Gender Equality and Economic Growth

[Aggie]

I've seen this reported on in a similar fashion before (in the Economist) and have felt like a conspiracy nut by continuously referring to it, but here's another article that asserts that the ultimate goal of gender equality in the workforce is to boost economic growth:
http://www.4-traders.com/FACEBOOK-INC-10547141/news/Facebook-Inc--IMF-warns-of-slow-progress-achieving-gender-equality-17290088/

This literally means that global investors are keenly interested in getting women into the workforce instead of leaving a parent at home to actually parent their children (IMHO, a second income should be a luxury, not a necessity, when raising a family, and parents should be able to either choose who cares for the children, or should be able to both work reduced hours in order to switch off). There is a direct return-on-investment for making 2-income families the norm in every available demographic, provided that one in invested in a developing nation with few women in the salaried workforce.

This gives me mixed feelings. I support full gender equality, but feel like it's been completely co-opted for something that doesn't care whatsoever if it's  a net positive for the women in question, provided it pads out the bottom line. I feel that there needs to be a discussion about how two-income families transitioned from an option to a necessity in the West, and whether that was an inevitable transition. I don't feel that it's right to intentionally export that way of life before we have been able to see what the long-term societal consequences are. On the other hand, economic development leads to increased standards of living (in theory), so getting more humans into the workforce should help increase the welfare of a nation by bringing in more funds from outside (via export) and recirculating them via consumerism. Giving women equal economic standing is a desirable end, but putting heavy constraints on the choice of whether or not to have a career or rear children for either gender is IMHO a highly undesirable result.

The corollary to this is the implication that reducing the total work-hours-per-breeding-unit would reduce economic growth in developed nations, which means that any measures to re-instate the single income family as a viable living strategy would be contrary to the goals of the invested, and should be actively discouraged. Likewise any form of income support (such as Employment Insurance*) is to be restricted and regulated as much as possible to keep people from living a life outside of work. 

<sub>*which I've paid into for years and will probably never see a damned dime of unless I intentionally cheat the system, because I can get work easily and will be unlikely to be out of a job short of the next Great Depression. I'd rather take a shit job than collect unemployment under the pretense that I can't get work. If I'm unemployed or underemployed at this point, it's by choice and I don't expect a free ride; I can carve one out myself without the government. I'd rather see someone else get a break from the system. There are some places where the work is seasonal and it's tough to stay flush year-round; if those areas and industries are considered important, then some way of supporting them is fine with me.

I'm far more likely to end up on disability following an accident than to be honestly unemployed long enough to collect pogie; needless to say, I disapprove of any cuts or restrictions to disability, which is already very meagre. Work for most people is easier than just staying alive and functional is for a relatively small number of others, so why begrudge those that are struggling? I want to live in a country where I can depend on society to soften the blow if I fall down hard.</sub>

[Griffin NoName]

The govt. (labour and now tory) has been pushing women with younger and younger children back into work, without actually providing enough (and cheap enough) childcare to make it work. It's bad for couples, but it's a disaster for single parents. I was a single working mother but it was my choice and somehow I made it work out, though my income was much lower than it would otherwise have been a lot of the time.

[Opsa]

I am not sure what you're saying here, Aggie. People need to be paid equally for doing equal work. It is extremely frustrating to be working your arse off and being paid less than a bunch of bozos that hold the same responsibilities as you, but are being paid more for no reason.

Another problem of the western world: outrageously high prices for things and high expectations for keeping up with technology.

The biggest problem with the western world: greed. Below is a quote from that article you linkied to:

"The global recession has also complicated the problem. In advanced economies, fewer women than men lost their jobs in the first years of the crisis, from 2007 to 2009, as job losses were concentrated in male-dominated industries like manufacturing and construction."

The reason that the women kept their jobs was because they were being paid less than the men in the first place. You want to cut the fat, you cut the gewgaw who was getting the inflated paycheck, not the person you need there who is doing the same thing for less.

I feel like the good ol' boys have been giving themselves a grand old time and have run everything up to keep themselves living the high life. The oil companies (again) come to mind. This sort of company is not thinking economically, they are seeing success as the ability to make more every year in spite of what's happening to their employees. It's just greed.

Women should be paid for the value of their work when they are in the workforce. Their gender should not be an issue. People need to be valued.

Today, to stay home and take care of the children is considered a luxury, even if you are skimping to do it. I stayed home and cared for th'Opsalette because I wanted to be there for her, but we had to be very budget conscious. We could not afford new cars or trips out of the country. If I had been a profession that paid a lot (instead of a freelance artist, which is all I'm good at) I suppose I could have worked and we could have had trips and cars and a big house, but it would have cost us parenting. We made the decision to parent. To us, it was the meaningful choice.

Other people do not have that choice. They are non-pros and they both have to work so that they can make the mortgage payment. It's not their fault, it's just where life put them. But if they are both stock clerks at WalMart, they both ought to be getting the same pay if they have the same experience, skill and efficiency. Mommy's hours of labor need to be able to buy as many groceries as Daddy's do. It just makes sense.

So what the heck am I talking about? Maybe what I am getting at is that perhaps women have been paid less by greedy arse-hats who are just saving money by paying them less than others. That's the way it looks from this perspective, anyway. I am not saying that all men are greedy ares-hats, just the ones who are saving something for themselves by paying deserving people less.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I suspect that equality only comes when the big honchos are "persuaded" that it is on their best interest, not because it is the right thing to do. In the end the general trend is one of inclusion, and it's adoption is the result of gradual shifts in society towards it, which forces the greedy b@$tards to move on the same direction out of self interest.

As sad as it may sound, only when the portion of common sense that fills somebody else's pocket, relevant changes happen, in fact you could say that that has been the trend from the end of slavery, to women's vote and recently equality for homosexuals. Expecting the @$$hats to come with this stuff themselves is completely out of the question, but sooner or later they have to figure out that it benefits them as well.

[Aggie]

*original post moved intact to below Pieces' post for continuity*

[pieces o nine]

Aggie: none of this is directed at you. It's my feelings about the people who make a living trying to make other people feel bad about their choices, or their lack of choices.

I never had children (by choice, within the options I saw for myself). Until my late 30s it was common for employers to casually inform me that they 'had' to pay a male co-worker more than me if we were doing the same work, because they had families to support. Those comments only stopped (as did the blunt queries regarding my personal plans for marriage and children during interviews and performance reviews) when it became illegal to ask them. The fact that most male co-workers in my age group were: unmarried and child-free, or married to a spouse also employed full-time in a professional position (with or without a child between them); and female co-workers in the same task group who were, in fact, raising children (often alone) were still  paid less because of the fantasy of male heads-of-household, stuck in my craw then, and still irks me today.

An economy that essentially forces both partners into full-time (or more!) employment to make ends meet at all, or to afford a "nice" -- not luxurious -- life can  be hard on children who don't have a full-time nurturing parent. Is the solution to regretfully decide that nature has selected the female to [deserve] lower wages -- or to stay home entirely in order to comply with "nature"?

It's also very damaging for children to grow up in abject poverty, to be chronically hungry or undernourished, to live in standards considered unacceptable by parents making better wages, or to have their educational futures choked off by sub-standard schools, or neighborhoods unsafe for non-gang members. Paying women less as a matter of principle for any of the shell-game reasons that some economists, politicians, or religious figures like to think up will not resolve any issues of deprivation for children.

Finally, the whole "think of the children!" puppet show ignores the reality that contemporary first-world nations live in a market place economy. In an agrarian or subsistence economy, the women work just as hard as the men to procure food and housing for themselves and their children, and through most of human history they did it side-by-side. They did not have the option to sit demurely in a house, enjoying being taken care of as was their feminine prerogative, while the menfolk did all the real work. Their children weren't latch-key kids because they were laboring beside their parents in agrarian societies, or in factories in early industrial economies. They all worked -- although the work of women and children was considered second rate and worth less -- and the payoff was food, shelter, and any other goods or services available at the time.

In a marketplace economy, the payoff is money to exchange for food, shelter, and any other goods or services. The persistent claim that there is something "unnatural" about women being compensated by the standard of the marketplace they live in for their work is unnatural, and in fact, a serious departure from the history they are distorting in order to keep half the adult population in a position of dependency, and the other half in a position of bearing the economic burden alone.

[edit] I was typing this while you were typing your response -- good points ^.

[Aggie]

EDIT: Moved this post below Pieces'; we cross-posted and I think it makes better sense with her post first.

Women should be paid for the value of their work when they are in the workforce. Their gender should not be an issue. People need to be valued.

Total *rumble*, Opsa.

The angle I'm coming from isn't about gender equality in terms of pay (which the article rightly emphasizes). What I'm conflicted about is that the stated push from the economic overclass to get women into the workforce in countries where there are significant number of women homemakers who do not choose to have a career.

The gap between men and women in the labour force has narrowed since 1990, and women now account for 40 percent of the global pool of labour. But in Japan, for example, 25 percent fewer women participate in the labour force than men.

Unless I've bollocksed up the math, that implies that 43% of the Japanese workforce is female.  Making the possibly incorrect assumption that a large portion of the 24% fewer women that don't work are homemakers, this implies that in at least some social strata, a single-income family is either a reasonable choice or a necessity. 

What I'm trying to say is that the article implies that pressure is needed to eliminate the possibility of either parent being a full-time homemaker. In countries (and Japan may be one of them), the differential between male and female employment may be due to gender inequality in pay, making it more valuable for a woman to stay home than to take a low-paying job. This isn't a desirable situation. My concern is that a motivation for getting getting women into the workforce is to first create a lower-paid tier of workers.  Homemakers don't get paid cash money from outside the family (usually) so when a mother works and pays someone else to care for her child (often another mother), two income streams are created where there was previously less than one, which is desirable in the eyes of economists. If either economic pressures or modern cultural pressures convince women that they are more valuable in the workforce than at home with their children, it's an economic and developmental 'win'. More cheap labour means a better ability to produce cost-competitive goods for export, which means more money into the country. Women could help lift their countries into a higher level of development, and higher levels of development hopefully bring about a more equal society, but what is the cost of removing a full-time homemaker/caregiver on families and for the next generation, especially where gender pay equity is not the norm?

Lest it sound like I'm a chauvinist that wants all women to be at home rearing children, let me state that my own selfish aims are to support the preservation of the homemaker because I think parenting your own children should be a cultural ideal, and that both genders should be encouraged to take equally prominent roles in it. Men have not generally had cultural freedom to be the primary caregiver if that's what the couple prefers or if the woman wants to be the more career-focused individual, and while women have gained the choice (when it is a choice) to pursue a career or be a homemaker. I don't really have that choice unless I marry a woman of high socioeconomic status. It's a class issue on one hand, and a gender issue on the other (stay-at-home-dad isn't considered socially appropriate in many places). That's a very good reason for men to support gender pay equity.

I'd be curious to know whether the current percentage of women in any given country who are in the workforce matches the percentage who would choose to work if it made no difference to their income. If the numbers were close, it would imply that a career is a true choice rather than an economic necessity. While sacrifices to standard of living are going to be necessary on one vs. two incomes, IMHO ideally a society should support either option. The viability of a single-income family in turn makes being a single parent a more viable situation, although one without much choice about employment.

I personally think there needs to be more of a shift to allowing flexible scheduling for parents of both genders by encouraging part-time options for work, allowing both parents to remain in the workforce, for example, 3 days per week. This arrangement, assuming a M-F 9 to 5 schedule, would allow two solo days per parent, two family days, and a single day of outside child care (infrequent enough that relatives or friends may be able to help, as it's not a daily obligation).

I feel like the good ol' boys have been giving themselves a grand old time and have run everything up to keep themselves living the high life. The oil companies (again) come to mind. This sort of company is not thinking economically, they are seeing success as the ability to make more every year in spite of what's happening to their employees. It's just greed.

The American way of doing business comes to mind. Up here, oil corp employee benefits are very generous, salary is exceptional and much of the office hierarchy is female (albeit with a dearth at upper levels), because statistically more males of low to mid rank in the company/city are employed in field operations and not in the office. Safety training is better than most other sectors (because it's dangerous), and medical and dental insurance is standard for employees. That goes for field operations as well as corporate.

Men in oilfield careers very likely make significantly more money than women of significant rank, but women are also bright enough to be working 9 - 5 white collar jobs while the boys are out burning diesel for weeks straight between breaks. More than half my co-workers in the largest corp I worked for were female; while most could work a heavy field day as well as any male, after a while in the industry many tended to focus on office duties and do less in the field. Lack of bathroom facilities on most sites (and occasionally on bald prairie to boot) made it easier for male field techs to feel comfortable on the job.  I know that several of my female co-workers worked intentionally dehydrated to minimize bathroom breaks. A big part of my income was overtime, so an office technologist focused on report writing could be payed an equal salary to me, but still have a dramatically lower gross income despite being classed in the exact same role (Tech 2, etc). However, lower management was predominantly female, with men being an exception, and project managers made equal money to most field techs without being away from the office. I'm not holding my situation up as typical, and I completely agree with equal pay for equal work and equal seniority.

There were pros and cons to both sides of the job besides money, but men in that industry were generally making more than women, and enjoying life less. Burnout or chronic injuries from heavy industry work and extended shifts was common, and most guys partied heavily when actually back home (or all the time, with some crews). I just became a workaholic to convince myself I wanted to be doing what I was doing to make the money I made. In a city like Calgary where money is freely available, $60,000/yr makes you feel lower middle class. Six figures made you feel like you were average for the population, and worthy as a male.

[Opsa]

Of course, you are right. I did mean U.S. Oil Companies. They are just the standard of greed to me right now.

You wrote: "In a city like Calgary where money is freely available, $60,000/yr makes you feel lower middle class. Six figures made you feel like you were average for the population, and worthy as a male. "

It is a similar situation here. I've never made that much money per year even in my peak, and neither has Mr. Ops even though he has worked steadily at an office job for the past thirty some years. We are sometimes embarrassed that people we are close to people who go abroad every year on vacations, but we tend to scrape something up most years and drive to the beach for a few days and that is good enough for us. We know that some people can't even do that so we just count our lucky stars. I guess we know how to enjoy life within our means.

Middle class is a stigma, but it beats going hungry, especially when children are involved. We read books and newspapers, we know we're not stupid or tacky, just not rich. It doesn't kill us not to have the latest clothes or a lot of property.

Anyway, I looked back at the original post and I see that you are talking about the move to try to encourage women to work instead of to stay home. It has been that way here in the states for a few decades. I think we have seen the social consequences of this: entitled kids that think they have a right to have stuff, and get mad and lash out at others when they don't get it. A loving Mom and/or Dad at home consistently helping them to understand otherwise might have helped them be better citizens.

I still don't quite get the point of what you are saying, though. I know, I can be thick. Are you saying that women have it better?

"As far as I'm concerned, being any gender is a drag." -Patty Smith

[Aggie]

The oil companies are still greedy up here; we just regulate them heavily enough to have them understand they need to follow the rules, so the public is pretty complacent about it provided they make decent pay. Landowner vs. oil company disputes are a big worry for the big corps, so most of the time that a spill occurs they keep paying the landowner for the use of the land and clean it up.  The industry pays against liability estimates based on their operations into an orphan well fund to take care of sites with defunct operators. There's a shortage of talent in the industry, so companies of any size need to provide decent benefits or they won't get enough employees.  Any time a boom's happening, I'd expect that an American oil worker could find good employment up here if they had the work permits in place.

It's still a very dirty business, but they make a half-ass decent job of running it for the most part. Canadians don't like industry making a mess of the place; if they're polite and tidy up after themselves we'll let them stay.  That's not to say the industries don't run the government, but in Alberta most of it was very open politics and economic warfare. The patch moved most of its drilling activity to Saskatchewan to protest royalty increases (% of production paid to the province) in Alberta, which eventually got rescinded and got the premier kicked out.

I still don't quite get the point of what you are saying, though. I know, I can be thick. Are you saying that women have it better?

Ok, I'll cut the disclaimers, weasel-words and pare this down:


What I'm saying is that the global economic elite are pushing for women who would otherwise be homemakers to be force into full-time jobs in order to make good on their investments abroad. This is being done for purportedly humanitarian reasons, and I feel that the reasons given are honourable but completely bullshit.


I don't think gender issues are actually much of a motivator, and it's predominantly a dollars-and-cents policy promoted under false pretenses. This is not a conspiracy of the elites against the underclass, it's an openly stated economic policy and is inevitably related back to economic growth.



Although gender pay equity is sometimes mentioned in the same breath, I don't believe that there's anywhere near the interest in creating policies to encourage anything more than getting women working.  Getting more people into the same job market is a matter of increasing labour supply, which in turn devalues labour, so it's more likely that additional women in the labour workforce will drive down wages for predominantly female careers, not improve them.

I personally feel that for the sake of all men, women and children, we need to be wary of the elimination of a culturally normative homemaker role.  I also feel that if one is concerned about gender equality, the discussion needs to include improving men's freedom to take a primary caregiver role and not only be focused on a woman's choice to not be a homemaker as a 'freedom'.  Men are (slowly) getting better at taking an equal role at home, but I personally feel that in the West, women's 'equality' ended up giving many of them a bad deal in which they ended up taking on the role of full-time secondary income earner PLUS primary caregiver. I think women have it worse then men by far.  Hell, they have to try and find a decent man!  

Middle class is a stigma, but it beats going hungry, especially when children are involved. We read books and newspapers, we know we're not stupid or tacky, just not rich. It doesn't kill us not to have the latest clothes or a lot of property.

'Middle Class' is a funny term wherever you go. I think in Canada, middle class is more of an aspiration than a stigma (we probably all secretly want to be 'rich fuckers', but it doesn't lower the level of general contempt for the upper class), but the scale slides depending on where you live.  My standard of living seems much richer here than when I lived in the city, but takes much, much less money. I have fruit trees and grape vines surrounding my house, which is a 5 minute walk from downtown. I don't really buy a lot of big-money stuff or latest-issue consumer goods. My biggest luxury is generally produce, and I can grow and barter for it here; I've haggled for eggs, beer, veggies, etc. I do admit to buying tools, kitchen utensils or outdoors gear if I want to do something new, but those tend to be long-term purchases which are generally almost free to use after purchase and are things I don't have, not replacements because something is getting outdated. I purchase by function, not as a status symbol. I buy for function and reliability, not status.

I had to spend much more money when I worked all the time, because my time was worth too much and never freely available. I got paid $50 tax free per field day for meals, and usually spent about $10 (I'm good at hotel microwave cooking now; the coffeemaker works in a pinch), so when I was home for a couple of days I cooked a bit but ate out frequently. Food was inexpensive compared to my time, and I could get foods I didn't know how to make. There are few restaurants in my town now that are good enough (and good enough value) to want to pay for food; if I can cook that dish better for a fraction of the cost, I will. Generally here, it's if you want it, make it.

Generally, though, I know people who make marginal pay but live amazing lifestyles here, which isn't the case in most cities. I work with more than one single mother who serves tables essentially part-time but is a homeowner and does a variety of outdoor activities with their kids. Some of the servers switch off child care duties when they're working opposite shifts. My base monthly cost of living (car insurance, rent, phone, internet, utilities, typical credit card bill incl. groceries) are maybe $100 more than my rent alone was in the big city. When I lived in the big city, my personal consumption wasn't really much higher (other than food bills), so all I did with the surplus cash was to stick it in the bank. More money in the bank didn't change my quality of life. It didn't give me much joy, other than knowing that it was there if needed and the satisfaction of seeing my 'score' go up. I advocate saving money over spending it for instant hits of joy; one thing the money did for me was to buy a few years of breathing room where I don't have to worry about saving massive amounts. I do intend to pay myself back for the sauna trailer as soon as possible.  

Anyway, I looked back at the original post and I see that you are talking about the move to try to encourage women to work instead of to stay home. It has been that way here in the states for a few decades. I think we have seen the social consequences of this: entitled kids that think they have a right to have stuff, and get mad and lash out at others when they don't get it. A loving Mom and/or Dad at home consistently helping them to understand otherwise might have helped them be better citizens.

I think that consumer debt has a lot to do with this. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to work more to buy more stuff for your kids because you feel guilty about not spending time with them. However, once a family is holding a lot of debt it's difficult for one parent to decide not to work. I'm not talking about mortgages in particular here, because rent is inevitable if you don't own; however, to get a house in the first place it helps to have two full-time incomes. This is why over-supplying children with consumer goods never made much sense to me. If children don't learn that they have to work and save up a scarce supply of money in order to receive, how will they handle being handed 'free' money when they get their first credit card?

The instant-gratification generation might just be a byproduct of a credit-sapped parental generation that is literally having money siphoned out of their pockets every month for the privilege of spending someone else's money for a month or so. Going without buying too much for a period of time because you want to save up for something is rewarding, because the delayed gratification makes for pleasant anticipation which is eventually consummated, and you can feel good about the purchase. Buying on credit hurts if you can't pay it off, because the pleasant part is long over but you still are paying more for it.*


_{*The flaky part of me considers predatory lending to be unintentional spiritual warfare against entire populations. The practical part would be very surprised if there wasn't a clear correlation between debt levels and depression.}

In countries like the US, this begs the question: Are parents making choices to work or childrear based on their ideal preferences, or based on their perceived need to consume? I look back to the 80's when I grew up as a time where there were still a majority of stay-at-home moms in our neighbourhood; however, if I look at what the standard of living was then, it occurs to me that a single-income family could probably be viable at that same standard of living or at least a modern equivalent. Same size house, TV, etc. However, technology inflation has given us a perceived higher standard of living with more toys, which cost more money to use. New tech isn't just increasing in awesomeness because people want toys; it's getting bigger and bigger because they've figured out how to monetize those toys across entire industries, not just one manufacturer per toy.

Some of the costs to society are surprising:
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-broken-iphones-billion.html

The fact that those things are shipped too fragile to live without an aftermarket case is an egregious example of how to get more cash out of an already profitable product.

[Opsa]

Okay, I grok you now. 

I think that we were basically brainwashed to think that people who stayed at home with the kids were rather stupid, namby-pamby, mealy-mouthed  mommies and of no interest to society. We were told to be glamorous career women, that that was liberating. Everyone wanted to be the sexy, stimulating, executive jet-setter woman. If you had a kid, fine, that's earthy, (not too many though- think zero population growth!) but quickly hand it off to the au pair before it poops on your Chanel outfit.

When my best friend was pregnant (and I was home with th'Opsatot) I asked her if she's be a stay-at-home Mom and her answer was a fast, loud "Oh god, no!" which startled me. It was like she hadn't even considered it. She tried the take-the-baby-to-the-office route. Having a job within their family helped, but even then some sort of reason hit her that only having the reality of caring about her child could have induced, and she decided that she'd rather focus on the kid and screw the job. She told me later that it was the best idea she ever had.

Parenting is in our nature, if we are alert enough to pay attention to it. To ignore your sweet baby's howls through a business call is to fight nature. Some people can do it if they focus on the monetary goals, or if it is out of necessity. I couldn't, and neither could my friend. So even though we get a pretty picture of what career life can be, nature presses even harder to win out no matter what other baubles are dangled in front of one. Nature is a powerful force.

If someone had shown me a photo of me wearing nice clothes and having written-off lunches and another of me trying to wash a twisting hair-pulling baby in my jammies at noon (because I hadn't gotten a minute to shower or change) while stepping around a pair of diapers thrown on the floor, I would have chosen the business lunch... before I had nature whisper in my ear. Now I'd choose the baby scene, because I remember looking at my kid's moon-wonder face as the shiny new gears in her head worked it out to say the word "bird" for the first time. No amount of glamor would be worth missing that. It will live in my heart forever. Unlike the thrill of maxing out an expense account.

So what I'm saying is, don't worry. Corporations may be crafty, but they are absolute piffle against nature. Nature is The Great Whatever, corporations are mere nonsense words.

[Aggie]

So what I'm saying is, don't worry. Corporations may be crafty, but they are absolute piffle against nature. Nature is The Great Whatever, corporations are mere nonsense words.

There's an unfortunate number of people these days who have stopped listening to nature and started listening to nonsense words.  The worry (and the reason for the thread) is that those nonsense words are being directed at places where they feel people aren't listening enough.

This is the reason I generally keep to a media fast and try to be uninformed about the world.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The thing is that for many women staying at home is not at option, either because of economical needs or because the pull of a career can be hard to avoid, and that is without any external influences. My mom had three kids but she went back to work once her maternity leave ended. Yes, money was a factor but even if it had hadn't she would've done the same as she was (and still is) very career driven.

It is a choice with good and bad aspects, but under no circumstance should be used as a excuse to discriminate on the basis of salary.

[Griffin NoName]

It is a choice with good and bad aspects, but under no circumstance should be used as a excuse to discriminate on the basis of salary.

[Aggie]

 

I think we're all in agreement on that point.

[pieces o nine]

It is a choice with good and bad aspects, but under no circumstance should be used as a excuse to discriminate on the basis of salary.

hear! hear!

Sharply dividing provider and nurturer roles along gender lines, as the human race has tended to do, ignores the reality that war, injury, physical illness, mental illness, desertion, out-sourcing jobs, natural disasters, and death interfere with the fantasy ideal.

Whenever I hear people lamenting the "loss of home-makers" my hackles rise, regardless of the intentions of the speaker, in much the same way that a sudden chill breeze raises goose flesh even if it's not really cold. That word is still too linked to 'female' to be neutral. Are there people attempting to manipulate more women into the workplace to benefit them (the manipulators, not the women)? No doubt. Will resisting that attempt in a global marketplace economy make life better for those women, their children, or the men in their culture? Almost certainly not. History shows that home-bound, impoverished women and children is symptomatic of a culture that is not thriving. Educated, contributing people of both genders, on the other hand, is present in every healthy, thriving culture.

In a global marketplace economy, humanity needs to come to grips with the real life fall-out of insisting that half the adult population is designed/intended for acquiring all necessities for living in that world, and the other half is designed/intended for bearing and raising children and maintaining the nest. Functioning ovaries do not indicate a 'good' mother any more than functioning testes indicate a 'good' father.

Opsa: I'm directing the next paragraph to you in response to your very thoughtful points. But it's not confrontational or criticizing your choice; I'm just pointing out that it's not a safe bet for the masses.

You were lucky (as was my SIL). You and your partner wanted a family and agreed to a plan that allowed one partner to remain at home. Had illness or injury taken the husband's paycheck out of the equation (or even added debilitating medical bills in the process) your intentions and plans would have gone by the wayside. You would have been forced to take on the bread-winning role; your posts in this thread and elsewhere show how aware you are of what the emotional, physical, and financial consequences would have been. My SIL would have been in real trouble, with no secondary education and no skills beyond the service sector. The observation that every stay-at-home woman with a child(ren) is one man away from welfare is still true, especially if women are not educated and prepared for paid work, regardless of their personal preferences. Life may deal them (or their husband) a surprise hand. Mr. Ops and my brother were also lucky. They wanted to be actively involved in their children's upbringing, and were able to do so.


back to general comments:
Unfortunately, many men -- still -- can not, do not, or will not lift a finger to help their wives raise their children and maintain their home. Equally unfortunately, many women -- still -- expect a very comfortable lifestyle, but can not, do not, or will not life a finger to relieve their husbands from sole financial responsibility.

There are women who are fantastic in the work world, and attempts to block their ambition by citing their gender, or to pay them less based on their gender, should be the purview of a tiny, unenlightened and ineffective minority. Some women are great at both compensated work outside the home *and* being moms, and huzzah for them. There are men who are fantastic at running a household and being a full-time parent, and attempts to block that should be the purview of the same tiny minority noted above. There are men who are great at compensated work *and* being dads, and huzzzah for them, too.

Educating children to make responsible choices regarding their own educations, career plans, cohabitation plans, and reproductive decisions without tying those choices to gender is critical to making a better world for everyone. Blocking that education based on 'traditional values' needs to stop.

*gets down from soap box*

[edit] I've been working on this for awhile, and it appears I've cross-posted with someone again.