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.
Women's life expectancy is LONGER than men (by years).
Men die on the job at a rate 10 times that of women.
Men have more addiction issues than women (by a long shot)
Men commit suicide more often than women (by a long shot).
More women have health coverage than men.
I mean, if there is inequality (and it appears there is), then it isn't women who are getting the short end of the stick.
Regarding stay-at-home moms...I can literally guarantee you that women that live that life, probably would rather be doing that than cleaning toilets for a living. Wanna bet?
What has any of that got to do with the topic. Which is giving mothers a subsidy to encourage them to have children as women are leaving the workforce to be mothers often due to no affordable daycare or women are choosing not to have children due to job loss and lack of affordable daycare. The bottom line being society "needs" new blood but does not recognize the short term and long term financial disadvantage put on mothers to bear and raise children, "unnoticed and unpaid time" to provide society with new blood.
Men dont live as long (generally) due to biology and life style.
Men die on the job more because they seek the higher paying jobs that are more dangerous. Even if women sought those jobs, being a mother could prevent it. 100% more women die due to dangers of pregnancy and childbirth than men.
Men are less likely to seek medical (emotional, mental) help for depression, anxiety, addiction
More women have health care coverage in the low income range because its pregnancy related coverage.
When are women gonna realize they're their on worst enemies, at times.
I wonder if they are not beginning to. The birth rate is decreasing as women are deciding not to go down that hole by having children. Women are having fewer children and at a more advanced age. This benefits them.
What has any of that got to do with the topic. Which is giving mothers a subsidy to encourage them to have children as women are leaving the workforce to be mothers often due to no affordable daycare or women are choosing not to have children due to job loss and lack of affordable daycare. The bottom line being society "needs" new blood but does not recognize the short term and long term financial disadvantage put on mothers to bear and raise children, "unnoticed and unpaid time" to provide society with new blood.
Men dont live as long (generally) due to biology and life style.
Men die on the job more because they seek the higher paying jobs that are more dangerous. Even if women sought those jobs, being a mother could prevent it. 100% more women die due to dangers of pregnancy and childbirth than men.
Men are less likely to seek medical (emotional, mental) help for depression, anxiety, addiction
More women have health care coverage in the low income range because its pregnancy related coverage.
And nearly 100% of men have died fighting in wars for this nation. I know some women in warzones have died....maybe 0.5%?
If women want custody of children in divorce (and alimony and child support) I am pretty sure they will get the kids 90% of the time.
I mean, we can play this game. You know I am the one who is right.
Women are not under assault in any way. Women actually have it quite good compared to men in America.
You’re talking about financial value. Millions of people volunteer all over the country without receiving pay. They do indeed have an immense value to society.
Well yes financial value that is how we are all measured.
Volunteers may have immense value to society, but mothers do not. Especially those women who choose to forfeit the workforce to care for their children. They are actually shamed by society.
What value did your wife bring to the market place and how was her labor measured in the terms of the GDP? Also, how does society measure her contribution?
While she was out of the workforce for 14 years her average earnings dropped; the amount of SSI is determined by her wages, not yours.
It is great that you took care of your wife. I was raised in a traditional home and my father took care of my mom, however, what happens to her if you were out of the picture. How would society treat her labor of love and compensate her for her work seeing to the children's needs?
Many women choose not to be moms, because there is no money in dedicating one's life to raising children. Society itself does not view that work as having any value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VLWH
You’re talking about financial value. Millions of people volunteer all over the country without receiving pay. They do indeed have an immense value to society.
Obama was an advocate for the National and Community Service volunteer program, in which he garnered them a hefty lump sum of the federal budget. Do you remember what he said, we need to build a what ... national security workforce, that's just as powerful and just as well funded as the military?
I've worked two volunteer jobs and was compensated for having done so by both. My ex-husband and my second oldest son volunteered for the Army ---
I was also a wife and a mother, I got whatever my husband would allow me to have, and in social circles if you are a wife and a mother, you don't have a brain.
Because working childless women earn more, have more savings, have more retirement, etc. They are also less exhausted.
Waiting later to have children and having fewer gives women time to establish themselves in the workforce, build experience, retirement, savings, etc. so they are in a better place financially and mentally to have children. Same is true for men.
Its not rocket science.
I have always been a full time working mother. Its exhausting and restricting. My kids are grown, heck my grands are about grown. Life is easier, I have more. More money, more opportunity, more time.
That is how I know.
Those are the choices I made and I dont regret them and I dont think anyone should be compensated by tax payers for the choices they willingly make just because its hard. But life experiences, hindsight if you will, teaches you some things. Problem is often young people do not avail to the wisdom of experience. I did not.
First-line supervisors of housekeeping and janitorial workers 42.5
Many women don't want to stay home and raise kids anymore --- and those that do are marginalized by society for having done so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavalier
I don't know if you posed this as a response to my question or...just rhetorically.
I work in janitorial as a supervisor and there are many women and a lot of them HATE the job. I can give you examples.
Where do you get off speaking for women? Just curious.
wow --- really --- just curious as to why it would matter? Those are the stats as to how many would choose that job. They may hate the job, but they go to work it, yes? They could find a husband and raise kids, could they not?
This is about changing society's views on women and the work they do --- that society does not recognize as being work, that they should receive compensation for --- women do not want to stay at home and raise kids anymore for a reason and the reason is pretty darn clear.
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.
