females and minorities are both heavily under-represented in STEM careers, because the underlying issue is never addressed with those band-aids.
The negative social effect isn't from the "not working" part though, it's from the women not working in disproportionate numbers and immigrants not integrating, and then all the other follow-on effects they have While I personally think there are benefits from rather incentivizing childcare option like daycare, it's not from a place of I'd rather see them working. If they want to go hooning around the wop-wops or something instead, go for it.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
The work of 20 years, half Belasco's life dedicated to this effort, and it's
- not work
- bad for society
I have three friends who are study at home moms and they are even more tired than me.
They work hard. Very hard. And they never get a break.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I can kinda see where the child free people could have an issue of it. While you’re slaving away at your corporate job, Jim and Sarah are getting a steady paycheque (that doesn’t depend on the company’s whims and financial status) to do something that to you, looks less stressful.
It’s kinda feels like how pissed I, a non-smoker get that my smoker coworkers get an extra break to take a smoke.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
Get to sleep by ten. If your kid's sleeps through, you sleep through. If not, then you don't.
Then you do it all again the next day.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
It's because it's a goosey comment and reads like the height of /r/childfree
Why should I have to pay for your crotchfruit? You chose to have children and have someone laze around at home with a kid.
"Preference for not working" come the fuck on.
Whether or not that is specifically how it's intended that's how it reads to more than one person here.
I generally believe there should be substantial subsidy for childcare on top of what we already have. Not fully sold on that being cash, but I'm more or less open to the argument.
Another thing I'd like to see is careers or specific jobs that require employees to choose family or career should be looked into as being exploitative.
To the latter could you elaborate? I’m guessing you mean jobs that make it literally impossible to have a family, rather than falling behind on career progression.
I would be with you if it was the first example, but not if it was the latter. If you are not working the job for however long it seems pretty natural that you would fall behind the curve when compared to someone that is.
I dunno how you read this as me wanting women to not stay at home with their kids. She'd get 6 months maternity leave, where she would stay at home with her new baby. Is there some sort of minimum amount of time to count?
If she wants to stay at home longer that's her choice, but we shouldn't subsidise or incentivise it due to bad side effects.
Indeed.
Edit. Added this line: Imagine this scenario, if we gave money for new parents to stay at home:
The government pays for women (technically parents, but let's not kid ourselves) to stay at home with kids. As soon as the woman has a child, she can immediately quit her job and never come back, and still get both money and more time with her kid(s). Lots of women take this option.
As an employer, I have the resume of two young people in front of me: a young man and a young woman. Knowing that they might have kids in the nearish future, and that the woman candidate is substantially more likely to choose that time to quit, I hire the man.
And, inevitably, a woman's place remains the home.
Yeah I'm not talking about just being x moths or years behind peers if you are out of the workforce for x amount of time.
I mean the practice of screening job candidates behind closed doors looking for those individuals who will not take any vacation time, dependant care time, or generally need time for family. Most states and institutions have certain minimum requirements on paper but also many employers will only promote those willing to forgo those minimum requirements.
http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/getting-job-there-motherhood-penalty Just a few quotes from the findings:
And it goes on like that.
And the knock-on effects of these perceptions is that then, when given the choice about who should stay home, the mother becomes the obvious choice because the father is probably making more money and advancing his career faster.
And the corollary to the above issue is, of course, that you can't address the gender wage gap without addressing parental leave and childcare policies. Because they cause each other.
And, once again, you are projecting your own values on this decision as if it is an award and not labor and (especially) your assumptions that it is forcing women into the home. Even in your own country, men are using the parental leave by double digits above most other nations. Norway is #2 in the rankings of having the most stay-at-home-dads, which indicates to me that this policy is highly progressive in giving options to couples in terms of their childrearing.
And what you are describing as an employer has nothing at all to do with this discussion, and would continue even if this policy didn't exist, since pregnancy and sick leave also apply in the same fashion. That concern has to be addressed by different legislation, and in the US (at least) is a protected status. You cannot make a choice for that reason here.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stay-at-home-fathers_n_7261020
Its interesting to see the breakdowns. A lot of conservative states actually have really high spreads (West Virgina has 30% of stay at home parents being dads) while the higher population states like California, Texas, and Florida stay in the 15% range.
It's not surprising to me that Utah has the lowest percentage, at 7%, given the culture there.
Nobody is advocating "no one should have children, ever."
At least three people have actually advocated that in this thread.
True, but (again) that choice is going to happen regardless of if this policy is in effect.
Shit, how many people say something to the father when he's watching the kids like, "oh babysitting today?" as if that's what he's doing, instead of, you know, spending time with his own kids.
The whole of the world reinforces this shit constantly, this is an uphill battle to fix.
Yeah that was a bunch of dumb eugenics bullshit and shouldn't be given the time of day either.
Watching kids is absolutely work. Many people enjoy this work and go into it voluntarily by being stay-at-home parents or working at a day care. Others feel pressured by society into this role, or have internalised what their duties should be.
I am of course talking about my values. I value a future where women are equally participatory in the workforce and public life as men, and where men are equally participatory in child care as women. And I want to use incentives to help push society in that direction.
Other people (few in this thread) value traditional gender roles instead. Others (in this thread) value personal freedom higher, or believe that child care should be monetarily compensated no matter what over (what I consider) negative side effects of that policy. Everything in this thread is a discussion based on our personal values.
The kontanstøtte is being slowly scaled back. It used to be for older kids and greater amounts of money. Kontantsøtte was instituted to keep women at home, and is being slowly phased out to avoid that outcome. This coincides with a lower over-all rate of parents being stay-at-home.
The hypothetical employer I described has everything to do with the discussion. As shryke noted, and I was trying to communicate with my post, unequal employment opportunities is intrinsically linked to child care.
If women and men took equal parental leave and were equally likely to e.g. watch sick kids, a lot of incentives to hire men over women would disappear.
And legality doesn't matter. It's extraordinarily hard to prove the reason you weren't hired was because your employer thought you might get pregnant.
Sorry, yeah, that's exactly what happened. I read it and my brain didn't even register it. For what it's worth, I don't think that "humans are a burden on the earth" is necessarily a eugenics argument. It's just sophomoric. It's used as a rationale for eugenics, but they're not one-to-one. It's just as often used by people who just haven't done the mental legwork to examine the (obvious) effects of their argument.
For example, I think there's some interesting philosophy in antinatalism especially vis-a-vis creating sentient beings and the impossible nature of obtaining consent before signing them up for the inevitable pain of death, but it's just that - a philosophical thought experiment. Not something to advocate, certainly not something to legislate, and probably not even worth the headache of mentioning anywhere except an online forum.
The US has the worst maternity leave protections around and yet employers in the US make this judgement every single day, right now.
I am genuinely unsure what you mean.
Are you saying that, in the US, companies hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
Or are you saying that, in the US, companies don't hire women equally to men since the US has such garbage maternity leave?
In the US, companies don't hire women equally to men despite the US has such garbage maternity leave
Edit: + or - 2 weeks for complications from a C-section, women are basically supposed to be back at work right before most US daycares can legally take a baby (< 3 months). Yet they assume they'll be gone longer, or just never come back, so they're less likely to hire, less likely to promote or give more responsibilities, and more likely to pay less. Which in turn makes it more likely to be the better economic choice for the woman to stay home (assuming 2 parent setup). So it's a self fulfilling prophecy based on what the employer already presumes will happen.
Ah. I would suggest other factors, such as women quitting when the get pregnant (they get no time off and need it, they earn so little that daycare is too expensive) or that the mother will take time off when the kids are sick. Also, misogyny.
The point is that this decision making happens regardless of the existence of a system like Norway's, and Norway, with the system, is performing better on the equality front than most nations (aside from Iceland) while having the paid parental coverage.
Saying that the coverage is the source of that, or impacts it in a meaningful way, is faulty.
I agree that there is room to fix the employment gap pretty much everywhere, but taking away choice isn't the answer. Passing legislation to ensure equal pay is.
Oh, sorta. See the edit I made above before I saw your reply.
Having a child in the US or Canada is probably the single worst thing you could do from a climate impact perspective (slightly less bad elsewhere). We consume way too much per capita. At least bringing immigrants in both raises consumption and pollution less and raises average living standards more
Have children if you want them, just recognize the impact. But presumably we can talk about just how pro-natalist society should be. I'm not aware of anywhere where having and raising a child is literally free of all costs so we are already okay with accepting some costs being borne solely by the parents
I am effectively creating no real value for society aside from paying lots of taxes and if all goes according to plan soon I will probably create no value and pay (almost) no taxes and so provide a definitely negative overall value
Yeah, the secret is misogyny. That's also the secret to the survey Shryke posted, where it turns out people judge mothers to be worse workers and treat them more poorly than childless women. And why it also shows that people judge fathers to be better workers and treat them better than childless men.
It's sexism. Sexism is the horse, and women being stay at home parents more often then men is the cart.
The cart does not push the horse around.
And here we have another person in the "North Americans should never have children, ever, because nebulous Malthusian reasons" camp. This despite our birth rate being about 1.8 and declining and having been lower than the need to meet our population by any means but immigration since the 1950s.
Literally all of US population growth is driven by immigration since 1956.
I'm just interested how the numbers actually suss out because it seems like both pro/anti stay at home people pick the most extreme examples of inequality.
Depending on the average age of parent, it would seem as a guess that the choice to stay at home would be in direct conflict with getting a foothold and/or initial promotion. Stalling further advancement by perhaps more than a simple years of experience metric and missing a vital window in starting a career.
Saying that the way to fix this is to force women to work and leave stay at home parents doing unpaid labor is unconscionable.
If something needs to be done... I prefer market insentives so how about companies get a tax brake for workers that quit after having children?
He doesn't really say you shouldn't
You should just be ashamed about it, for having the bad luck of being born during GCC