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.
Really, why not.
The original article this thread is based on and more importantly the study the article is loosely based on explores inequities in global wealth. One aspect is lost wealth due to women's unearned income. That women not in the workforce but providing future workers benefits most those at the high end of the wealth spectrum. Women much more so than me end up being the one out of the workforce or much reduced production due to the unpaid work of caring for children.
The care involved on a daily 24/7 365 basis is reason for the reduced paid work.
The posts was comparing that unpaid work to that which men generally do, like mowing the lawn, changing oil in the car, shoveling snow, home improvements.
Yes we all do unpaid work around our homes and in caring for our children but who is it that generally exits that full time job due to those responsibilities?
What happened with you and your wife after 6 months?
I still fail to see how a comment stating that men also do unpaid work is in anyway denying the existence of the points you make.
I work part time from home now, and consider it a privilege. Money most certainly cannot buy happiness.
I still fail to see how a comment stating that men also do unpaid work is in anyway denying the existence of the points you make.
I work part time from home now, and consider it a privilege. Money most certainly cannot buy happiness.
Because your looking at this as if anyone is actually suggesting women get paid for the unpaid work they do and that was is not intent of the study or even suggested by the study or the terrible article by USA Today.
The point is basically that child rearing which inclines/forces women to opt out of the workforce reduces global wealth for those women and families and basically benefits those at the top end of the wealth ladder and contributes to wealth inequity. This is just one contributing factor.
Its not hard if you actually read the article and the study.
Other studies and article go on to examine the repercussions of this which boils down basically to the declining fertility rate.
My point to the comments of the poster was that their "unpaid work" does not incline them or force them to opt out of the workforce thus not affecting the global wealth inequity or declining fertility rate.
A woman has a right to choose to have kids right? So, what's the problem?
According to some the declining fertility rate. Women are choosing to forgo parenthood or reduce the number of children they are willing to produce.
Personally, I don't see it as a bad thing. Just commenting on the actual intent of the study. For some reason, perhaps posters dont bother to actually read the linked articles and studies, people think it is about actually being paid for one's choices.
Because your looking at this as if anyone is actually suggesting women get paid for the unpaid work they do and that was is not intent of the study or even suggested by the study or the terrible article by USA Today.
The point is basically that child rearing which inclines/forces women to opt out of the workforce reduces global wealth for those women and families and basically benefits those at the top end of the wealth ladder and contributes to wealth inequity. This is just one contributing factor.
Its not hard if you actually read the article and the study.
Other studies and article go on to examine the repercussions of this which boils down basically to the declining fertility rate.
My point to the comments of the poster was that their "unpaid work" does not incline them or force them to opt out of the workforce thus not affecting the global wealth inequity or declining fertility rate.
I see those comments as a need for acknowledgment of the labors of men, not a demand they get paid for it.
Because your looking at this as if anyone is actually suggesting women get paid for the unpaid work they do and that was is not intent of the study or even suggested by the study or the terrible article by USA Today.
The point is basically that child rearing which inclines/forces women to opt out of the workforce reduces global wealth for those women and families and basically benefits those at the top end of the wealth ladder and contributes to wealth inequity. This is just one contributing factor.
Its not hard if you actually read the article and the study.
Other studies and article go on to examine the repercussions of this which boils down basically to the declining fertility rate.
My point to the comments of the poster was that their "unpaid work" does not incline them or force them to opt out of the workforce thus not affecting the global wealth inequity or declining fertility rate.
Only if married people keep separate financials and agree to ignore each others financial needs. And if that were the case, why be married?
The new feminists need to knock off this type of garbage thinking. Their idiotic hijacking of "women's rights" seems to be dwindling, thankfully.
If you want a job, then go work. If you want to stay home, stay home. Stop fighting about it, and demanding that everyone kowtow to your choice. It's just another version of the mommy wars. Yay new feminism. Pit women against each other due to financial worth. Continue to tell them being a mom is crap and they are idiots if they have kids ... because ... "career." Congrats.
I see those comments as a need for acknowledgment of the labors of men, not a demand they get paid for it.
Both men and women, husbands/wives, mothers/fathers labor whether in the workplace or at home or both.
The article was not about men's labors.
It was about the fact that it is women who give up (majority) paying jobs in order to do the unpaid labors of child rearing. That the majority of unpaid labor is done by women.
You want to acknowledge mens unpaid labor and how it affects wealth and fertility rates, great, start a thread.
Only if married people keep separate financials and agree to ignore each others financial needs. And if that were the case, why be married?
The new feminists need to knock off this type of garbage thinking. Their idiotic hijacking of "women's rights" seems to be dwindling, thankfully.
If you want a job, then go work. If you want to stay home, stay home. Stop fighting about it, and demanding that everyone kowtow to your choice. It's just another version of the mommy wars. Yay new feminism. Pit women against each other due to financial worth. Continue to tell them being a mom is crap and they are idiots if they have kids ... because ... "career." Congrats.
Well no one is doing that.
The fact remains that more women are joining the workforce, more women are forgoing childbearing and homemaking and the decrease in fertility is a reflection of that.
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.
