Marriage Structure and Resistance to the Gender Revolution in the Workplace

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband has a high intensity job and I have deliberately taken a more flexible but lower paying job do that out family life runs more smoothly and I can shift my schedule around and cover emergency child care needs. Because of that, we have less money than dual income families where both parents work high demand jobs. I don't think that the choice to take a more flexible job should always be the woman's, but I do have a problem with couples who don't make the decision to take less money and more flexibility who then complain about how the workforce is unfair. You get to have the money, so why do you think your life shouldn't be a little harder than mine.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be better if we reverted back to the old ways and I didn't have to take care of a sick baby all day, and work, and then after putting said baby to bed, drive downtown and work more until 3AM. All so I can live in my 1200 square foot home.

How freaking ingenious - who is the moron who fought for my right to kill myself working and being a mommy at the same time with a child who is always sick and never well because she is in some F-ing daycare rather than with mommy? And because most women work now, home values are double what they used to be as a value of average salary compared to average home price. Today, the market expects two people will work to pay for a home.

Being a woman today rocks!

You make good points, which will be glossed over and buried by something else.

Feminism and patriarchy are two sides of the same coin. They both oppress women, just in different ways. Now instead of being a slave to your family, you can be a slave to your boss.

Oh please. Being a slave to your boss is something many men have had to deal with since... I don't know when.

When people started being dual-income, they initially didn't press as hard for wage increases (since they had all this extra income), thus household income didn't change much, which means INDIVIDUAL income has stagnated ("hey we can get by if I didn't get a big raise, thank goodness my spouse's income is there"). So people got used to needing TWO income to support a lifestyle that used to be supported by ONE income.

Which means bosses (corporations) pocketed the difference.

BTW, feminism fought to let you have the options to work or SAH (aka needed a man to survive). Being a divorcee in the old days often meant poverty and destitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be better if we reverted back to the old ways and I didn't have to take care of a sick baby all day, and work, and then after putting said baby to bed, drive downtown and work more until 3AM. All so I can live in my 1200 square foot home.

How freaking ingenious - who is the moron who fought for my right to kill myself working and being a mommy at the same time with a child who is always sick and never well because she is in some F-ing daycare rather than with mommy? And because most women work now, home values are double what they used to be as a value of average salary compared to average home price. Today, the market expects two people will work to pay for a home.

Being a woman today rocks!

You make good points, which will be glossed over and buried by something else.

Feminism and patriarchy are two sides of the same coin. They both oppress women, just in different ways. Now instead of being a slave to your family, you can be a slave to your boss.

Oh please. Being a slave to your boss is something many men have had to deal with since... I don't know when.

When people started being dual-income, they initially didn't press as hard for wage increases (since they had all this extra income), thus household income didn't change much, which means INDIVIDUAL income has stagnated ("hey we can get by if I didn't get a big raise, thank goodness my spouse's income is there"). So people got used to needing TWO income to support a lifestyle that used to be supported by ONE income.

Which means bosses (corporations) pocketed the difference.

BTW, feminism fought to let you have the options to work or SAH (aka needed a man to survive). Being a divorcee in the old days often meant poverty and destitution.

You see how you are just as degrading as those who support patriarchy?

You are all the same. When it comes down to it, you aren't about choices, you are about controlling and demeaning women.

Feminism, Patriarchy= 2 sides, same coin

[Anonymous]

Wow, ever hear of strawman?

You haven cited anything about how the previous comment is degrading.

Not to mention anything about how patriarchy is equivalent to feminism except to say "they both control and demean women".

Might as well say Democrats and Republicans are all Nazis, they both degrade American Democracy. Both parties = 2 sides, same coin.

[Anonymous]

In my culture, being a non-wage earning SAHM is a new concept. Many women had to either work outside the home or work within the home to earn wages.

I guess the idea of a traditional family is foreign to some.

[Anonymous]

I have been a manager for many years. People are bitter when women go on maternity leave. I would always say, "You will have your time." As those aging people see - they have their time - with kidney stones, knee replacements, strokes, cancer, etc.

Suddenly the women who have older children cn really step up nd provide the needed support.

It's not necessarily about being family friendly but it is about being "friendly" period. Treating people with compassion no matter their need.

When my husband's boss use stipend why he would stay at home with a sick kid - where is your wife he said. His response was " I want to be there with my kid."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband has a high intensity job and I have deliberately taken a more flexible but lower paying job do that out family life runs more smoothly and I can shift my schedule around and cover emergency child care needs. Because of that, we have less money than dual income families where both parents work high demand jobs. I don't think that the choice to take a more flexible job should always be the woman's, but I do have a problem with couples who don't make the decision to take less money and more flexibility who then complain about how the workforce is unfair. You get to have the money, so why do you think your life shouldn't be a little harder than mine.

And sometimes both parents take flexible jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband has a high intensity job and I have deliberately taken a more flexible but lower paying job do that out family life runs more smoothly and I can shift my schedule around and cover emergency child care needs. Because of that, we have less money than dual income families where both parents work high demand jobs. I don't think that the choice to take a more flexible job should always be the woman's, but I do have a problem with couples who don't make the decision to take less money and more flexibility who then complain about how the workforce is unfair. You get to have the money, so why do you think your life shouldn't be a little harder than mine.

And sometimes both parents take flexible jobs.

And that's great. But, couples in which neither parent choose to take a more flexible job and who enjoy two full incomes can't be too surprised or upset that people who have made the choice to forego the money have it easier. We all make our choices in life and all choices come with trade-offs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, ever hear of strawman?

You haven cited anything about how the previous comment is degrading.

Not to mention anything about how patriarchy is equivalent to feminism except to say "they both control and demean women".

Might as well say Democrats and Republicans are all Nazis, they both degrade American Democracy. Both parties = 2 sides, same coin.

You know the comment was meant to be rude and degrading. If you are the one who made the comment, you are probably so used to being that way, that you don't even see it. Let me spell it out for you, what was the purpose of the (aka needed (sic) a man to survive)?

Was it to value the work that women do at home, and to point out how it's just as valuable to a childs life as going out to into the workforce? Or were you trying to make a point that one choice is superior to the others because you are the type that doesn't really believe in choice, you just say that because it sounds good.

So save all that "we worked for womens choices" because you don't believe in that. You aren't any better than those staunch proponents of patriarchy. Just because you give a few women (who work outside of the home) a pass from your superiority complex it doesn't mean that you aren't very similar to those who lump all women in the same category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband has a high intensity job and I have deliberately taken a more flexible but lower paying job do that out family life runs more smoothly and I can shift my schedule around and cover emergency child care needs. Because of that, we have less money than dual income families where both parents work high demand jobs. I don't think that the choice to take a more flexible job should always be the woman's, but I do have a problem with couples who don't make the decision to take less money and more flexibility who then complain about how the workforce is unfair. You get to have the money, so why do you think your life shouldn't be a little harder than mine.

And sometimes both parents take flexible jobs.

And that's great. But, couples in which neither parent choose to take a more flexible job and who enjoy two full incomes can't be too surprised or upset that people who have made the choice to forego the money have it easier. We all make our choices in life and all choices come with trade-offs.

I agree - just putting it out there that sometimes it is both parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband has a high intensity job and I have deliberately taken a more flexible but lower paying job do that out family life runs more smoothly and I can shift my schedule around and cover emergency child care needs. Because of that, we have less money than dual income families where both parents work high demand jobs. I don't think that the choice to take a more flexible job should always be the woman's, but I do have a problem with couples who don't make the decision to take less money and more flexibility who then complain about how the workforce is unfair. You get to have the money, so why do you think your life shouldn't be a little harder than mine.

And sometimes both parents take flexible jobs.

And that's great. But, couples in which neither parent choose to take a more flexible job and who enjoy two full incomes can't be too surprised or upset that people who have made the choice to forego the money have it easier. We all make our choices in life and all choices come with trade-offs.

Yes, but it's a mistake to treat trade-offs as if they're inevitable like the weather. They occur often as a result of larger social policy. For example, without Social Security and Medicare, I might have had to decide whether to have my elderly parents move in with me or to give them a stipend so they could afford to live independently. Both choices involve trade-offs. But the government (with the support of its citizens) now offers these benefits to the elderly and I don't have to worry about deciding which trade-offs to choose. I'm not saying that people must choose one route or the other. I'm just pointing out that these choices are not inevitable. As a country, we decided to go down this path which puts families in this situation. Let's not pretend to ourselves that happens naturally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be better if we reverted back to the old ways and I didn't have to take care of a sick baby all day, and work, and then after putting said baby to bed, drive downtown and work more until 3AM. All so I can live in my 1200 square foot home.

How freaking ingenious - who is the moron who fought for my right to kill myself working and being a mommy at the same time with a child who is always sick and never well because she is in some F-ing daycare rather than with mommy? And because most women work now, home values are double what they used to be as a value of average salary compared to average home price. Today, the market expects two people will work to pay for a home.

Being a woman today rocks!

How dumb are you that you do all this without help?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband has a high intensity job and I have deliberately taken a more flexible but lower paying job do that out family life runs more smoothly and I can shift my schedule around and cover emergency child care needs. Because of that, we have less money than dual income families where both parents work high demand jobs. I don't think that the choice to take a more flexible job should always be the woman's, but I do have a problem with couples who don't make the decision to take less money and more flexibility who then complain about how the workforce is unfair. You get to have the money, so why do you think your life shouldn't be a little harder than mine.

I agree, and I'm one of a dual high powered couple. I'm happy with a harder life and better careers and more money, but there is always a tradeoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't buy this. I have a "traditional" marriage and my husband is wonderful and supportive to all his employees. In particular the women who have worked for him have fared well with promotions even though they have taken considerable time off on extended leave and some employers hold the 1-4 months women take off on maternity..even though they shouldn't.

I find this hard to believe. Most businesses cannot survive with that amount of time off given to employees. Furthermore, is he that gracious with men who want childcare leave?

Please! How does northern Europe manage? Especially considering that region has the HIGHEST rate of working mothers on the PLANET. Something like over 90% return to the workforce, unlike the US, that is down in the 70s. Notice something here? A YEAR of maternity leave, that's what.

[Anonymous]

And northern Europe economies are sooooo fabulous.