Are Women Happier Post-Sexual Revolution?

_

Looks like I've missed an interesting thread! Looks interesting from just reading the last page, anyway. It's probably too late for me to chime in on the topic since I'm not following the conversation. But I do have to note that I stopped reading the article after "myth #1," which made it obvious to me that the author is full of shit. Do they really publish stuff like this in the Wall Street Journal?? :?

brianlux

_ wrote:

Do they really publish stuff like this in the Wall Street Journal?? :?

Thank you! My point exactly. Reading up on women's issues in WSJ is a bit like reading Popular Mechanics to get a good recommendation for what kind of skein of embroidery floss good to use in your next cross stitch project.

_

brianlux wrote:

_ wrote:

Do they really publish stuff like this in the Wall Street Journal?? :?

Thank you! My point exactly. Reading up on women's issues in WSJ is a bit like reading Popular Mechanics to get a good recommendation for what kind of skein of embroidery floss good to use in your next cross stitch project.

riotgrl

Inlet, I think what I got out of the article and this entire discussion is that we are all suffering because of a cultural shift in our country. In part, that has to do with women's expanding role in politics, economics, and even within the social structure of the community and family. I took from your POV and the article that while we disagree on how we got here and what it all means maybe the better question to debate is how do we fix the problem? I highlighted some of my personal experiences to try to figure out for myself how do we solve some of these problems about unequal work loads at home? Wage discrepancies do still exist. Families still have to make hard decisions about who stays home. What's the solution? That's the natural extension to this debate because alot of times our anger has to do with feeling helpless about the situation or anger that this situation is not what it should be. So, I'll start.....

First, I think we have to change our mindset at the local level. As a working mother, I have to spend time working on getting my husband to take on more chores at home which after 15 years of marriage he has done, still not as much as I need/want but better than the beginning. My children also are expected to help out with chores that WE both decide they need to do. So, hopefully, my children leave our home with the ability to take care of themselves and not have predefined, predetermined roles.

Second, when I took maternity leave with both children, I was told that if I wanted to take more than 6 weeks leave (I teach at a public high school) then I had to have a note from my doctor stating that I NEEDED to stay home for medical reasons OR I could take off 8 weeks if I was nursing (an aside - why is that even their business?). If I took longer than that, which I was lucky that I could, I had to apply for FMLA leave which meant I was not guaranteed a position at the school I was teaching at upon my return. This seems hostile to me. Why can't we change the laws? FMLA leave was supposed to help but the exemptions are ridiculous. I'm not sure what luck we would have fighting this at a local level but the hostility towards parents taking off defies logic, especially since my job is supposed to be all about kids but my employer doesn't respect my family. Isn't this still a holdover from a previous era? So can we agree that there is a problem? How do we fix it? I'm a huge believer in that I CAN do something even if it is only within my own house. Meh, maybe you think my thoughts are all a bunch of bullshit but what are we doing to fix it?

I apologize if that seems a bit rambling but my daughter is home sick today and I'm operating on 3 hours of sleep! Antoher way we are making it work in my family. There are days when I cannot miss work so my husband picks up the slack and other times, like today, that he cannot miss work but I can.

inmytree

RW81233 wrote:

then when they get all pissed at him inlet will suggest that they are being overemotional and that he was merely presenting facts for discussion, and since they are his "facts", they are not to be pulled apart just talked about in a banal fashion.

i would pay money to have him upload a video of the classroom when he posits this belief. seriously i would.

well played...

Jeanwah

RW81233 wrote:

Finally, Cate and brian are hopefully bringing us to a better place, where women aren't blamed for our declining happiness, and are respected for the beautiful, strong individuals they are.

Along with Henry Rollins, Eddie Vedder and every other incredible man that is willing to stand up for women rather than look at them otherwise.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They're

Didn't even bother reading your quote before you were looking up how I was wrong, eh? It's rule #3 in your link. The word "there" is used twice. I was referring to the latter. It should be their, as I said.

:oops:

JonnyPistachio

inlet13 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

First, it's "their" not "there". An academic you are, that's for sure.

Huh?
Thank god its economics and not english!

Check again.

polaris_x wrote:

there definitely seems to be a disdain for academia and the social sciences ... i've been through this same thing with global warming ... i'll read there articles but they won't read mine ...

On a completely unrelated subject, too bad about T.U. I wonder about their chances next year. At least Dumphy will be back.

I didnt even see the second one...my apologies, you may proceed on to English teacher.

inlet13

riotgrl wrote:

Inlet, I think what I got out of the article and this entire discussion is that we are all suffering because of a cultural shift in our country. In part, that has to do with women's expanding role in politics, economics, and even within the social structure of the community and family. I took from your POV and the article that while we disagree on how we got here and what it all means maybe the better question to debate is how do we fix the problem?

Ok. Fair enough. I was dodging the fix because, to be honest, I don’t think a fix is coming any time soon. In fact, I think it will probably get worse before it gets better.

But, I’ll go the “what’s the fix” route in this post since you asked. My thought is the only way to really fix the problem is through technological advancement and economic growth. I know most here won’t agree with that because most here are more driven by equality than growth. Fair enough. But, my thought is basically we’d need the median household income to jump in “real terms” (inflation adjusted) significantly. In my mind the major hurdle is not really growth, it’s inflation or “fake growth”. For example, it’s one thing to have household incomes jump up, but it’s another for house prices, food prices, gas prices, etc to rise faster. This brings in monetary policy – which I won’t bore you with, but it’s the Fed (in my humble opinion) that is the primary cause of this issue. To recap the issue, I sincerely believe our issue right now is – for couples, it’s arguably harder to have one parent home and one parent at work AND live comfortably financially. There are so many variables at play, however, it would be very difficult to prove. So, I was hoping for a consensus on that, before moving to the fix.

riotgrl wrote:

I highlighted some of my personal experiences to try to figure out for myself how do we solve some of these problems about unequal work loads at home? Wage discrepancies do still exist. Families still have to make hard decisions about who stays home. What's the solution? That's the natural extension to this debate because alot of times our anger has to do with feeling helpless about the situation or anger that this situation is not what it should be. So, I'll start.....

As for unequal workloads at home, I totally agree. I think, in many families, it’s simply unfair that a woman works as many hours as she does only to come home to do more work. I really do think Blockhead had some points on why that may be the case. I didn’t read all of his posts, but I read one point on biology. I’m sure quite a few, maybe yourself, may disagree with his take. That’s fine, but personally, I do see there to be a bit of biology at play when people divide chores “efficiently”. For example, I can’t really feed my son. Sure, I can feed him a pre-mix bottle, but if my wife and I want our child to breastfeed, it’s most efficient that my wife does the feeding. You see what I’m saying? That’s not to say I can’t make up for doing less feeding in other areas, etc. But, denying that she’s more equipped to feed breastmilk strictly to say it’s sexist otherwise, isn’t getting anyone anywhere. I’m just saying it’s not as easy as just splitting up chores 50/50 if you’re going to be efficient about it. In rare cases, like the example I provided, there are rationale’s to why certain sexes may be better equipped to do one thing and others better equipped to do other things. That said, I’m not saying men can’t do the entire stay at home Dad at all. The truth is men can do a great job staying at home, and women can do a great job working, if that is what works for that family. My point here has been - regardless, or who stays home, or how you divide up tasks, I’m still left saying – it’s harder now than it once was to have one parent stay home. This deals with the monetary aspect more than anything.

riotgrl wrote:

First, I think we have to change our mindset at the local level. As a working mother, I have to spend time working on getting my husband to take on more chores at home which after 15 years of marriage he has done, still not as much as I need/want but better than the beginning. My children also are expected to help out with chores that WE both decide they need to do. So, hopefully, my children leave our home with the ability to take care of themselves and not have predefined, predetermined roles.

I think you’re absolutely right that we should start at the local level. I think your points here are well taken and complete correct. I admire the fact that you’re trying to teach your children personal responsibility. I mean, that’s what being a parent is all about, right?

Personally, despite the fact that my wife stays home, I think I could still do a better in terms of taking on an additional chore here or there. Being a stay-at-home Mom is really, really hard! Honestly, the origin of me posting a thread on this subject has to do with that. I never really understood how hard it was until I saw my wife do it. So, to me, if staying home is that hard, I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to spend years being a Mom and working a full-time job. My wife did this for a bit, but not long enough for me to really grasp how that would affect our family. Regardless, I imagine it’s has to be really difficult – being pulled in twenty different directions at once. Then you see paychecks these days and what they can buy, and you compare it to way back when. This spurred me to think about the costs involved when more women entered the workforce and when I saw that article and read the small part about that aspect, I posted it because of that. I knew it wasn’t PC to discuss any cost involved with the sexual revolution (especially here), but sometimes things worth discussing aren’t always PC. So, I brought it to the table.

riotgrl wrote:

Second, when I took maternity leave with both children, I was told that if I wanted to take more than 6 weeks leave (I teach at a public high school) then I had to have a note from my doctor stating that I NEEDED to stay home for medical reasons OR I could take off 8 weeks if I was nursing (an aside - why is that even their business?). If I took longer than that, which I was lucky that I could, I had to apply for FMLA leave which meant I was not guaranteed a position at the school I was teaching at upon my return. This seems hostile to me. Why can't we change the laws? FMLA leave was supposed to help but the exemptions are ridiculous. I'm not sure what luck we would have fighting this at a local level but the hostility towards parents taking off defies logic, especially since my job is supposed to be all about kids but my employer doesn't respect my family. Isn't this still a holdover from a previous era? So can we agree that there is a problem? How do we fix it? I'm a huge believer in that I CAN do something even if it is only within my own house. Meh, maybe you think my thoughts are all a bunch of bullshit but what are we doing to fix it?

I agree it shouldn’t be their business whether you are nursing or not. It’s actually very awkward that that question is posed.

On your points, my wife also applied for FMLA leave. And I agree there was a lot of red tape to jump through in order to pass. I don’t know what the answer is here. I don’t think there’s any problem with trying to reach for a solution though. Personally, I think the purpose of FMLA leave is noble. But, I can see why a policy like it would cost an organization money. So, sometimes, I am left thinking outside the box on questions like this… Since you asked for potential solutions…

Given my political leanings (libertarian), I typically look for solutions outside of government. Given that, since you asked, I think there’s two ways to fix these problems –neither of which are likely to happen. First, maybe more job sharing would be apt here? If there was a system where job sharing was more accepted, it would be increasingly possible to have employees work out leave with an employer (or fellow employees) ahead of time, at little cost to the employer. Clearly, another potential cost issue here is that there could be additional expenses involved in maintaining efficient staff levels. So, it may be a balancing act. Second, perhaps less government involvement in employment all together would help. I know this one is bound to get more skepticism, but let me quickly elaborate. I think we’d both agree programs like FMLA cost employers money. There are tons of these programs, some more noble than others. Let’s say we do away with all of them, and the government gets out of the picture. This would save companies money. Most likely staff would make higher salaries. Further, there would be less bureaucracy and red tape to jump through in bringing employees on board, or having them even leave for extended periods. So, even if they weren’t guaranteed their job when they’re ready to jump back in, it would be easier for them to find a job elsewhere. Third, I think a lot of the legal mumbo jumbo associated here actually has to do with torts. So, tort reform is a final issue that could help here.

Honestly, I’m not sure any of these would work and the solution to me seems really difficult because I can’t envision a scenario where bureaucracy and red tape shrink. In fact, most likely, they’ll both just increase.
So, at the end of the day, I think our only hope of solving this problem is through more economic growth so household incomes increase to the point where families can make these tough decisions easier with more assets behind them.

riotgrl wrote:

I apologize if that seems a bit rambling but my daughter is home sick today and I'm operating on 3 hours of sleep! Antoher way we are making it work in my family. There are days when I cannot miss work so my husband picks up the slack and other times, like today, that he cannot miss work but I can.

See, this is one more reason why I think having children is so tough. I feel for you. I now use my vacation based on issues completely un-related to me or relaxation. It typically has to do with illness, ect. So, I totally understand. I hope your daughter feels better and you get some rest!

riotgrl

But, I’ll go the “what’s the fix” route in this post since you asked. My thought is the only way to really fix the problem is through technological advancement and economic growth. I know most here won’t agree with that because most here are more driven by equality than growth. Fair enough. But, my thought is basically we’d need the median household income to jump in “real terms” (inflation adjusted) significantly. In my mind the major hurdle is not really growth, it’s inflation or “fake growth”. For example, it’s one thing to have household incomes jump up, but it’s another for house prices, food prices, gas prices, etc to rise faster. This brings in monetary policy – which I won’t bore you with, but it’s the Fed (in my humble opinion) that is the primary cause of this issue. To recap the issue, I sincerely believe our issue right now is – for couples, it’s arguably harder to have one parent home and one parent at work AND live comfortably financially. There are so many variables at play, however, it would be very difficult to prove. So, I was hoping for a consensus on that, before moving to the fix.

Actually I agree with much of what you say. I'll bore you with a bit of background - I was a stockbroker for a time before changing careers to teaching and I now teach US History and AP Human Geography. One of the biggest issues we discuss is less developed countries and the role of women in those countries. Without a doubt, the countries that are seeing better economic growth are the ones that have more women in the workforce. Most of this is through microloans (check out http://www.kiva.org) that directly benefit both men and women who have great business ideas but no capital to start or expand their business. Many of these women, and I am sure men as well, are also raising children while having to work but I think many of those countries are collective societies which may allow them more flexibility with raising children. I won't bore anyone with my views on collective vs. individualistic societies though! I would enjoy a discussion about monetary policy and the Fed I do believe (and I'm a liberal) that the Fed has overgrown its original intent which definitely impacts us at the local level. However, I believe in scaling back these programs rather than getting rid of them altogether. The original intent of the Fed, as I am sure you know, was not just control of monetary policy but to regulate an industry that had run rampant and caused alot of damage. Going back to an unregulated era is not a good idea to me. The Progressive reforms of TR and other progressive presidents were necessary to put the brakes on corporations and banks that were dealing in dirty business practices. The scope of the Fed is too big, bring it back to a more reasonable level of involvement. I would also argue the same for most federal agencies - don't get rid but scale back or consolidate (I mean hello! do we really need the USDA, the FDA and about 10 other agencies regulating our food supply?)

As for unequal workloads at home, I totally agree. I think, in many families, it’s simply unfair that a woman works as many hours as she does only to come home to do more work. I really do think Blockhead had some points on why that may be the case. I didn’t read all of his posts, but I read one point on biology. I’m sure quite a few, maybe yourself, may disagree with his take. That’s fine, but personally, I do see there to be a bit of biology at play when people divide chores “efficiently”. For example, I can’t really feed my son. Sure, I can feed him a pre-mix bottle, but if my wife and I want our child to breastfeed, it’s most efficient that my wife does the feeding. You see what I’m saying? That’s not to say I can’t make up for doing less feeding in other areas, etc. But, denying that she’s more equipped to feed breastmilk strictly to say it’s sexist otherwise, isn’t getting anyone anywhere. I’m just saying it’s not as easy as just splitting up chores 50/50 if you’re going to be efficient about it. In rare cases, like the example I provided, there are rationale’s to why certain sexes may be better equipped to do one thing and others better equipped to do other things. That said, I’m not saying men can’t do the entire stay at home Dad at all. The truth is men can do a great job staying at home, and women can do a great job working, if that is what works for that family. My point here has been - regardless, or who stays home, or how you divide up tasks, I’m still left saying – it’s harder now than it once was to have one parent stay home. This deals with the monetary aspect more than anything.

I read Blockheads information, in part, about biological determinism and while I disagree with aspects of this idea I do believe that your point is valid. Not to be too graphic but I nursed both kids and yes that is impossible for my husband to do but he did other chores like changing diapers (which I really, really detested) to make up for the fact that I was the one up most nights getting very little sleep. That time is precious to me and I wouldn't trade it for anything. But my husband did not have the same close relationship with either children when they were younger because of that so he had to find ways to be involved so he could be as close when they were babies. Both of my kids benefited from his attempts to get close and it made me love and appreciate him even more than just as a provider.

riotgrl wrote:

First, I think we have to change our mindset at the local level. As a working mother, I have to spend time working on getting my husband to take on more chores at home which after 15 years of marriage he has done, still not as much as I need/want but better than the beginning. My children also are expected to help out with chores that WE both decide they need to do. So, hopefully, my children leave our home with the ability to take care of themselves and not have predefined, predetermined roles.

[/quote]I think you’re absolutely right that we should start at the local level. I think your points here are well taken and complete correct. I admire the fact that you’re trying to teach your children personal responsibility. I mean, that’s what being a parent is all about, right?[/quote]

[/quote]Personally, despite the fact that my wife stays home, I think I could still do a better in terms of taking on an additional chore here or there. Being a stay-at-home Mom is really, really hard! Honestly, the origin of me posting a thread on this subject has to do with that. I never really understood how hard it was until I saw my wife do it. So, to me, if staying home is that hard, I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to spend years being a Mom and working a full-time job. My wife did this for a bit, but not long enough for me to really grasp how that would affect our family. Regardless, I imagine it’s has to be really difficult – being pulled in twenty different directions at once. Then you see paychecks these days and what they can buy, and you compare it to way back when. This spurred me to think about the costs involved when more women entered the workforce and when I saw that article and read the small part about that aspect, I posted it because of that. I knew it wasn’t PC to discuss any cost involved with the sexual revolution (especially here), but sometimes things worth discussing aren’t always PC. So, I brought it to the table.[/quote]

riotgrl wrote:

Second, when I took maternity leave with both children, I was told that if I wanted to take more than 6 weeks leave (I teach at a public high school) then I had to have a note from my doctor stating that I NEEDED to stay home for medical reasons OR I could take off 8 weeks if I was nursing (an aside - why is that even their business?). If I took longer than that, which I was lucky that I could, I had to apply for FMLA leave which meant I was not guaranteed a position at the school I was teaching at upon my return. This seems hostile to me. Why can't we change the laws? FMLA leave was supposed to help but the exemptions are ridiculous. I'm not sure what luck we would have fighting this at a local level but the hostility towards parents taking off defies logic, especially since my job is supposed to be all about kids but my employer doesn't respect my family. Isn't this still a holdover from a previous era? So can we agree that there is a problem? How do we fix it? I'm a huge believer in that I CAN do something even if it is only within my own house. Meh, maybe you think my thoughts are all a bunch of bullshit but what are we doing to fix it?

[/quote]I agree it shouldn’t be their business whether you are nursing or not. It’s actually very awkward that that question is posed.[/quote]

[/quote]On your points, my wife also applied for FMLA leave. And I agree there was a lot of red tape to jump through in order to pass. I don’t know what the answer is here. I don’t think there’s any problem with trying to reach for a solution though. Personally, I think the purpose of FMLA leave is noble. But, I can see why a policy like it would cost an organization money. So, sometimes, I am left thinking outside the box on questions like this… Since you asked for potential solutions…[/quote]

[/quote]Given my political leanings (libertarian), I typically look for solutions outside of government. Given that, since you asked, I think there’s two ways to fix these problems –neither of which are likely to happen. First, maybe more job sharing would be apt here? If there was a system where job sharing was more accepted, it would be increasingly possible to have employees work out leave with an employer (or fellow employees) ahead of time, at little cost to the employer. Clearly, another potential cost issue here is that there could be additional expenses involved in maintaining efficient staff levels. So, it may be a balancing act. Second, perhaps less government involvement in employment all together would help. I know this one is bound to get more skepticism, but let me quickly elaborate. I think we’d both agree programs like FMLA cost employers money. There are tons of these programs, some more noble than others. Let’s say we do away with all of them, and the government gets out of the picture. This would save companies money. Most likely staff would make higher salaries. Further, there would be less bureaucracy and red tape to jump through in bringing employees on board, or having them even leave for extended periods. So, even if they weren’t guaranteed their job when they’re ready to jump back in, it would be easier for them to find a job elsewhere. Third, I think a lot of the legal mumbo jumbo associated here actually has to do with torts. So, tort reform is a final issue that could help here. [/quote]

[/quote]Honestly, I’m not sure any of these would work and the solution to me seems really difficult because I can’t envision a scenario where bureaucracy and red tape shrink. In fact, most likely, they’ll both just increase. So, at the end of the day, I think our only hope of solving this problem is through more economic growth so household incomes increase to the point where families can make these tough decisions easier with more assets behind them.[/quote]

Not sure I agree with you about government getting out of the way. Seems like we would be dependent upon business to have a heart and care for their employees. I have no doubt there are employers who would do that but I see very few because in capitalism profit is the driving force. So where does heart and caring come into play? I think economic growth will come but I also think we are on the verge of a very large shift in our country in terms of job sectors. We have been, primarily, a secondary sector job market, manufacturing, for a very long time. However, we are transitioning to more and more jobs in the tertiary sector, meaning more technological positions. Its going to be a painful process to make that change. I tell my students all the time that a high school diploma won't cut it for them. Many of the boys I graduated with could still get a good paying job at the GM plant and support their families in the same way their dad did but not today. These kids need additional education (both academic and technical/vocational) and job training and we are failing them at an alarming rate. Not to get too sidetracked but the Dept of Education policies do nothing to address the real problems - these kids are NOT ready for college or the workplace.

riotgrl wrote:

I apologize if that seems a bit rambling but my daughter is home sick today and I'm operating on 3 hours of sleep! Antoher way we are making it work in my family. There are days when I cannot miss work so my husband picks up the slack and other times, like today, that he cannot miss work but I can.

[/quote]See, this is one more reason why I think having children is so tough. I feel for you. I now use my vacation based on issues completely un-related to me or relaxation. It typically has to do with illness, ect. So, I totally understand. I hope your daughter feels better and you get some rest![/quote]


Thank you but also, I appreciate a civil discussion about the ideas. The hubs gets tired of me getting on my soapbox!

RW81233

Some people in this thread must have rejoiced no doubt...;)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/0 ... ostpopular

Scott Walker Quietly Repeals Wisconsin Equal Pay Law
Posted: 04/ 6/2012 12:09 pm Updated: 04/ 6/2012 2:19 pm
FOLLOW: Scott Walker, Video, Women's Rights, Equal Pay, Scott Walker Equal Pay, Scott Walker Wisconsin, Wisconsin Equal Pay, Wisconsin Pay Equity, Marlo's Slideshows, Politics News

WASHINGTON -- A Wisconsin law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court was repealed on Thursday, after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed the bill.

The 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues via which to press charges. Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court.

In November, the state Senate approved SB 202, which rolled back this provision. On February, the Assembly did the same. Both were party-line votes in Republican-controlled chambers.

SB 202 was sent to Walker on March 29. He had, according to the state constitution, six days to act on the bill. The deadline was 5:00 p.m. on Thursday. The governor quietly signed the bill into law on Thursday, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau, and it is now called Act 219.

Walker's office did not return repeated requests for comment.

State Sen. Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) and Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), the authors of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act, criticized Walker on Thursday for not informing the public of his actions on SB 202.

“We are finally starting to see progress here in Wisconsin, yet like their counterparts across the country, Legislative Republicans want to turn back the clock on women’s rights in the workplace,” said Hansen.

Women earn 77 cents for every dollar that men make. In Wisconsin, it's 75 cents, according to the Wisconsin Alliance for Women’s Health (WAWH), which also estimates that families in the state "lose more than $4,000 per year due to unequal pay."

Business associations lobbied in support of SB 202, according to the state's Government Accountability Board. Groups like Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and the Wisconsin Restaurant Association all backed a repeal.

Sara Finger, executive director of WAWH, said that the repeal was a "demoralizing attack on women’s rights, health, and wellbeing."

"Economic security is a women’s health issue," she said. "The salary women are paid directly affects the type and frequency of health care services they are able to access. At a time when women’s health services are becoming more expensive and harder to obtain, financial stability is essential to maintain steady access."

Walker is facing a recall election in June. The two frontrunners on the Democratic side who are competing to unseat him, former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, sharply criticized the governor for allowing the repeal bill to become law.

Falk said Walker has "turned back the clock for women across Wisconsin."

"As a woman and as a mother who worked full-time while raising my son, I know first-hand how important pay equity and health care are to women across Wisconsin," she said in a statement to The Huffington Post.

A spokesman for Barrett's campaign said that Walker's "ideological civil war includes a war on women, and repeal today of this protection against pay discrimination is a major step backwards for Wisconsin values and basic fairness."

"Tom Barrett knows equal pay for equal work is essential, and failing to stand up for Wisconsin women in the workplace is yet another reason he [Walker] must be defeated this summer," he said.

UPDATE: 2:17 p.m. -- The Plum Line reports that President Barack Obama's campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith responded to Walker's repeal, calling on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, to take a position on the issue.

"As he campaigned across Wisconsin, Mitt Romney repeatedly praised Governor Scott Walker's leadership, calling him a 'hero' and 'a man of courage,'" she said. "But with his signing yesterday of a bill make it harder for women to enforce in court their right to equal pay, Walker showed how far Republicans are willing to go to undermine not only women's health care, but also their economic security. Does Romney think women should have ability to take their bosses to court to get the same pay as their male coworkers? Or does he stand with Governor Walker against this?"

PJ_Soul

I'd just like to reiterate that this question is offensive. The question really means "would women be happier if they were less equal to men (necessarily meaning second class citizens)?" Give me a fucking break.
would also like to draw attention to this amazing woman who just became the first female president of Malawi with a very tough struggle and surely many struggles to come. Good thing she is not overly concerned about her happiness!! :?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/07/world/afr ... ?hpt=hp_t3

PJ_Soul

Jeanwah wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

Finally, Cate and brian are hopefully bringing us to a better place, where women aren't blamed for our declining happiness, and are respected for the beautiful, strong individuals they are.

Along with Henry Rollins, Eddie Vedder and every other incredible man that is willing to stand up for women rather than look at them otherwise.

Alan Alda. He's been an outspoken feminist for years. Love him!

Jason P

Man Finally Put In Charge Of Struggling Feminist Movement

WASHINGTON—After decades spent battling gender discrimination and inequality in the workplace, the feminist movement underwent a high-level shake-up last month, when 53-year-old management consultant Peter "Buck" McGowan took over as new chief of the worldwide initiative for women's rights.

McGowan, who now oversees the group's day-to-day operations, said he "couldn't be happier" to bring his ambition, experience, and no-nonsense attitude to his new role as the nation's top feminist.

"All the feminist movement needed to do was bring on someone who had the balls to do something about this glass ceiling business," said McGowan, who quickly closed the 23.5 percent gender wage gap by "making a few calls to the big boys upstairs." "In the world of gender identity and empowered female sexuality, it's all about who you know."

......

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-finally-put-in-charge-of-struggling-feminist-m,2338/

brianlux

PJ_Soul wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

Finally, Cate and brian are hopefully bringing us to a better place, where women aren't blamed for our declining happiness, and are respected for the beautiful, strong individuals they are.

Along with Henry Rollins, Eddie Vedder and every other incredible man that is willing to stand up for women rather than look at them otherwise.

Alan Alda. He's been an outspoken feminist for years. Love him!

Yes, Alda is a strong supporter of women's rights. And Michael Stipe who, when in an interview interview in which he talked about his book on Patti Smith, Two Times Intro, referred to himself as "an unapologetic feminist". Thumbs up to both Alda and Stipe.

inlet13

An interesting video on women salaries vs. men's salaries. Take it for what it's worth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

An interesting video on women salaries vs. men's salaries. Take it for what it's worth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

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.

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

An interesting video on women salaries vs. men's salaries. Take it for what it's worth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

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.

inlet13

Extending that previous post... I really think the main reason that it's harder to support a family under one income is:

-inflation.

Prices for everything are very high compared to where they were 50 or so years ago. Also, inflation is often tricky. You can have inflation and think you're better off, when in reality, you're not. I mean a guy who gets a 2% raise comes home happy, but if you've had 3% inflation over the past year, that guy will be worse off. I don't necessarily think the average family is better off than they were 50 years ago - financially speaking. Sure, there's more technology and all that jazz, which is awesome. But, if you could discount that stuff and just talk about stable goods/services and what we can buy... are we really better off? The point I was making is, I don't really think so. I mean it's harder to support a family on one income - or seems to be. That's why I blame the Fed for a lot of our problems. They are responsible for controlling inflation.

PJ_Soul

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

An interesting video on women salaries vs. men's salaries. Take it for what it's worth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwogDPh-Sow

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.

I don't think there is any question that women are more nurturing by nature. I would assume it's because they are mothers and have to be nurturing by nature in order to take proper care of children. Girls don't just play mommy with dolls because they happen to have been given dolls. It seems to be a natural instinct for most girls to engage in nurture play from a very young age.