Of course we ALL probably know plenty of women who have put their career on hold to raise their kids, and I bet most of us don't know a single man who has done the same (or maybe know one or two out of many who have, and they are considered "new age" or something, lol). That is a symptom of a sexist society. Of a society that was built on sexism. What you're seeing are women doing what they have to in a sexist society that was born, grown, and maintained over centuries. That is the whole point. Don't get me wrong. Women are indeed different from men because they bear and nurse children... but to me, that means society needs to adjust to accommodate that, not the other way around. And no, there is nothing wrong with a human being wanting to stay home with their kids. It's just that in many, many cases, the option are extremely limited and they are either forced to stay home or forced to work when they don't want to because of their children (that goes for women and men). Again, society was not built to accommodate women participating fully in it or to make decisions that work for them. It's time that changed. Society also isn't built to accommodate men who want to fulfill roles that have traditionally been considered female ones. That also needs to change.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
So if we can agree on that, how is it not reasonable to say as a result women will not be equally represented in the workforce and politics? Or I guess we just disagree on it being the result of a sexist society that women chose to do so. I don't think so.
If you're talking women in government, it is neither here nor there IMO, because the population needs to be properly represented. There are a whole lot of women out there who don't have kids, want to work a lot with kids, have kids who are older and don't need the care, etc etc etc. More than enough extremely qualified women to fill out 50% of the government. That they only make up 21% of the Senate (probably less of Congress) is not because ALL the women are at home with babies, lol. There is a very complex web of reasons why women aren't more involved in politics, and the fact that they bear children is the least of them. Stigmas, opportunities, sterotypes, gender roles, old boys' clubs, and sexism are what is keeping better representation by women out of government, not our wombs.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I recently discovered that nine Muslim majority countries have had female leaders. Found that interesting in the context of these^^ posts.
I agree that society needs to change in regards to women in the workplace and raising kids. I would have LOVED to be a stay at home dad, but it didn't make financial sense since I made nearly double what my ex did. I'm not sure what the answer is...a place I worked at previously transferred to our office and gave a big raise to a female project manager...turned out she was pregnant at the time. She came back after a year, and was on mat leave again within a few months...then it happened again! From a capitalist viewpoint, this can only be viewed as detrimental to the company....which sucks. Parenting is 10x as important as that position. But it really opened my eyes to how women fall behind their male colleagues. My current gf went on mat leave twice from a good mgmt position that required shift work. Same deal - she made less than her hubby at the time so it only made sense for her to be the one staying home (not that he would have). With daycare costs it didn't make financial sense for her to re-enter the workforce until the kids were in school. When she did, shift work wasn't an option, so she found herself starting from scratch in her 30's....after a divorce from a guy who lost nothing career-wise in the most intensive child rearing years. She gets support but it doesn't come close to making up for the cost of the different career paths her and her ex took. She has managed to get herself a certificate with a lot of hard work and a little support from yours truely and our 'socialist' govt ..she's hoping a new career will follow...but man, it's frustrating knowing how this all works. Not fair at all.
I recently discovered that nine Muslim majority countries have had female leaders. Found that interesting in the context of these^^ posts.
I agree that society needs to change in regards to women in the workplace and raising kids. I would have LOVED to be a stay at home dad, but it didn't make financial sense since I made nearly double what my ex did. I'm not sure what the answer is...a place I worked at previously transferred to our office and gave a big raise to a female project manager...turned out she was pregnant at the time. She came back after a year, and was on mat leave again within a few months...then it happened again! From a capitalist viewpoint, this can only be viewed as detrimental to the company....which sucks. Parenting is 10x as important as that position. But it really opened my eyes to how women fall behind their male colleagues. My current gf went on mat leave twice from a good mgmt position that required shift work. Same deal - she made less than her hubby at the time so it only made sense for her to be the one staying home (not that he would have). With daycare costs it didn't make financial sense for her to re-enter the workforce until the kids were in school. When she did, shift work wasn't an option, so she found herself starting from scratch in her 30's....after a divorce from a guy who lost nothing career-wise in the most intensive child rearing years. She gets support but it doesn't come close to making up for the cost of the different career paths her and her ex took. She has managed to get herself a certificate with a lot of hard work and a little support from yours truely and our 'socialist' govt ..she's hoping a new career will follow...but man, it's frustrating knowing how this all works. Not fair at all.
What isn't fair about that? That when you have kids you are expected to take care of and raise them? No one said having kids doesn't require sacrifices. We chose to do the same thing. If and when she re-enters work she will have lost 5-6 years. But we had a choice, to pay for childcare and have a stranger see our kids more than both their parents do, or make financial sacrifices so they can have that time and she can be the one to raise them. I see nothing wrong or unfair about making that decision and sacrificing her position in the work force. You cant expect someone to take 5 years off and still climb the cooperate ladder at the same time can you? That wouldn't make sense. And I know my wife would make a better stay at home parent than myself. I love my kids, but she's just better at it. When our first was born and slept in the nursery for the first time my wife woke me up and said "I think I hear the baby crying." I got up, shut the door, and crawled back in bed. In my mind the problem was solved. She asked if he was still crying, to which I responded "I don't know, but you can't hear him anymore can you?" I would actually have preferred my wife to work, but her exact words were "I am not paying a stranger to raise my kids." And in a divorce, alimony is suppose to take into consideration of time off of work and putting a career on hold to raise children. If she got a crappy lawyer and you think she got the short end of the stick, I'm sure she'd still cash that check if it had a little extra in it to compensate for her sacrifices if you feel that bad about it. I personally think it is demeaning when the attitude is mothers didn't have a choice or were forced into this position. They are not, and it is a noble sacrifice to put their children first. Like I said, Any double-income family has that choice, many decide not to take it. There is nothing wrong by deciding to be a mother over an employee.
Aaawwww damn. The sad irony of having to post that disclaimer today due to the sexualization of breasts. Thanks kat, really enjoyed those....heartening.
Ditto - amazing photos. And yeah, too bad about the sexualization of the breasts in those couple of photos. Kat, if those had been men and not women, all else equal, would you have warned us? Just wondering. I don't know about Seattle, but topless women and men are equal up here, so if men don't need a NSFW warning, then I figure the women shouldn't either (just making a point - I do know why you said it... It's just sad that you felt you had to).
it's a fair warning. had an exec walked by my cube while I was scrolling by that pic, I would have been in deep doo doo.
Probably not, if you explained the context. Anyway, as I said, I know why she gave the warning, it's just sad that anyone feels it's necessary. Also sad that an executive would be mad about it. Kind of the whole point of this day, right? To stop that kind of thinking?
well, I know my work culture, and it wouldn't be acceptable. in my office, we often have outside business partners walking through and they have a clear view of my screen.
I recently discovered that nine Muslim majority countries have had female leaders. Found that interesting in the context of these^^ posts.
I agree that society needs to change in regards to women in the workplace and raising kids. I would have LOVED to be a stay at home dad, but it didn't make financial sense since I made nearly double what my ex did. I'm not sure what the answer is...a place I worked at previously transferred to our office and gave a big raise to a female project manager...turned out she was pregnant at the time. She came back after a year, and was on mat leave again within a few months...then it happened again! From a capitalist viewpoint, this can only be viewed as detrimental to the company....which sucks. Parenting is 10x as important as that position. But it really opened my eyes to how women fall behind their male colleagues. My current gf went on mat leave twice from a good mgmt position that required shift work. Same deal - she made less than her hubby at the time so it only made sense for her to be the one staying home (not that he would have). With daycare costs it didn't make financial sense for her to re-enter the workforce until the kids were in school. When she did, shift work wasn't an option, so she found herself starting from scratch in her 30's....after a divorce from a guy who lost nothing career-wise in the most intensive child rearing years. She gets support but it doesn't come close to making up for the cost of the different career paths her and her ex took. She has managed to get herself a certificate with a lot of hard work and a little support from yours truely and our 'socialist' govt ..she's hoping a new career will follow...but man, it's frustrating knowing how this all works. Not fair at all.
Not fair that all men between the ages of 18-25 have to sign up for a draft into the military either...but that's neither here nor there...How many men during WW2 and the Vietnam War were forced to put their careers on hold to risk uncertain death against their will? I'd rather pay to ensure their medical care before even considering contraceptive or abortion funding(not that there are too many left from WW2, but any veterans should be first in line in my opinion).
My comments from yesterday and this morning were my reaction to the negative views on stay at home moms. It seems women's day and the march weren't focused on women at all, but women in the work force instead. People seem to think stay at home moms didn't have a choice, and should be at work supporting the fight for women. That is so wrong. The mom who gives up her job and career to focus on her children does more than a lot of you would ever know. This week alone several negative comments were made in the break room about stay-at-home moms (mostly by working women) only to have them look at me and apologize or rephrase their comment before I could respond. The focus here seems to be to lift up the hard working women and fight for higher pay and to not let family get in the way of your career. That is great, but why not applaud those who chose to give up their career for the sake of their own children. And it is a choice, I know many stay at home moms and all gave it up as their own choice. Even comments that imply they stayed at home because of family culture, or even worse that they couldn't get an equally paying job are so insulting, which was said several times at my work this week (and implied once or twice on threads here). I think that is the most noble thing a working mom can do. And allows me to go to work and not worry how my kids are being taken care of because I know the only person in the world who can love a kid more than a father is the one taking care of them right now.
My comments from yesterday and this morning were my reaction to the negative views on stay at home moms. It seems women's day and the march weren't focused on women at all, but women in the work force instead. People seem to think stay at home moms didn't have a choice, and should be at work supporting the fight for women. That is so wrong. The mom who gives up her job and career to focus on her children does more than a lot of you would ever know. This week alone several negative comments were made in the break room about stay-at-home moms (mostly by working women) only to have them look at me and apologize or rephrase their comment before I could respond. The focus here seems to be to lift up the hard working women and fight for higher pay and to not let family get in the way of your career. That is great, but why not applaud those who chose to give up their career for the sake of their own children. And it is a choice, I know many stay at home moms and all gave it up as their own choice. Even comments that imply they stayed at home because of family culture, or even worse that they couldn't get an equally paying job are so insulting, which was said several times at my work this week (and implied once or twice on threads here). I think that is the most noble thing a working mom can do. And allows me to go to work and not worry how my kids are being taken care of because I know the only person in the world who can love a kid more than a father is the one taking care of them right now.
but wasn't the whole women's march to do with equality in the work force? it was called "day without a woman". wasn't that the whole point? there's nothing wrong with staying home. if my wife and I could have swung it, we would have done the same. Not sure why anyone would shame that. but this march in particular was to highlight how important they are in the workforce, and deserve equal treatment and equal pay.
One, that can be done without shaming anyone. And Two, I would disagree about the equality in the workface statement being the goal. The organizers did advertise they want to show the importance of women in the workforce as part of the goal, but most who participated were vocal about it being just about woman rights in general, especially since it was on women's day. Reading the organizer's site it wasn't clear it was about women in the workforce, in fact it is pretty clear it is meant for unity of all women, not just those in the workforce. It was to demonstrate the impact women have in the social-economic system which would include consumers as well as workers. Equal rights would include, but not limited to, equal rights in the work force. But it seems the intention was not to emphasize only working women.
None of you know any women who have chosen to put their career on hold to raise their children? That is hard to believe because there are a lot out there. And I don't see how there is anything sexist about bringing it up. I never said women cant handle long hours or your bodies shut down after 40 hours. Please don't put demeaning words in my mouth. But the fact is when faced with the decision to go back to work full time and pay for child care (which means seeing your children for about 2 hours in the evening before putting them to bed), far more women than men make the decision to put their career on hold so they can continue to raise their children themselves at home. That's not my opinion, that is a fact. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that decision, and therefore how is it disrespectful or sexist? Stay at home moms probably work harder than most who have time to post on here. And my point was, with any amount of women choosing to stay home it would mean than equal representation is not 50%.
And my question was never answered. How is voting for someone because they are a man not sexist? Would it not be racist if I said I didn't vote for Obama because he is black and I don't want a black man leading our country? How is what you said any less sexist than that? Vote for whoever is the best candidate, regardless of sex or race. But somehow you don't approve of that?
I wanted my wife to return to work after our first, but she insisted on staying home. I wouldn't trade jobs with her, and I think my job is already pretty tough to begin with. She works hard every day. And those commercials about moms not getting a sick day don't even know how true they are. And it took a lot of sacrifices to make that happen, date night is now strapping our kids into the shopping cart at Costco while we eat a pizza. How can anyone be offended by someone making that decision and sacrifice?
One, that can be done without shaming anyone. And Two, I would disagree about the equality in the workface statement being the goal. The organizers did advertise they want to show the importance of women in the workforce as part of the goal, but most who participated were vocal about it being just about woman rights in general, especially since it was on women's day. Reading the organizer's site it wasn't clear it was about women in the workforce, in fact it is pretty clear it is meant for unity of all women, not just those in the workforce. It was to demonstrate the impact women have in the social-economic system which would include consumers as well as workers. Equal rights would include, but not limited to, equal rights in the work force. But it seems the intention was not to emphasize only working women.
I agreed with you on "one" already.
for two, I thought this march, and again as you have pointed out I could be wrong, that the intention was the same as the "day without an immigrant" which was to illustrate what would happen if immigrant workers (not just people) were no longer around. I thought that was the whole point, but again, I could be wrong.
and I'll say again, no one should be shamed for their life choices, whether it be career over family, the reverse, or not having babies at all. it's all personal choice and it's all about what's right for the individual/group.
It was confusing to me because "a day without..." marches usually are to show the impact in the economy and workforce. When asked for clarification on this thread the only responses I got were about women's rights in general, mostly abortion actually. When reading more from the organization it still wasn't completely clear, but seems like they are trying to say the impact women have in general, not just in the work force. Like if they all united against a common front they could destroy the economy if women's rights are not addressed. That was my impression anyway.
Part of this thread hints at what could happen to help stay-at-home-parents transition back to the workforce. Could a discussion of free quality child care be the next discussion? Should there be more discussion about teleworking or flexible hours?
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
No doubt I am in the stage where I would benefit the most from free childcare, I just don't see how that is the government's responsibility. I think better working hours is a better solution, and when I mentioned that yesterday I think it got interpreted differently or as a negative. Americans work longer days with fewer vacation days than most developed countries. I cant help but see the connection with that and the number of women choosing to stay home and raise kids. Resulting in an unequal representation of females in the workplace, and when they return they have fallen behind several years in their career. For some the choice becomes sacrifice their career for their kids, or sacrifice their kids for their career. It is difficult to be successful and still have quality time with family at the end of 9-10 hour work day.
Part of this thread hints at what could happen to help stay-at-home-parents transition back to the workforce. Could a discussion of free quality child care be the next discussion? Should there be more discussion about teleworking or flexible hours?
If you are talking about a mandate, some business simply cannot afford to provide free childcare. Some can and do, but I would not support a law requiring it. I guess public school could be considered a type of free childcare...so maybe we could extend public schooling down to birth? Of course there would be a ton of blowback with that and teachers are already complaining about not getting paid enough. Some businesses do give their female employees with children flexible hours and let them work from home...it all depends the type of job. There are programs like WIC and such to assist those that are having trouble paying bills and such.
No doubt I am in the stage where I would benefit the most from free childcare, I just don't see how that is the government's responsibility. I think better working hours is a better solution, and when I mentioned that yesterday I think it got interpreted differently or as a negative. Americans work longer days with fewer vacation days than most developed countries. I cant help but see the connection with that and the number of women choosing to stay home and raise kids. Resulting in an unequal representation of females in the workplace, and when they return they have fallen behind several years in their career. For some the choice becomes sacrifice their career for their kids, or sacrifice their kids for their career. It is difficult to be successful and still have quality time with family at the end of 9-10 hour work day.
But, back to an earlier question, why are there so few women legislators? If current legislators work 60+ hours a week then the expectation is that all future legislators would work that. For parents who want to run for government, and they are the primary care givers, what has to happen?
1. On site childcare at government buildings may be one start. In that case the parent could see her/his child during non-work lunches. 2. Emily's List is training women to run, and training is a good idea. 3. Peer groups in government are probably very helpful.
Any woman on the board run for an office? What else is necessary?
I don't think not running because a person is the primary care giver is a bigger question than choosing to run at all. No matter what it is a long-term commitment. If a primary care giver wants to run she/he may have to start with grassroots organizing and work her/his way up.
It would be good to know how often legislators talk with their kids.
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
I noticed you guys conveniently leave out the millions of women who get stuck raising children because MEN don't hold up their obligations... like my father didnt...
How many single mothers are out there busting their ass raising children, running a household, and working with little/no help from deadbeat men? How many kids only see their fathers every other weekend like I did? How many kids had father's not help financially at all like mine didn't?
How many millions of women have sacrificed everything, from their personal lives to their professional lives and everything between, struggling day to day because cowardice and irresponsible men left them holding the bag?
And you dare question why women want their concerns to be heard??? Wake up and smell the fucking coffee
As far as the claim of a small talent pool to fill political offices... that's bullshit and you know it... I'm a man and I heard what some men were saying in private about Hillary... the names she was called... the way she was demeaned... because she was a strong intelligent woman they were probably intimidated... a lot if men, and even some women, have a bias that they believe women shouldn't be in politics or positions if power... I heard a friend of mine wife say this on several separate occasions... she said "I don't think a woman should be president"... AND SHE HAS 3 DAUGHTERS????
there are only 100 senators, 400+ represantives, and 50 governors in a country of 350,000,000 people, something tells me there are plenty of women available to fill the gap pretty quickly... and that's why im not voting for a male until there is relative equal representation... regardless of party or position, straight ticket female vote or me
Men are a fucking mess in general... we desperately need more women in power to balance this out. And quickly.
I noticed you guys conveniently leave out the millions of women who get stuck raising children because MEN don't hold up their obligations... like my father didnt...
How many single mothers are out there busting their ass raising children, running a household, and working with little/no help from deadbeat men? How many kids only see their fathers every other weekend like I did? How many kids had father's not help financially at all like mine didn't?
How many millions of women have sacrificed everything, from their personal lives to their professional lives and everything between, struggling day to day because cowardice and irresponsible men left them holding the bag?
And you dare question why women want their concerns to be heard??? Wake up and smell the fucking coffee
As far as the claim of a small talent pool to fill political offices... that's bullshit and you know it... I'm a man and I heard what some men were saying in private about Hillary... the names she was called... the way she was demeaned... because she was a strong intelligent woman they were probably intimidated... a lot if men, and even some women, have a bias that they believe women shouldn't be in politics or positions if power... I heard a friend of mine wife say this on several separate occasions... she said "I don't think a woman should be president"... AND SHE HAS 3 DAUGHTERS????
there are only 100 senators, 400+ represantives, and 50 governors in a country of 350,000,000 people, something tells me there are plenty of women available to fill the gap pretty quickly... and that's why im not voting for a male until there is relative equal representation... regardless of party or position, straight ticket female vote or me
Men are a fucking mess in general... we desperately need more women in power to balance this out. And quickly.
And they say reverse sexism doesn't exist, lol!
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
That is unfortunate that you would look only at gender when casting a vote.
I'm just trying to help balance out the last couple hundred years
I love that 3 of the right wing conservative males from here are butt hurt by my plan... tells me it's already working LOL
I don't know what "it" is, but keep telling yourself whatever you've got to tell yourself for a bit of self-validation. Sarah Palin would be proud, lol
That is unfortunate that you would look only at gender when casting a vote.
I'm just trying to help balance out the last couple hundred years
I love that 3 of the right wing conservative males from here are butt hurt by my plan... tells me it's already working LOL
You did raise a good point about single mothers earlier. It wasn't brought up because single moms and stay at home moms aren't the same. I think it should be easier to get the money from deadbeats, or harsher consequences for missed payments. I've never been directly involved in those situations so im not exactly sure how it works, but I know a few who are and it sucks. It must be easy to get away with not paying or it wouldn't happen as often. But then that good point is quickly forgotten when you follow it with a blanket statement about all men. I'm sorry for whatever you experienced that makes you thinking a sexist vote is the answer. But if you think upsetting men proves that you were right, I didn't see a single person defending your strategy.
That is unfortunate that you would look only at gender when casting a vote.
I'm just trying to help balance out the last couple hundred years
I love that 3 of the right wing conservative males from here are butt hurt by my plan... tells me it's already working LOL
You did raise a good point about single mothers earlier. It wasn't brought up because single moms and stay at home moms aren't the same. I think it should be easier to get the money from deadbeats, or harsher consequences for missed payments. I've never been directly involved in those situations so im not exactly sure how it works, but I know a few who are and it sucks. It must be easy to get away with not paying or it wouldn't happen as often. But then that good point is quickly forgotten when you follow it with a blanket statement about all men. I'm sorry for whatever you experienced that makes you thinking a sexist vote is the answer. But if you think upsetting men proves that you were right, I didn't see a single person defending your strategy.
Just calling it how I see it... not ALL men obviously... but I stand by my comment that men in general are a damn mess... and we need women to balance us out and help solve these issues... open your eyes brother
I don't need my strategy defended... dont give a hoot what anybody thinks... even my girlfriend says i should vote for the best candidate... nobody needed to defend men over the last 200+ years whIle they only voted for men on men only/majority ballots
As far as collecting $ from deadbeats... that doesn't account for the time and effort and sacrifice that is made by mothers in these situations... it's easy to just cut a check, that's just the tip of the iceberg... like millions of others I would go see my father every other weekend... that's 4 days a month... guess who was responsible for me the other 26 days? Guess whose entire existence was dominated by child raising responsibilities, except for 2 weekends per month? My single mother.
Men need to start taking ownership of ourselves and our bullshit
Comments
Or I guess we just disagree on it being the result of a sexist society that women chose to do so. I don't think so.
I agree that society needs to change in regards to women in the workplace and raising kids. I would have LOVED to be a stay at home dad, but it didn't make financial sense since I made nearly double what my ex did.
I'm not sure what the answer is...a place I worked at previously transferred to our office and gave a big raise to a female project manager...turned out she was pregnant at the time. She came back after a year, and was on mat leave again within a few months...then it happened again! From a capitalist viewpoint, this can only be viewed as detrimental to the company....which sucks. Parenting is 10x as important as that position. But it really opened my eyes to how women fall behind their male colleagues.
My current gf went on mat leave twice from a good mgmt position that required shift work. Same deal - she made less than her hubby at the time so it only made sense for her to be the one staying home (not that he would have). With daycare costs it didn't make financial sense for her to re-enter the workforce until the kids were in school. When she did, shift work wasn't an option, so she found herself starting from scratch in her 30's....after a divorce from a guy who lost nothing career-wise in the most intensive child rearing years. She gets support but it doesn't come close to making up for the cost of the different career paths her and her ex took.
She has managed to get herself a certificate with a lot of hard work and a little support from yours truely and our 'socialist' govt
All I can think of is not to have kids.
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
We chose to do the same thing. If and when she re-enters work she will have lost 5-6 years. But we had a choice, to pay for childcare and have a stranger see our kids more than both their parents do, or make financial sacrifices so they can have that time and she can be the one to raise them. I see nothing wrong or unfair about making that decision and sacrificing her position in the work force. You cant expect someone to take 5 years off and still climb the cooperate ladder at the same time can you? That wouldn't make sense.
And I know my wife would make a better stay at home parent than myself. I love my kids, but she's just better at it.
When our first was born and slept in the nursery for the first time my wife woke me up and said "I think I hear the baby crying." I got up, shut the door, and crawled back in bed. In my mind the problem was solved. She asked if he was still crying, to which I responded "I don't know, but you can't hear him anymore can you?"
I would actually have preferred my wife to work, but her exact words were "I am not paying a stranger to raise my kids." And in a divorce, alimony is suppose to take into consideration of time off of work and putting a career on hold to raise children. If she got a crappy lawyer and you think she got the short end of the stick, I'm sure she'd still cash that check if it had a little extra in it to compensate for her sacrifices if you feel that bad about it.
I personally think it is demeaning when the attitude is mothers didn't have a choice or were forced into this position. They are not, and it is a noble sacrifice to put their children first. Like I said, Any double-income family has that choice, many decide not to take it. There is nothing wrong by deciding to be a mother over an employee.
I get in shit for just being on THIS site.
Cheers,
HFD
People seem to think stay at home moms didn't have a choice, and should be at work supporting the fight for women. That is so wrong. The mom who gives up her job and career to focus on her children does more than a lot of you would ever know. This week alone several negative comments were made in the break room about stay-at-home moms (mostly by working women) only to have them look at me and apologize or rephrase their comment before I could respond. The focus here seems to be to lift up the hard working women and fight for higher pay and to not let family get in the way of your career. That is great, but why not applaud those who chose to give up their career for the sake of their own children. And it is a choice, I know many stay at home moms and all gave it up as their own choice. Even comments that imply they stayed at home because of family culture, or even worse that they couldn't get an equally paying job are so insulting, which was said several times at my work this week (and implied once or twice on threads here). I think that is the most noble thing a working mom can do. And allows me to go to work and not worry how my kids are being taken care of because I know the only person in the world who can love a kid more than a father is the one taking care of them right now.
Cheers,
HFD
And Two, I would disagree about the equality in the workface statement being the goal. The organizers did advertise they want to show the importance of women in the workforce as part of the goal, but most who participated were vocal about it being just about woman rights in general, especially since it was on women's day. Reading the organizer's site it wasn't clear it was about women in the workforce, in fact it is pretty clear it is meant for unity of all women, not just those in the workforce. It was to demonstrate the impact women have in the social-economic system which would include consumers as well as workers. Equal rights would include, but not limited to, equal rights in the work force. But it seems the intention was not to emphasize only working women.
Columbus-2003
Cincinnati-2006
Columbus-2010
Wrigley-2013
Cincinnati-2014
Lexington-2016
Wrigley 1 & 2-2018
ICYMI
I've never heard that joke before, really original. Made me laugh out loud.
......
for two, I thought this march, and again as you have pointed out I could be wrong, that the intention was the same as the "day without an immigrant" which was to illustrate what would happen if immigrant workers (not just people) were no longer around. I thought that was the whole point, but again, I could be wrong.
and I'll say again, no one should be shamed for their life choices, whether it be career over family, the reverse, or not having babies at all. it's all personal choice and it's all about what's right for the individual/group.
Cheers,
HFD
When reading more from the organization it still wasn't completely clear, but seems like they are trying to say the impact women have in general, not just in the work force. Like if they all united against a common front they could destroy the economy if women's rights are not addressed. That was my impression anyway.
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
Some businesses do give their female employees with children flexible hours and let them work from home...it all depends the type of job. There are programs like WIC and such to assist those that are having trouble paying bills and such.
1. On site childcare at government buildings may be one start. In that case the parent could see her/his child during non-work lunches.
2. Emily's List is training women to run, and training is a good idea.
3. Peer groups in government are probably very helpful.
Any woman on the board run for an office? What else is necessary?
I don't think not running because a person is the primary care giver is a bigger question than choosing to run at all. No matter what it is a long-term commitment. If a primary care giver wants to run she/he may have to start with grassroots organizing and work her/his way up.
It would be good to know how often legislators talk with their kids.
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
How many single mothers are out there busting their ass raising children, running a household, and working with little/no help from deadbeat men? How many kids only see their fathers every other weekend like I did? How many kids had father's not help financially at all like mine didn't?
How many millions of women have sacrificed everything, from their personal lives to their professional lives and everything between, struggling day to day because cowardice and irresponsible men left them holding the bag?
And you dare question why women want their concerns to be heard??? Wake up and smell the fucking coffee
As far as the claim of a small talent pool to fill political offices... that's bullshit and you know it... I'm a man and I heard what some men were saying in private about Hillary... the names she was called... the way she was demeaned... because she was a strong intelligent woman they were probably intimidated... a lot if men, and even some women, have a bias that they believe women shouldn't be in politics or positions if power... I heard a friend of mine wife say this on several separate occasions... she said "I don't think a woman should be president"... AND SHE HAS 3 DAUGHTERS????
there are only 100 senators, 400+ represantives, and 50 governors in a country of 350,000,000 people, something tells me there are plenty of women available to fill the gap pretty quickly... and that's why im not voting for a male until there is relative equal representation... regardless of party or position, straight ticket female vote or me
Men are a fucking mess in general... we desperately need more women in power to balance this out. And quickly.
I love that 3 of the right wing conservative males from here are butt hurt by my plan... tells me it's already working LOL
But then that good point is quickly forgotten when you follow it with a blanket statement about all men. I'm sorry for whatever you experienced that makes you thinking a sexist vote is the answer. But if you think upsetting men proves that you were right, I didn't see a single person defending your strategy.
I don't need my strategy defended... dont give a hoot what anybody thinks... even my girlfriend says i should vote for the best candidate... nobody needed to defend men over the last 200+ years whIle they only voted for men on men only/majority ballots
As far as collecting $ from deadbeats... that doesn't account for the time and effort and sacrifice that is made by mothers in these situations... it's easy to just cut a check, that's just the tip of the iceberg... like millions of others I would go see my father every other weekend... that's 4 days a month... guess who was responsible for me the other 26 days? Guess whose entire existence was dominated by child raising responsibilities, except for 2 weekends per month? My single mother.
Men need to start taking ownership of ourselves and our bullshit