Feminism

[PDH]

God, I can't believe I missed this thread.

Well, I am out of here!

[merithyn]

First, I've known of cases where the doctor has cleared a woman to go back to work in less than 6 weeks.  Second, men now have the choice to take paternity leave as well, and in theory can stay on paternity leave even after the woman has returned from maternity leave.  In fact, I know of 1 case in which the mother took 12 weeks maternity leave starting with the birth of the child, and as soon as that was up, the father took 12 weeks paternity leave.

Yes, some women are released to go back to work, but certainly not the majority. As for time off, that's almost all unpaid. FMLA requires that you use up your paid vacation and sick leave first, and then the rest is all unpaid. So, while in theory, they can both take time off, the reality is that in order for one or both of them to take that time, they have to give up one or both incomes. If the woman is making less, which one do you think is going to take that time?

More importantly, the 12 weeks leave that FMLA requires most employers to grant most employees isn't really going to make much difference in most people's careers.  What hurts a woman's career is when she decides to stay at home until the child is 2 or starts school or something.  At that point, most places aren't going to grant leave for that long, and she's quit her job.  There's no guarantee that she'll get it back, and even if she does, she's lost a lost of senoirity at that point.

I would argue that 12 weeks (aka three months) will make a difference to a person's career if it's every couple of years. Many employers will consider that an "unreliable" employee. Otherwise, you're absolutely right. Leaving the job for a couple of years will definitely affect a person's career. My point is that most of the time, it's the woman who makes the decision because she has the lower paying job. Financially speaking, it usually makes the most sense for her to stay home. Now, it may be her choice, which, hey, good on her. But when the financial disparity is what it is, that's not really a choice she's making as one that finances dictate for her.

Besides, choices have consequences.  You want legislation that would change that.  I seems to me that to accomplish that, you'd need legislation that both extends the amount of leave that companies are required to give, which, OK, not great for business but then again requiring the employer to grant leave at all isn't great for business and how much time they are required to grant is arbitrary anyway, but it would also seem that you would have to make it mandatory for both parents to take the maximum amount of time allowed. 

When did I ever say that I would make it mandatory for both parents to take the maximum amount of time allowed? In fact, I don't remember ever saying anything at all on what I would legislate.

The FMLA was a huge step in the right direction because it finally allows fathers the opportunity to be home when their kids are born/adopted. I think that it can go a bit further by allowing fathers short-term disability time when their kids come home, just like some women get. I think Sweden's model is ideal, to be honest, but I know that would never fly in the US. Instead, what needs to happen is that we take seriously a father's role in the early months of a child's life and make that time accessible to as many fathers as possible. I think that would do the most toward creating an egalitarian society for both men and women. That's going to require that there be some form of income while they're home, something that isn't always an option.

Still, we'd have to come up with a number.  What is it?  6 months, 1 year, 2, more?  If we're mandating that both parents have to take the max, are we going to provide everybody taking that leave an income for that period?  If yes, how are we going to pay for that? 

As I said, I wouldn't mandate that parents are required to take any time off. As for how much time off would I suggest that we allow? I think 12 weeks is fine per year. If someone wants to take additional time off, they can request it of the employer, but I don't think that the employer should be required to hold the spot for them.

Beyond that, I can see the point with regards to raising a child, but what about someone who wants to take extended periods of time off for other reasons?  Say somebody wants to go on a trip to the Holy Land, or just wants to not work and chill for a year.  Or someone wants to not work for a while to care for their elderly parents, such care maybe being required for a few months, but hey, if the old folks prove stouter than expected, maybe it's the next 20 years.  Do we make a value judgment that those choices have less merit than taking time off to have a child and deny those people leave while giving it to those who want to have a baby?  Maybe?  I don't know, but either way, it seems to lead back to the suggestion someone made earlier that you're not just demanding equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome as well.

I'm not sure how this is different from having a child. At this point, due to the financial disparity, women take on the responsibility of caring for their children and their parents because most of the time it's their income that is most easily foregone. If men and women could have partial pay through some form of paid-in insurance, it would be easier for a couple to opt for the best person to stay home, not the most expendable one.

[MadImmortalMan]

My point is that most of the time, it's the woman who makes the decision because she has the lower paying job.

Except that's not true for women of childbearing age in 2012. They make more than the men. Women in their 50s are generally not having children.

[dps]

First, I've known of cases where the doctor has cleared a woman to go back to work in less than 6 weeks.  Second, men now have the choice to take paternity leave as well, and in theory can stay on paternity leave even after the woman has returned from maternity leave.  In fact, I know of 1 case in which the mother took 12 weeks maternity leave starting with the birth of the child, and as soon as that was up, the father took 12 weeks paternity leave.

Yes, some women are released to go back to work, but certainly not the majority. As for time off, that's almost all unpaid. FMLA requires that you use up your paid vacation and sick leave first, and then the rest is all unpaid. So, while in theory, they can both take time off, the reality is that in order for one or both of them to take that time, they have to give up one or both incomes. If the woman is making less, which one do you think is going to take that time?

But, at the time the woman has her first child, why is she necessarily making less?  Wage disparity was largely the result of 2 things--female workers being concentrated in lower-paying fields, and women having less time on their current job because of having taken time off to have children.  But female workers being concentrated in lower-paying fields is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and it it's a first child, assuming that the man and woman are the same age, the time on the job disparity wouldn't have kicked in yet--so why would the woman be earning less at that point? 

More importantly, the 12 weeks leave that FMLA requires most employers to grant most employees isn't really going to make much difference in most people's careers.  What hurts a woman's career is when she decides to stay at home until the child is 2 or starts school or something.  At that point, most places aren't going to grant leave for that long, and she's quit her job.  There's no guarantee that she'll get it back, and even if she does, she's lost a lost of senoirity at that point.

I would argue that 12 weeks (aka three months) will make a difference to a person's career if it's every couple of years. Many employers will consider that an "unreliable" employee. Otherwise, you're absolutely right. Leaving the job for a couple of years will definitely affect a person's career. My point is that most of the time, it's the woman who makes the decision because she has the lower paying job. Financially speaking, it usually makes the most sense for her to stay home. Now, it may be her choice, which, hey, good on her. But when the financial disparity is what it is, that's not really a choice she's making as one that finances dictate for her.

That would depend somewhat, I think, on a couple's prior economic status.  Going with examples where the man is making more:  If the father is making $35,000/yr and the mother $30,000/yr, then it's likely that yes, the choice is, if not dictated, at least heavily influenced, by economic.  If the father is making $700,000/yr and the mother $600,000/yr, then they probably have a lot more leeway financially.

Besides, choices have consequences.  You want legislation that would change that.  I seems to me that to accomplish that, you'd need legislation that both extends the amount of leave that companies are required to give, which, OK, not great for business but then again requiring the employer to grant leave at all isn't great for business and how much time they are required to grant is arbitrary anyway, but it would also seem that you would have to make it mandatory for both parents to take the maximum amount of time allowed. 

When did I ever say that I would make it mandatory for both parents to take the maximum amount of time allowed? In fact, I don't remember ever saying anything at all on what I would legislate.

What you said was, "It will never change that the woman has to give birth, and with each birth, she will be required to stay off work for at least six weeks. If that same time off isn't extended to the husbands, how will the woman ever catch up? It's just not possible.

Basically, a woman can choose to have a child or a career. It's the same choice that's been around for decades. Without legislation, it's not going to change."

How else do you propose to allow women to catch up?  If they have to take 6 weeks off, the to equalize things, so will the men.  What else could you legislate in this case? 

And as far as choosing between family and career, well, at least women have a choice now.  For most of the 20th century, men didn't have any real choice--they had to put the job first, because they had be the provider for their family.  A man didn't have the choice to stay at home with his family and not work, unless he was independently wealthy or wanted to watch his children starve.  A woman who's forced to choose between having children or having a career gets a choice my grandfather and stepfather never had.  Their choice was either to have children but have to put the job first, or to not have children and only have the job.

The FMLA was a huge step in the right direction because it finally allows fathers the opportunity to be home when their kids are born/adopted. I think that it can go a bit further by allowing fathers short-term disability time when their kids come home, just like some women get. I think Sweden's model is ideal, to be honest, but I know that would never fly in the US. Instead, what needs to happen is that we take seriously a father's role in the early months of a child's life and make that time accessible to as many fathers as possible. I think that would do the most toward creating an egalitarian society for both men and women. That's going to require that there be some form of income while they're home, something that isn't always an option.

Still, we'd have to come up with a number.  What is it?  6 months, 1 year, 2, more?  If we're mandating that both parents have to take the max, are we going to provide everybody taking that leave an income for that period?  If yes, how are we going to pay for that? 

As I said, I wouldn't mandate that parents are required to take any time off. As for how much time off would I suggest that we allow? I think 12 weeks is fine per year. If someone wants to take additional time off, they can request it of the employer, but I don't think that the employer should be required to hold the spot for them.

Beyond that, I can see the point with regards to raising a child, but what about someone who wants to take extended periods of time off for other reasons?  Say somebody wants to go on a trip to the Holy Land, or just wants to not work and chill for a year.  Or someone wants to not work for a while to care for their elderly parents, such care maybe being required for a few months, but hey, if the old folks prove stouter than expected, maybe it's the next 20 years.  Do we make a value judgment that those choices have less merit than taking time off to have a child and deny those people leave while giving it to those who want to have a baby?  Maybe?  I don't know, but either way, it seems to lead back to the suggestion someone made earlier that you're not just demanding equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome as well.

I'm not sure how this is different from having a child. At this point, due to the financial disparity, women take on the responsibility of caring for their children and their parents because most of the time it's their income that is most easily foregone. If men and women could have partial pay through some form of paid-in insurance, it would be easier for a couple to opt for the best person to stay home, not the most expendable one.

Still haven't addressed what you would change legislatively.

[merithyn]

My point is that most of the time, it's the woman who makes the decision because she has the lower paying job.

Except that's not true for women of childbearing age in 2012. They make more than the men. Women in their 50s are generally not having children.

That's only true if they're working in similar industries. Women still, on average, choose much lower paying careers than men do. I understand that this is the "fault" of the women for the choices that they make, but it's nonetheless disingenuous to claim that there is no wage disparity.

On top of that, there's still, according to americanprogress.org, a lot more to it than even that.

More than 40 percent of the wage gap cannot be explained by occupation, work experience, race, or union membership. More than one-quarter of the wage gap is due to the different jobs that men and women hold, and about 10 percent is due to the fact that women are more likely to leave the workforce to provide unpaid care to family members. But even when controlling for gender and racial differences, 41 percent is "unexplainable by measureable factors." Even if women and men have the same background, the wage gap still exists, highlighting the fact that part of the discrepancy can be attributed to gender-based pay discrimination.

[garbon]

http://www.aauw.org/media/pressreleases/GraduatingtoaPayGap_102412.cfm

The American Association of University Women (AAUW) today released a new study showing that just one year out of college, millennial women are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to their male peers.

...

Among all full-time workers, women are paid about 77 cents for every dollar paid to men — a figure that hasn't budged in 10 years. While the disparity is narrower among young, college-educated, full-time workers, the persistent pay gap suggests that educational achievement alone will not fix the problem.

[Admiral Yi]

I've read the results of similar studies that claimed once all measurable factors were accounted for, women were actually being paid more than men.

[merithyn]

But, at the time the woman has her first child, why is she necessarily making less?  Wage disparity was largely the result of 2 things--female workers being concentrated in lower-paying fields, and women having less time on their current job because of having taken time off to have children.  But female workers being concentrated in lower-paying fields is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and it it's a first child, assuming that the man and woman are the same age, the time on the job disparity wouldn't have kicked in yet--so why would the woman be earning less at that point? 

The bolded part. Women workers are still concentrated in lower-paying fields. That may be getting better, but it certainly hasn't changed that much. (Source)

Yes, that is the women's fault for choosing lower-paying jobs. I accept that, and I accept that it wouldn't matter much whether they stayed in the job or not. They would probably still make less because an administrative assistant is never going to make as much money as an accountant or an engineer. I don't know the answer to that, or even if there is one. Maybe there won't ever be a way to "fix" things because what's going on now works for the majority of people. I really don't know.

However, so long as the majority of single-parent homes are headed by women, and they are making far less than men, we're going to be a nation in poverty. Something has to give. Maybe it's the culture. Maybe it's the way traditionally female jobs are weighed in the work force. Maybe it's making sure that women have options when a divorce happens. (I didn't. When my first marriage broke up, I'd been a stay-at-home parent for eight years. The only job I could get was as a waitress, even though I had a degree. It took me two years to finally land an office job, and that barely paid more than the waitressing gig.) Like I said, I don't pretend to have the answers. I only see that it's a major problem for not just individual families and individual women, but our nation as a whole.

That would depend somewhat, I think, on a couple's prior economic status.  Going with examples where the man is making more:  If the father is making $35,000/yr and the mother $30,000/yr, then it's likely that yes, the choice is, if not dictated, at least heavily influenced, by economic.  If the father is making $700,000/yr and the mother $600,000/yr, then they probably have a lot more leeway financially.

Okay, but when most of the population (98%) falls closer to your first example than your second, it's a major factor, isn't it? I know that $5000/year is a HUGE amount for my household, and for most of the people I know. So if Hubby makes $55,000/year and Wifey makes $30,000/year, and they can only afford for one to stay home, it's a no-brainer on who it will be.

When my twins were born, it wasn't just that I could stay home, it was that I had to stay home because I couldn't make enough money to cover childcare with any job I could get. I would have been paying to work.

What you said was, "It will never change that the woman has to give birth, and with each birth, she will be required to stay off work for at least six weeks. If that same time off isn't extended to the husbands, how will the woman ever catch up? It's just not possible.

Basically, a woman can choose to have a child or a career. It's the same choice that's been around for decades. Without legislation, it's not going to change."

How else do you propose to allow women to catch up?  If they have to take 6 weeks off, the to equalize things, so will the men.  What else could you legislate in this case? 

I think the legislation should be to make the country a more family-friendly nation. Again, on par with Sweden would be ideal for me, but I recognize that something like that is unlikely to ever happen here. Partly because we have a much larger GDP and population to consider, and partly because our imbedded gender roles wouldn't allow it. But surely we could have something more in that direction than what we have now.

And as far as choosing between family and career, well, at least women have a choice now.  For most of the 20th century, men didn't have any real choice--they had to put the job first, because they had be the provider for their family.  A man didn't have the choice to stay at home with his family and not work, unless he was independently wealthy or wanted to watch his children starve.  A woman who's forced to choose between having children or having a career gets a choice my grandfather and stepfather never had.  Their choice was either to have children but have to put the job first, or to not have children and only have the job.

That's my point. I think that that disparity is just as unfair as the salary discussion that's constantly brought out. Men get the shaft when it comes to putting family first in our country. THAT'S equally as important to me as anything else in this discussion, which is why I've brought it up repeatedly in this discussion. Without recognizing and encouraging the man's role in parenting, there will never be real and lasting change.

Still haven't addressed what you would change legislatively.

I said that I would like our laws to move in the direction of Sweden. I didn't give specifics because I don't know what would work or pass in the US. I like their model, but being realistic, I don't know how much could be brought over here.

[merithyn]

I've read the results of similar studies that claimed once all measurable factors were accounted for, women were actually being paid more than men.

Citation?

[merithyn]

My point is that most of the time, it's the woman who makes the decision because she has the lower paying job.

Except that's not true for women of childbearing age in 2012. They make more than the men. Women in their 50s are generally not having children.

You've said this twice, but I haven't seen anything that shows it to be true. Can you provide something that proves what you're claiming?

[Neil]

It makes sense to pay women less, because whenever you have more than a couple, you have to put up with their catty bullshit.

[Admiral Yi]

Citation?

I can't remember.  It was a long time ago.

[Razgovory]

Citation?

I can't remember.  It was a long time ago.

I seem to recall it being posted on this forum.

[dps]

Okay, but when most of the population (98%) falls closer to your first example than your second, it's a major factor, isn't it? I know that $5000/year is a HUGE amount for my household, and for most of the people I know. So if Hubby makes $55,000/year and Wifey makes $30,000/year, and they can only afford for one to stay home, it's a no-brainer on who it will be.

This actually goes to a problem I had with what might be called "classic" feminism (as opposed to the extreme or "feminazi" stuff, like all male-female sex being rape), as it was presented in the early 70s--it's elitist.  At the time, feminist leaders talked a lot about women's right to a fulfilling career outside the home.  I was just a kid at the time, of course, but I thought that was nuts--not the women working outside the home, but the "fulfilling" part.  I looked at my stepfather, my mom's brothers, and even my mom (who worked until my younger brother was born when I was 7).  None of them really had fulfilling careers, or for the most part, careers at all--they had jobs.  They worked as coal miners, factory workers, salesmen in furniture stores, stuff like that.  They didn't get fulfilment from those jobs, they got paychecks.  Any fulfilment they got in their lives was from their families, their hobbies and other interests, not from their jobs.  The only person even in our extended family who might have gotten much fulfilment from their job was one of my mom's cousins who was a schoolteacher--I can see how that can be fulfilling, but it's both a relatively low-paying job (even moreso then) and a traditional field for women.  Feminist leaders were talking about women's rights to pursue careers as doctors, lawyers, writers, etc.  Well, that's all well and good, but it didn't have much to do with the types of jobs that most people are going to have.  "Hey, Woman!  You've been liberated!  You have the right to be a doctor or lawyer if you want.  Oh, don't have the grades to get into medical school, or the money to go to college at all.  That's OK--you're still liberated!  You now have the right to perform backbreaking labor all day digging coal, just like your brothers.  Enjoy the next methane explosion, and the black lung disease 30 years down the road."  Should a woman have the right to seek employment as a miner, and be given the same opportunity to find a job in that field as a man?  Absolutely.  Should she get the same pay as a male miner if she does the same work and has the same amount of time on the job?  Of course.  Are most women in the workforce working because they can pursue careers that they really enjoy and get a lot satisfaction out of?  No--they're just working because they need the money, the same reason that most men are working.

My grandmothers, and probably yours, too, would have had very limited opportunities for employment if they had tried to find work outside the home--but they didn't have to work outside the home, either.  You and my wife have a lot more opportunities--but you pretty much have to work outside the home, whether you want to or not.

[Valmy]

This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

It is required to take a year off to care for children?  Damn we have been doing it wrong.  I fail to see how it makes any sense financially for anybody to be taking a year off.