|
|
Post by MO on Feb 28, 2004 23:20:22 GMT -5
Women should not be paid less, but anyone, man or woman who takes a decade off of their career to stay home should not expect to be making as much money when they return to their field. That accounts for much of the discrepancy in women's salaries. They also tend toward the lower paying "helping" fields instead of things like business or engineering.
No one in the business world owes you anything because you have children. Unless, of course, they fathered your children.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Feb 29, 2004 8:19:22 GMT -5
Yes, we understand the logic of this. And in increasing numbers, we've chosen not to stay home for ten years. This, in turn has been met with guilt trips and tons of bitching by men who'd prefer we stay at home (can't stand the competition) and women who made a different decision (can't stand that anyone thinks differently than they do).
If a fulfilling work life continues to remain incompatible with rearing children, the business world will reap the consequences in the form of a shrinking work force.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Feb 29, 2004 11:07:41 GMT -5
Are you perpetually in your period? Someone has to deal with children at home for the sake of the continuation of humanity, and traditionally it is the wife's task. Certainly the husband plays an active part as well, but in my humble opinion, women are far better at some things than men, and rearing children is one of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 1, 2004 1:00:59 GMT -5
Huh?
All of it true.
That's nice. And your point is? None of what you've said addresses the fact that more and more women are looking at the choices offered them and choosing to forego childbearing. So it matters not whether these women would, in fact, be better at the role of rearing the children- because there aren't any. Incidentally, you realize that it's precisely this kind of ignorance that perpetuates the complete absence of father's rights. So go on, diminish the ability of men to raise children, see exactly what you reap.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 1, 2004 3:21:16 GMT -5
I think more women decided to work during their children's formative years because the women's movement pushed for changes that screwed up family law. It seems that the pendulum may be starting to shift the other way, as more women throw caution to the wind and decide to stay home with their kids. "No fault divorce" laws did everything to screw up the plight of the stay at home wife and mother who has a husband that decides to leave her flat. It only helped scum women who decided they wanted to behave like the worst of men and still get their piece of the pie. The people who have paid the price for all this nonsense is the children.
It is a huge risk to have children and stay home with them. Being dependent on your husband is far more of a legal risk than it was several decades ago. We have the ugly feminist bimbos to thank for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 1, 2004 19:17:29 GMT -5
It is a far better situation for a person to be secure sustenance for themselves, than it is to be dependent on somebody else. It may be more of a risk to be dependent on your husband now than it was in the 50's, but it was still a terrible crap-shoot then as well. What if you happened to marry a man who didn't cheat, but instead had a gambling/drinking problem and threw his life-savings away? You may be able to divorce him, but you're not going to end up with any money to support yourself or your children. And what of the women who's husbands die? That's the problem with this kind of thinking: it counts on people being good and everything working perfectly, when in fact, we've seen time and time again throughout history that even under intense social pressure and with terrible social consequences, people continue to make bad decisions. Spouses will always cheat. Period. They did in Puritan America, they do now, and they will continue to do so forever. Incidentally, they can always die as well.
When the government passes a Constitutional amendment criminalizing adultery, then maybe I'd THINK about being a stay-at-home mom.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 1, 2004 19:23:32 GMT -5
It may be more of a risk to be dependent on your husband now than it was in the 50's, but it was still a terrible crap-shoot then as well. What if you happened to marry a man who didn't cheat, but instead had a gambling/drinking problem and threw his life-savings away? You may be able to divorce him, but you're not going to end up with any money to support yourself or your children. And what of the women whose husbands die? That's the problem with this kind of thinking: it counts on people being good and everything working perfectly, when in fact, we've seen time and time again throughout history that even under intense social pressure and with terrible social consequences, people continue to make bad decisions. Spouses will always cheat. Period. They did in Puritan America, they do now, and they will continue to do so forever. Incidentally, they can always die as well.
When the government passes a Constitutional amendment criminalizing adultery, then maybe I'd THINK about being a stay-at-home mom.
Bottom line: it is a far better situation that a person be able to secure sustenance for themselves, than it is to be dependent on someone else.
Men are either going to have to really start sharing the child-rearing duties, start staying home themselves, or get used to the fact that fewer and fewer women want to stay home.
What is up with the "ugly feminist" crud? I'm quite the hottie AND I'm a feminist. Give it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 1, 2004 19:59:58 GMT -5
Generally, when real women have children they stop thinking about what is best for their own self. That is in the natural order of things.
You seem awfully bitter and I do feel sorry for you and your castrated friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 1, 2004 21:56:15 GMT -5
Given that women are held ultimately responsible for taking care of children (especially by the likes of you-as demonstrated again and again throughout this thread), it seems like the most motherly of all decisions is to make sure you can continue to take care of your children REGARDLESS of what the father does, whether it's cheating or dying on you.
You've bowed out the discussion while resorting to the ad hominem attack because the above is inarguable, all of which belies the real motivation behind your position: that you are just another social conservative dinosaur who just can't deal with progress and/or women becoming fully independent.
And you seem like a child who throws a tantrum because it does not want to grow up. All social conservatives do.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 1, 2004 23:10:13 GMT -5
The liberals idea of progress has caused more families to break up. The kids are paying for the selfishness of men and women. Sorry, I don't consider that social progress.  |
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 1, 2004 23:50:24 GMT -5
At least you acknowledge that it's the selfishness of MEN and women. And it has nothing to do with liberals. It has to do with the pursuit of more wealth than anyone needs. When the Republican party actually starts acknowledging this and legislating accordingly, I might actually join them.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 2, 2004 2:05:14 GMT -5
The insatiable desire for more money is a big part of the problem. The average home has doubled in size. The endless quest for more material things has many families sacrificing their young children to the care of strangers.
Most of the stay at home parents I know don't do it because they are rich. They do it because they are making the sacrifice for the sake of their children. Most are educated and will return to the work force at some point and could at any point. More families could afford to have a parent home if not for being over burdened with confiscatory taxes. Liberal policies do not help the situation. They whine for daycare subsidies instead of raising the child deduction. They want stay at home parents to sacrifice more of their money to subsidize working parents. So much for "choice."
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 2, 2004 8:44:14 GMT -5
You actually believe this, don't you? Nevermind that those same stay-at-home and working parents are subsidizing corporate welfare of astronomical proportions. Boy has the Republican party got you fooled. I bet you think unfettered free trade is a good thing, too.
And incidentally, he's not castrated, he has MS. Make you feel good, making fun of a cripple? Or would you suggest I abandon my friend and go find myself a strapping healthy young man who can impregnate me and support me for the rest of my life like a man should? The problem with social conservatives is that they can't seem to mind their own business.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 2, 2004 12:06:01 GMT -5
How did this turn into a corporate welfare diatribe? Can't defend what I said so you need to change the subject. You seem to be having some kind of breakdown. You might want to increase your Paxil or your Midol.
I don't give a fig about your personal life or sex life but when you inject it in a public forum it's free game.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 2, 2004 12:43:30 GMT -5
So you're not going to apologize for making fun of a cripple? Nice.
I will post more on corporate welfare and the EXACT relationship between it and the inability of parents who want to to stay home, later when I have more time.
Right now, I was just doing a quick check in to see if you were apologetic about making fun of my crippled boyfriend.
|
|
