Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are certain jobs, usually thought of as "blue-collar", which make a variety of demands upon a potential employee which can be hard to meet for a person with responsibilities for a developing family. The work might involve physical demands, harsh working conditions, or 24-hour on-call status. Examples are found in the oil and chemical industry, utilities, railroads and trucking, firefighting and police work.
Many of these employers hold "hiring sessions" in conjunction with local job centers, and I attended several some years back, sometimes supervised by the same recruiter; one of his favorite pitches was "If you get this job fellas, (starting pay $60-$80K), your wife won't have to work" (and of course, you won't face as much pressure for housework and child care). At another session, the Unemployment Bureau sent a contingent of women from the "welfare to work" program as possible candidates. The exchange of questions and answers was polite and civil, but it became apparent early on that the demands of the schedule were a problem.
The unfortunate fact remains that the demands placed upon the individual by many high-paying jobs in non-traditional settings are a bigger factor in the "gender gap" in pay than many people would like to admit.
This.
A lot of high paying jobs that aren't white collar requiring a Masters Degree but pay 60K to over 100K a year require people to work more then 40 hours a week. Some of these careers can be quite physically demanding. They usually are very stressful like for example if you hate driving in traffic and bad weather good luck trying to be a trucker because you are going to need it. Even if you do give it a try only around half the people in the United States with a commercial drivers license actually are commercial drivers. Or if you hate dealing with irate people who are usually also drunks and/or drug addicts good look being a police officer. It also explains why divorce rate is so high for police officers.
Men do these jobs and tend not to have issues with doing them women on the other hand shy away from a lot of these type of jobs. Women tend to choice jobs less physically and psychologically demanding as these jobs regardless of the fact they would make more working these type of "jobs for men". If you look around at something that's though of as a man's job like truck driving you will see the ratio of men to women truck drivers is usually less then 30 to 1. It's not for the industries fault it's the fact women don't want to work certain types of jobs. This is a very large contributor to why men tend to make more money then women do.
Yes, feminism at its core is about women having the ability to make the same kinds of choices about their lives that men can but "radical feminism" which is at the forefront of the modern feminists movement, wants female superiority over men. Radical feminists are more interested in revenge/payback than actual gender equality. Radical feminists typically have a strong hatred for men or anything that's masculine in nature.
Except that it's not. Radicals in any movement do not represent the vast majority of followers, they're just more vocal about it. I guarantee you that you know plenty of feminists, men and women, who go about their daily business without wearing their beliefs on their sleeves. Don't pay attention to the extremes; they're not the ones who are influential.
"courtesies originally extended by men to women that were eliminated were never extended in the first place,".... Oh, excuse me. I meant to say courtesies originally extended by men to ME. Now, contradict THAT if it means so much to correct me for my innocuous post.
That doesn't even make sense. What was so vastly different 10 or 15 or 5 years ago? What happened in that time period that all the men who opened your car door then have now stopped? It's not like feminism has just suddenly gotten pervasive in that time period. If anything, its' influence has been waning since the peak of its' power in the 70s. So why did the men only recently stop being courteous to you?
Men do still extend courtesies to me, no more and no less than they did 20 years ago. I do think in general, people are becoming less courteous, but I would extend that to women and children as well as men, and IMO it has much more to do with our disconnecting from each other as technology advances than to feminism.
A lot of high paying jobs that aren't white collar requiring a Masters Degree but pay 60K to over 100K a year require people to work more then 40 hours a week. Some of these careers can be quite physically demanding. They usually are very stressful like for example if you hate driving in traffic and bad weather good luck trying to be a trucker because you are going to need it. Even if you do give it a try only around half the people in the United States with a commercial drivers license actually are commercial drivers. Or if you hate dealing with irate people who are usually also drunks and/or drug addicts good look being a police officer. It also explains why divorce rate is so high for police officers.
Men do these jobs and tend not to have issues with doing them women on the other hand shy away from a lot of these type of jobs. Women tend to choice jobs less physically and psychologically demanding as these jobs regardless of the fact they would make more working these type of "jobs for men". If you look around at something that's though of as a man's job like truck driving you will see the ratio of men to women truck drivers is usually less then 30 to 1. It's not for the industries fault it's the fact women don't want to work certain types of jobs. This is a very large contributor to why men tend to make more money then women do.
I agree with 2nd trick ops post but I think there is more to it than women don't want to work certain type jobs. There are indeed jobs that require physical strength and most women are not capable of preforming certain jobs requiring such (I don't agree driving a truck is one of them) but there are women in most every career field. One of the biggest factors in women not taking jobs requiring long hours and/or travel is children. Men have less issues because they are not the ones that get pregnant requiring time off work and physical restrictions. They are not the ones generally making themselves available for issues that arise in raising children. Its just the way it is. Thanks to feminism women that are able to work demanding jobs and long hours have the freedom to do so.
Obviously there are powerful female CEOs and ruthless leaders, but for the other 99% of women has feminism been a hindrance to happiness?
I'm seeing a number of single-childless-career-minded baby boomer women really terrified in the face of their waning years. They may have one elderly parent left, they may have a niece or nephew that pays attention to them every couple of years and that is about it. The corporation they were dedicated to no longer wants them, they have no family and men ignore them ... so they are kind of stuck in a very lonely purgatory. Meanwhile their peers are celebrating their grandchildren.
************************************
MODERATOR NOTE: Please read post #18 before you post.
************************************
To say the least!
Quote:
Feminism an historic failure?
The worst thing that came out of this is the amount of NON-parented children, because "mommy must go work for someone else who may or may not offer her a pension at the end of her services"!
Their "loneliness" is the least of our problems. I have zero sympathy as far as that goes. That was their choice.
The worst thing that came out of this is the amount of NON-parented children, because "mommy must go work for someone else who may or may not offer her a pension at the end of her services"!
Their "loneliness" is the least of our problems. I have zero sympathy as far as that goes. That was their choice.
Not all women had children or desired to. What about single, divorced, widowed women, women whose husbands can no longer work? Should they be denied equal employment opportunities because some kids go to daycare.
You are not considering the fact that even before feminism many married women worked. They left their children with relatives, older siblings or took them to work with them. Do you realize in the day before feminism if a woman lost her husband it was nearly impossible for her to support the children so kids would be farmed out, sent to different relatives if they would have them or institutions. How is that for non-parenting.
During WWII when women were asked to fill positions left when men went off to war, no one gave a second thought about those children left non-parented or even who was looking out for them while mommy was helping the country.
The worst thing that came out of this is the amount of NON-parented children, because "mommy must go work for someone else who may or may not offer her a pension at the end of her services"!
Except that in this hypothetical two-parent family, the child(ren) has not one, but two parents. Why should the parenting responsibility fall solely on one person? Doesn't seem quite fair that a father who works 12-hour days is patted on the back for being a good provider, whereas a mother who needs or chooses to work to support her family gets criticized for being neglectful.
Last edited by fleetiebelle; 03-25-2015 at 08:58 AM..
Except that in this hypothetical two-parent family, the child(ren) has not one, but two parents. Why should the parenting responsibility fall solely on one person?
Because the MORE you spread yourself thin, the less productive you will be.
So, whomever is better at disciplining, educating, and teaching manners and common sense should stay home and teach it.
It is a two parent family, and it is also a team, and the team members needs to bring to the table what they're best at.
Some can be best at making more money, while others are best at EDUCATING. When both are away making money, and no one is home educating is when all sorts of problems arise.
I don't want my kids educated by a minimum wage daycare worker for example.
Don't have kids if you plan on not being available to educate them. There is school education, and then there is life education and no one but the parents should be in charge of the later one.
It IS THAT simple!
Last edited by Oldhag1; 03-25-2015 at 06:25 PM..
Reason: Removed icon
Because the MORE you spread yourself thin, the less productive you will be.
So, whomever is better at disciplining, educating, and teaching manners and common sense should stay home and teach it.
It is a two parent family, and it is also a team, and the team members needs to bring to the table what they're best at.
Some can be best at making more money, while others are best at EDUCATING. When both are away making money, and no one is home educating is when all sorts of problems arise.
I don't want my kids educated by a minimum wage daycare worker for example.
Don't have kids if you plan on not being available to educate them. There is school education, and then there is life education and no one but the parents should be in charge of the later one.
It IS THAT simple!
Again you make great assumptions. If work and parenting are shared no one is spreading themselves too thin and a couple is working as a team. What if it is the father who is better at rearing the children. Pre feminisms mantra "wait till you father gets home" would indicate it was the father who was looked upon to discipline and teach the children manners. Common sense is not really something that can be taught. Mothers on the other hand were the nurtures, to feed, clean up after, wipe away tears and fix booboos.
I don't know what educating, discipline and manners need taught to an infant. The basics cant be taught young children at home. Its not as though the time spent at home with family is for naught. I notice you said parents should be in charge of life education. Apparently you feel the father part of the equation is capable of teaching these life lessons in the evenings after work and before bedtime yet for some reason the mother part needs to be with the child 24/7. By age 5 children are required to attend a public or private school anyway. To my knowledge there are no studies that consistently indicate children who attended daycare are any different, socially, behaviorally or intellectually than those who dont.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 03-25-2015 at 06:25 PM..
Reason: Edited quote
Again you make great assumptions. If work and parenting are shared no one is spreading themselves too thin and a couple is working as a team. What if it is the father who is better at rearing the children. Pre feminisms mantra "wait till you father gets home" would indicate it was the father who was looked upon to discipline and teach the children manners. Common sense is not really something that can be taught. Mothers on the other hand were the nurtures, to feed, clean up after, wipe away tears and fix booboos.
I don't know what educating, discipline and manners need taught to an infant. The basics cant be taught young children at home. Its not as though the time spent at home with family is for naught. I notice you said parents should be in charge of life education. Apparently you feel the father part of the equation is capable of teaching these life lessons in the evenings after work and before bedtime yet for some reason the mother part needs to be with the child 24/7. By age 5 children are required to attend a public or private school anyway. To my knowledge there are no studies that consistently indicate children who attended daycare are any different, socially, behaviorally or intellectually than those who dont.
Quote:
"Common sense cannot be taught"?
Are you serious? Washing hands is common sense, cleaning up after yourself is common sense, doing chores is common sense because i am not raising children who will expect to have maids etc., I don't clean after them, they've been cleaning after themselves ever since they could walk. I think your idea of what "mom's" do or should do is skewed. I am not here to kiss the booboo's, I am here to teach them how NOT to get any, or get as less of them as possible. I don't think we're talking about the same things here.
I didn't say that mom's have to be with their kids 24/7. Of course they go to school and that's where they learn about math, science, reading, writing (if they didn't start at home with their moms already), physics, biology etc., but at home they learn from their parents how to behave in society. How to not interrupt two people talking, which is also common sense/manners, how to behave in a store, library, theater etc, these are not things that are supposed to be taught by math teachers.
The father figure is rarely interested in offering any insights. They are all tired regardless of working from home or not and most are not active participants in a child upbringing. Some think that "because they work" that is the ONLY way they should contribute to their families. Also skewed.
MEN as a whole are not organized creatures, (very few are), they usually place NO value on keeping an environment clean, peaceful, and neat, and so they can't teach a kid how to be neat if they're not. Common sense can be taught, but someone would have had to be taught that at their end first. If this parent' parent's didn't teach them, they won't know how to teach it to their children. That's why we now have several generations of VERY rude people. Just look at the drivers around your city. Look at other employees and how they act, look at how many people act fake, and once in their own bubble their real selves show up and they're scary. All these things wouldn't happen if parents took the time to educate their children and teach them common sense at an early age. Like say around 2 , 3...kids are not stupid, they can learn all sorts of things if they are taught. If they're ignored their instincts to survive would be awakened, and that is usually what leads to bad behaviors. Look at bully's in schools...If someone talked to or cared for these children they wouldn't resort to bully others. Same goes for those who are bullied! If their moms would have taught them how to dress appropriately, they wouldn't be bullied. My kids math teacher is not the one who will teach them how to dress appropriately with the occasion. I have to teach them that. I teach them what goes with what and what doesn't. A lot of school bullying would be curbed if these children would dress appropriately. And so on, and on, and on, this could take a while to list all the things that kids should be taught at HOME.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
