There's a bit of irony here for me in the part of the video that talks about job choices women make vs. job choices men make. According to the video, women tend more often than men to go into fields like social work and men tend more often to go into higher paying fields like engineering. This tells us what, as a culture, we value more highly. For example, I would say teaching fits into the "social work" category and in America, and we pay teachers poorly compared to engineers (who, it goes without saying, would not have those jobs were it not for teachers). So it comes down to priorities. I know this is a big generalization, but engineers more often than not tend to build things that destroy the natural world that sustains us- things like weapons, machines that pollute, and buildings that cover the soil. On the other hand, the kinds of work women tend more often to choose- social work- counseling, teaching, nursing- are kinds of work that tend to nurture and heal-- and yet generally we tend to pay less for this kind of work than engineering etc.
So I appreciate this video in that it reinforces my belief that nurturing and healing is more useful than constructing and mechanizing (even though nurturing and healing work is not as well rewarded in our culture) and it gives me opportunity to say that I'm not at all ashamed to admit to being an unapologetic feminist.
I don't know. I see what you are saying, and in some parts, partially agree. The part that I don't agree with so much is the whole - "we value more" aspect. I think value is individualized. I think, if we're honest, a lot of people choose careers based on when work is required. So, it's not simply a function of wages. For example, teachers often have schedules that are directly compatible with raising children. I mean they often have off in the summer, just like the children - for example. So, it maybe worthwhile to consider this career if you'd like to be around your children as much as possible. This is not to say teaching is not a very hard career. It's simply stating that some of this choice may come down to the fact that the career is more compatible with motherhood. That's all.
I do agree though that females tend to go into careers that are more "nurturing or healing", which is an odd reality. Maybe there's something to the whole hunter gatherer aspect. I don't know.
But, to me, this video really explained the problem that I was trying to go towards with the origins of this thread. Basically, the "premise" (which was disputed frequently here) that some women are choosing careers based on maximizing time with their offspring/family (or "future" family - career choice is often made in advance), not necessarily maximizing wages. The premise continues that many women would prefer to be with them all day - or be a stay at home mom. But, this is not as possible financially as it was 50 or so years ago. In more situations now a days, they have to work. So, in order to maximize their time with their children/family, they choose careers based on that and weighing it with salary. Obviously, the entire thought is a generalization. It clearly doesn't apply across the board. I never said it did. I just said, this is my belief that's true for many women.
"For example, teachers often have schedules that are directly compatible with raising children. I mean they often have off in the summer, just like the children - for example."
I've actually known people who have gone into teaching thinking this was so only to find out later that it doesn't usually work that way. Teaching is much more than class time. There's a lot of prep and after class time involved and summers are often quite busy time getting curriculum together and (at least here in California) taking time to attend required continuing education course. When I was teaching I worked longer and harder hours than anything else I've done.
"The premise continues that many women would prefer to be with them all day - or be a stay at home mom. But, this is not as possible financially as it was 50 or so years ago. In more situations now a days, they have to work."
So true! I can't imagine having a kid (as a mom or dad) and working full time. My parental experience was limited to helping raise to nephews and that in itself was rewarding but highly challenging.
Regarding the overall premise- I think we'll continue to see women moving into more of an equal status in the work field (although this seems to be happening slowly).
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
There's a bit of irony here for me in the part of the video that talks about job choices women make vs. job choices men make. According to the video, women tend more often than men to go into fields like social work and men tend more often to go into higher paying fields like engineering. This tells us what, as a culture, we value more highly. For example, I would say teaching fits into the "social work" category and in America, and we pay teachers poorly compared to engineers (who, it goes without saying, would not have those jobs were it not for teachers). So it comes down to priorities. I know this is a big generalization, but engineers more often than not tend to build things that destroy the natural world that sustains us- things like weapons, machines that pollute, and buildings that cover the soil. On the other hand, the kinds of work women tend more often to choose- social work- counseling, teaching, nursing- are kinds of work that tend to nurture and heal-- and yet generally we tend to pay less for this kind of work than engineering etc.
So I appreciate this video in that it reinforces my belief that nurturing and healing is more useful than constructing and mechanizing (even though nurturing and healing work is not as well rewarded in our culture) and it gives me opportunity to say that I'm not at all ashamed to admit to being an unapologetic feminist.
I don't know. I see what you are saying, and in some parts, partially agree. The part that I don't agree with so much is the whole - "we value more" aspect. I think value is individualized. I think, if we're honest, a lot of people choose careers based on when work is required. So, it's not simply a function of wages. For example, teachers often have schedules that are directly compatible with raising children. I mean they often have off in the summer, just like the children - for example. So, it maybe worthwhile to consider this career if you'd like to be around your children as much as possible. This is not to say teaching is not a very hard career. It's simply stating that some of this choice may come down to the fact that the career is more compatible with motherhood. That's all.
I do agree though that females tend to go into careers that are more "nurturing or healing", which is an odd reality. Maybe there's something to the whole hunter gatherer aspect. I don't know.
But, to me, this video really explained the problem that I was trying to go towards with the origins of this thread. Basically, the "premise" (which was disputed frequently here) that some women are choosing careers based on maximizing time with their offspring/family (or "future" family - career choice is often made in advance), not necessarily maximizing wages. The premise continues that many women would prefer to be with them all day - or be a stay at home mom. But, this is not as possible financially as it was 50 or so years ago. In more situations now a days, they have to work. So, in order to maximize their time with their children/family, they choose careers based on that and weighing it with salary. Obviously, the entire thought is a generalization. It clearly doesn't apply across the board. I never said it did. I just said, this is my belief that's true for many women.
"For example, teachers often have schedules that are directly compatible with raising children. I mean they often have off in the summer, just like the children - for example."
I've actually known people who have gone into teaching thinking this was so only to find out later that it doesn't usually work that way. Teaching is much more than class time. There's a lot of prep and after class time involved and summers are often quite busy time getting curriculum together and (at least here in California) taking time to attend required continuing education course. When I was teaching I worked longer and harder hours than anything else I've done.
"The premise continues that many women would prefer to be with them all day - or be a stay at home mom. But, this is not as possible financially as it was 50 or so years ago. In more situations now a days, they have to work."
So true! I can't imagine having a kid (as a mom or dad) and working full time. My parental experience was limited to helping raise to nephews and that in itself was rewarding but highly challenging.
Regarding the overall premise- I think we'll continue to see women moving into more of an equal status in the work field (although this seems to be happening slowly).
My mother was a teacher and my dad was a principal. It pretty much does work that way. Of course they have to spend time out of school hours doing work like marking and preparing lessons (or, in my dad's case, dealing with teachers and parents). But no person in the world gets to be a teacher without knowing that though (have no idea who these people you know are... maybe they weren't paying any attention during their professional development???). It what they cover during PDP. They do not come into the job surprised they have to work after 3pm. In any case, that my parents had summers and all other school vacations off was wonderful when I was young (horrible when I was a teenager!!). Teachers are still way underpaid considering how much education they need (most teachers need their masters now on top of the PDP to get a job other than subbing), and considering how important their role is. Btw, being a principal has BETTER hours than teachers... however, dealing with all those fucked up parents more than makes up for it (they get paid nearly twice as much as teachers, reasonably).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't think the whole staying at home thing is a purely financial issue. Many women nowadays get better education than in earlier times (I'm not sure how the situation in the US is, but in Austria, 55% of college graduates nowadays are female), and being a stay-at-home mum, especially if it's for longer periods of time, significantly limits your chances of actually having a career in the field you've done your degree in. And I'm not saying this is true for everyone, but if I had to quit working entirely after all the time, effort and money I've spent on getting a good education, I would not be very happy. Again, not condemning those who do at all...I just personally don't get it.
Comments
"For example, teachers often have schedules that are directly compatible with raising children. I mean they often have off in the summer, just like the children - for example."
I've actually known people who have gone into teaching thinking this was so only to find out later that it doesn't usually work that way. Teaching is much more than class time. There's a lot of prep and after class time involved and summers are often quite busy time getting curriculum together and (at least here in California) taking time to attend required continuing education course. When I was teaching I worked longer and harder hours than anything else I've done.
"The premise continues that many women would prefer to be with them all day - or be a stay at home mom. But, this is not as possible financially as it was 50 or so years ago. In more situations now a days, they have to work."
So true! I can't imagine having a kid (as a mom or dad) and working full time. My parental experience was limited to helping raise to nephews and that in itself was rewarding but highly challenging.
Regarding the overall premise- I think we'll continue to see women moving into more of an equal status in the work field (although this seems to be happening slowly).
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"