Gender Equality and Economic Growth

[Griffin NoName]

^ what she said.

Especially the one man away from welfare.

I have very mixed feelings about my d-i-ls' choices to stay at home. (maybe influenced by the fact I was a single mother so would have had to work, even if I didn't want to, but actually I worked because I did want to so that was lucky and fitted with the fact I had to).

One of them stated explicitly - I am not going to work. Sure, she is entitled to choice. Maybe I should be pleased my grandchild gets all that extra mother attention. Actually my observation is she gets much too much attention to be good for her. Being me, I don't really understand why anyone would not want some interest outside the domestic.

The other was working, but couldn't get a job in Canada when my son was posted there. Now back here, she is still is not working, but that's ok with me as I think the children need a bit of stability having been shuttled around the world. And I think she will go back to work sometime.

This is all personal of course rather than the political. I think all women regardless of partner status should be supported to stay at home while childrren are small, if that's their choice, but expected to work as the children get older (ie. no free handouts). Quite what age that should be I cannot decide.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Interesting discussion.   I have nothing useful to add, but I am enjoying the discussion vicariously.

[Opsa]

I do not think that women who have children should be supported by the government unless they need the help.

In spite of the fact that I stayed home with my child, after the baby years I did go back to freelance art work, which is based at home but is work nonetheless and I hope would be considered to be an "interest outside the domestic".

I am still a freelance artist and have had very challenging projects which are based from my home, though not all of them have been for pay- as was my last gig as a children's theater director and producer.  If anyone would care to tell me that I was freeloading, I would like to set them straight. It was a hell of a lot of work, socially important to our community, and creatively fulfilling in its own way.

I am sorry (but not shocked) to hear that some people do not consider home-making and child rearing as a career. Child-rearing is temporary, but then so are many jobs I can think of. Each person can do it the way they feel they can manage best. I don't believe that one way is better than the others.

[Griffin NoName]

I do not think that women who have children should be supported by the government unless they need the help.

Nor do I.

What I said was influenced by ghastly rubbish politics going on in UK about working parents. etc etc. - the govt. is taking all sorts of benefits away from people such that they literally cannot afford to work - completely stupid. They say they are providing enough nursery places at low cost but they are not. So people can't afford childcare. It hits single parents hard. (But then the gossip goes that single parents only have children to get benefits.). The number of working people livng in poverty has risen sharply. Obviously if one partner earns enough for the family, govt. subsidy should not occur. Currently the "enough" is b**ll*cks for large numbers of people.

[Opsa]

I get you now. It was hard to see the irony before, and I was feeling defensive about my choice to stay home. In my case, going for a job would have just gone to pay a caregiver, so I thought we'd save the caregiver expense if I just did it myself. Plus, I was used to working from home and knew that I could pick up jobs to help with general expenses when the baby got older.

I dunno, maybe I'm just feeling extra defensive because I gotta see my sisters (one of which is childless and rather vocal about it) this weekend. Bleh!

Still love you siblings, though!

[pieces o nine]

I do not think that women who have children should be supported by the government unless they need the help.

Agree. I think I offended you with my post anyway, and I was really not trying to do that. Let me try again, and if still grates, I sincerely apologize and will let this drop.

"Need" can be flexible: was a child born with physical or developmental disabilities that require full-time care? Then help may well be needed, for medical expenses, for education/life skills training adapted to the child's needs and abilities, and to give the parents regular relief for their individual physical & mental well-being, for the health of the marriage, and to give proper attention to any other children in the family.

Catastrophes also create real needs. A civilized society should not look down its nose to help its citizens recover from them, retrain them to move in new directions, or care for those left unable to compete in the workplace or care for themselves.

In spite of the fact that I stayed home with my child, after the baby years I did go back to freelance art work, which is based at home but is work nonetheless and I hope would be considered to be an "interest outside the domestic".

...If anyone would care to tell me that I was freeloading, I would like to set them straight.

I'm glad. You get to enjoy a family and also stretch your mind and talents beyond your home. You will not be left feeling adrift when the Opsalette is launched; you've modelled many options for her to consider, and you'll continue to model a healthy life as she enters the work world and/or starts a family. Anyone sneering at your trade or what you've given to your community it ignorant.

I am truly bewildered, though, by that subset of women who want *nothing* except to pop out baby after baby after baby after baby after baby until either uterine prolapse or menopause puts a stop to it, and then go around bemoaning that they feel useless. What kind of man feels most secure around a woman whose life is so constricted?    

I am sorry (but not shocked) to hear that some people do not consider home-making and child rearing as a career. Child-rearing is temporary, but then so are many jobs I can think of. Each person can do it the way they feel they can manage best. I don't believe that one way is better than the others.

I see it as a calling, not as a career. Not everyone gets neatly paired off. Not all pairings last. Not everyone can have children, and not everyone who has them is fit to take care of them. That by no means diminishes the value of a family; without people dedicated to rearing children no society can grow or flourish, either.

But I don't think of 'home maker' as a career because it isn't compensated labor with contribution towards health insurance or future retirement benefits. The first point quoted here was that the government should not support [women] for having children; this necessitates someone else to do so. If that is the father, he's not 'paying' her out of his wages to raise their children or keep their home. In theory she's not keeping her skills and resume up-to-date, and networking to 'quit' and go to work in a bigger house or for a nicer husband at any time if a better offer is extended, and he isn't keeping his eyes open to 'fire' and 'replace' her as soon as a better qualified (or cheaper!) candidate comes along. Both those things do happen, of course, but society doesn't shrug them off as sensible career or business decisions. It's seen as selfishness, immaturity, or betrayal of trust.

A stay-at-home mother benefits from the husband's pay, but is unemployed in the eyes of the law and the economic system. If they mutually agree that she will stay home to provide full-time care for children until they reach [ x ] age, she is trusting him with a lot,  and the statistics are not encouraging. Even if the partnership is not ended through divorce or desertion, either party can develop a serious illness, receive a debilitating injury, or die. That's not an argument against marriage or children, but it is a factor to consider seriously before either party agrees to such a situation.

That leads back to why I waded into this discussion. I've battled with recurrent depression for as long as I can remember; the thought of being confined to a house with small children, perhaps for years on end, in complete dependence on a man, caused me existential horror. Had a potential mate indicated a serious interest in practical, hands-on help in that task, and a serious understanding that I would also need outside work in order to feel ... safe and calm ... I would have considered it. I also don't understand men who are willing to miss out on the experience of being in a family, in order to be saddled with all the financial responsibility for having one. I have other friends with other reasons for not wanting (or being able) to have children; none of us thinks all women must pursue full-time careers all their lives anymore than we think all women must be full-time wives and mothers all their lives. Each has to do what is right for her, with the agreement of her partner if she has one. If it's considered aberrant for one choice or the other, it's not really a choice, for either men or women.

So long as 'home-maker' remains synonymous with 'female' it will touch a raw nerve on all sides. When I was in college, I as met on all sides with casual assumptions that I was only there until I bagged a husband. Since I should not be considered a serious student, there was pressure to not 'take a place away from a male student'. Really? I mentioned earlier the insulting, patronizing questions during interviews and performance evaluations, under the assumption that I would surely be marrying and reproducing sooner or later, thus freeing up my job for either another temporary female, or a 'serious' male candidate with a family to support. I've seen many, many women attempting to re-enter the workplace later in life, and the educational, accrued experience, and cultural hurdles can be daunting These women can also be marginalized because it's expected that they will take time off to care for sick family members (children or parents) because their husbands have built careers which should not be jeopordized to do so. It just reinforces -- wrongly -- a perception that women are not serious employees in some professions.

When I hear of men routinely being asked how they plan to care for their children if they are chosen for a position which requires regular travel or extensive overtime, I will believe that 'home maker' is an equal opportunity calling. Aggie's thoughts about shorter work-weeks for everyone is one of the possibilities to  demonstrate that raising children is so important that both parents need to be hands-on participants. And human beings are inherently valuable enough that we cannot afford to continue marginalizing half of the brain power, creativity, and accomplishment.

Ovaries don't mean 'good mothers'. Testes don't mean 'good fathers'. Ability to contribute meaningfully in a given field is not determined by gender, or by whether or not someone has reproduced. Equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender or dependents.

[Griffin NoName]

Cameron has just announced a tax break of £1000 for married people and those in civil partnerships.

Many more women are single than men, and many more single parents are women than men, and everything has to be paid for out of a single income - ie. not 2 incomes (or 1 income high enough to support the other person).  So these people (including me) are poorer to start with.

I'm hopping mad.

Being financially penalised for not (being able to if wanted) finding a partner is plain cruel. Couples get enough financial breaks (like paying less for hotel rooms) (meat/meals being packaged for 2) as it is.

[Aggie]

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.

Very good point on education.  My first-world bias has neglected the very important point that homemaking often means no education, and pregnancy at a young age.  Families here at this point in time are often started later in life than previous generations, so homemaking doesn't preclude an education and a career.  Owning a house these days can require both partners to have got educated, worked a decent job, and save money prior to starting a family, and there's been a culture shift to accommodate that. To me, the pre-school years are the most important years to have a full-time parental presence; although this can mean quite a few years away from a career if there are multiple children, it's not a total death sentence for a career. However, in a tight job market or a technology-based career it can mean a serious disadvantage when re-entering the workplace.

I am truly bewildered, though, by that subset of women who want *nothing* except to pop out baby after baby after baby after baby after baby until either uterine prolapse or menopause puts a stop to it, and then go around bemoaning that they feel useless. What kind of man feels most secure around a woman whose life is so constricted?   

Search me....  I like my women independent, intelligent, self-confident and talented.

When I hear of men routinely being asked how they plan to care for their children if they are chosen for a position which requires regular travel or extensive overtime, I will believe that 'home maker' is an equal opportunity calling. Aggie's thoughts about shorter work-weeks for everyone is one of the possibilities to  demonstrate that raising children is so important that both parents need to be hands-on participants. And human beings are inherently valuable enough that we cannot afford to continue marginalizing half of the brain power, creativity, and accomplishment.

I'll believe that 'home maker' is an equal opportunity calling when consensus culture stops looking at men as dicks with wallets attached.  The flip side of this, from the male perspective, is that we are very often judged largely on our incomes.

I disagree with it, but some of the old-school attitude about men needing a larger income to support their families (as you mentioned in an earlier post) may in reality be more along the lines of men needing a larger income to attract a good woman.  Since I dropped out of high-income work and am back to part-time in the service industry, I've felt like I need to over-develop myself as a human being in order to remain attractive. Having a past record of high-paying work and a bit stashed in the bank helps (because I can always go back to a real job if necessary), but I do worry that despite being a relatively attractive mate, financially savvy women will write me off based on my income and job. Tell me honestly that women don't look at a man's earning potential as a major factor in attractiveness, and I'll attempt to believe you.

Men with big money don't need to be good people to attract mates; otoh, they tend to get what they deserve in terms of partners.

Cameron has just announced a tax break of £1000 for married people and those in civil partnerships.

Many more women are single than men, and many more single parents are women than men, and everything has to be paid for out of a single income - ie. not 2 incomes (or 1 income high enough to support the other person).  So these people (including me) are poorer to start with.

Are biological fathers not on the hook for child support? Our government will (with a bit of prodding) track them down and garnish their wages if they're not making child support payments. Of course, if one's child is fathered by a chronically unemployed man, I suppose that makes it more difficult. I do hold women accountable for who they bring a child into this world with, though. That's a decision that under normal circumstances (assuming it's consented to) requires some care and attention.

[Opsa]

First of all- don't worry, I am not offended! This is a good discussion. I hope you are not offended by my contributions. (Especially Aggie when he reads what I wrote next.)

Second of all- whoa there Aggie, you hold women accountable for the sperm donor? Oooh baby, I know you don't mean that!

Women are all ready held accountable all ready by nature. Women have to pay the price of getting pregnant, not men. Women pay that price whether or not they meant to get pregnant. They pay it if they are raped. They must put up with nine months of hormonal dice-rolling (nausea, extra weight, mood swings) followed by child-birth (I won' even go into that) followed by either 18 years or so of child-rearing (that is, if the kid winds up fairly normal). Or the heartbreak of adoption. Or in some countries they have the option of abortion, which is not pretty and can cause extreme guilt and/or health risks.

And the guy that impregnated her gets ....
a) pride of fatherhood
b) new responsibility and connection with the greater world
c) a guilt trip
d) a chance to run away from it
(all optional)

I will not speak for all women, but I did not look at a Mr. Ops' earning potential as a major factor in attractiveness. I was attracted to him because he was quizzical, intelligent, unique, funny and had a temperament similar to mine (not always good, but understandable to me, anyway). Later I found out he had a decent job that he had stayed in for three years, and at that time it seemed like a long time to me. I would say it was the staying power that was more attractive than what he was making (which wasn't a whole lot).

On the other hand I had a guy chase me for years who was also intelligent, funny, and unique, plus he came from a wealthy family and had inherited a home. (Honestly, I don't know why he chased me as I was never such a hot catch, myself.) The wealth was not a plus. It made me feel uneasy. I felt that the only reason he chased me for so long was because he couldn't get me. It felt like he was just after conquests, and that was not good enough for me.

Back to motherhood though-

I had th'Opsalette at age forty, after having a successful career as a freelance artist and animator. At that point the two of us had had time to live together for over ten years, single, then married, and we felt established as a family and wanted to share our home with a child. It was surprising to us when this urge occurred, as we had had no plans for children when we got married. It was one of those nature things.

Now, as th'Olette is in high school, we are thinking more about retirement than about after-child careers. In any case any retirement I would have would include work, since I like to do creative things. I was an older Mom and I'll be an older empty-nester. But I remember pre-nest days and they were good too, so I'm not dreading it as much as someone who had known nothing else during most of her adult years.

So in conclusion (pause, take a sip of water, lean forward   ), it seems that everyone is an individual and we probably would do well not to lump all mothers or fathers or non-parents into too generalized groups. We each have our own story, and our own reasons for going ahead as we have. No one way is better than the others. We just are, just doing as well as we can.

[Griffin NoName]

Amen to that

[Aggie]

Second of all- whoa there Aggie, you hold women accountable for the sperm donor? Oooh baby, I know you don't mean that!

Women are all ready held accountable all ready by nature. Women have to pay the price of getting pregnant, not men. Women pay that price whether or not they meant to get pregnant. They pay it if they are raped. They must put up with nine months of hormonal dice-rolling (nausea, extra weight, mood swings) followed by child-birth (I won' even go into that) followed by either 18 years or so of child-rearing (that is, if the kid winds up fairly normal). Or the heartbreak of adoption. Or in some countries they have the option of abortion, which is not pretty and can cause extreme guilt and/or health risks.

And the guy that impregnated her gets ....
a) pride of fatherhood
b) new responsibility and connection with the greater world
c) a guilt trip
d) a chance to run away from it
(all optional)

I'm not sure I qualified my statement carefully enough, as I was trying to post briefly.  

To clarify, if a woman is freely choosing to have a child with a man, I do hold her highly accountable for the choice of the man she is having a child with.

I am excluding unintended pregnancies of any sort (especially rape) from this statement, although I hold both parties accountable for unintended pregnancies resulting from consensual sex.  It's the man's responsibility too, which is why I'm pro-condom regardless of whether a woman is on birth control.  I'm not knocking the pill; it's value lies in giving women direct control over contraception, but as a man I don't like relying on something that is easily forgotten and that I have no control over.  Both partners are involved in condom use, which is a positive. It's been a non-issue in my sex life as all my partners have preferred not put the extra hormones in their body.

I do not hold women accountable for a biological father's behaviour following conception, but do not have much sympathy if the man's been a total shithead prior to conception and then continues that pattern after the fact. Half of the DNA of one's children comes from the father, so why would you want to create life with a shithead? My patience gets a little short with women who rip on the (absent) father of their child, IF it becomes apparent that little better was to be expected from the guy in the first place.  Where the male half of the equation was initially eager to be a father and vowed to be around for the long haul, then walked out and abandoned the family, I have full sympathy for the mother and nothing but contempt for the guy.  

The flip side applies to guys, too; my rule of thumb tends to be that I won't have sex with a woman that I would not be willing to co-parent with (in one form or another; the interpersonal relationship could change but the fact of parenthood will not) if an unintended pregnancy happened.  I've been around for a couple of pregnancy tests due to late periods, and I was prepared to take responsibility for a positive result. The biggest deal-breaker for me in relationships is if/when I come to the realization I wouldn't want my current partner to be the mother of my children.

IMHO, the bottom line for women should always be: Your body, your choice.  I support all aspects of that, whether it applies to the choice of having children or not, the timing of pregnancies, termination of pregnancies and especially for consenting to sex or withdrawing consent at any point. There are always consequences to choices, however, and I don't feel that poor pre-conception choices of partner based on other criteria of attractiveness (besides suitability as a parent and long-term partner) should be any different. This applies equally to men and women; I've also heard plenty of men complain about the mother of their children and what a (insert expletive here) she is.  Presuming there hasn't been a major personality shift following the initial decision to conceive, you are responsible for who you choose to breed with.  If you've been dating a 'bad boy' or 'bad girl' because you find them exciting and sexy, don't expect them to morph into a good parent just because they consent to starting a life with you.*

_{*no offense to bad boys and girls; there are lots of very good parents that maintain a countercultural image and might get labelled as such.  I know some badasses that are great parents, and some that are straight-up deadbeat dads.}

I am not offended by the term 'sperm donor', but I do find the attitude that men are no more than that highly distasteful and sexist.  It's like the 'dick with a wallet' view only denigrating the male further until we're only valued for our gametes.  I'm assuming that you are not referring to actual sperm donors, who in Canada are the cream of the crop based on the very stringent criteria they are put through. If you treat/refer to men as nothing more than sperm donors, why would you expect them to have any more responsibility than a vial of frozen gametes?

[Griffin NoName]

Aggie, humbly, if only everyone was as principled as you. And if onlly one did not discover the true nature of the partner after the event.

[Aggie]

Thank you, and apologies for often approaching matters on a philosophical and highly idealized basis which may not apply to most people in the real world.  I tend to create my own reality and am sometimes out of touch with the broader situation. I get frustrated that actively trying to be a decent person lowers my intra-gender status in the eyes of some men; OTOH, I get along very well with women and being surrounded by women doesn't exactly hurt one's 'guy cred'. 

Men in general need some work, IMHO, and it's my feeling that improving life for women in subsequent generations means improving the way we raise our men NOW, and taking a good hard look at the deep-set assumptions and attitudes held by both genders.  See the parallel thread in the Reef; I posted a fair bit over their on the subject.

[Griffin NoName]

Aggie, you are in the real world.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

To clarify, if a woman is freely choosing to have a child with a man, I do hold her highly accountable for the choice of the man she is having a child with.

Amen, brother!!

The gods know how many psychopaths keep their genes in the pool because of that.