Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

[Theda Baratheon]

3 hours ago, Balefont said:

Emotional labor is fucking exhausting. 

Especially when you have your own mental health issues to deal with...trying to deal with someone elses on top is just...soo draining. Especially when they won't reciprocate in the same way...

[KiDisaster]

Pizza for Christmas. That's what my family is doing this year and much rejoicing was done by those of us who always end up scrubbing the pots and pans. 

Me >.>

Granted most of the men in my family cook and have always been involved in the Holiday preparations so this was more about it just being too much work in general because there's so many of us now. Which is also why we do Secret Santa so everyone is responsible for one gift and must "wrap it their damn selves." - Grandma Disaster, 2011. 

Scaling back is a good idea IMO. Anybody who has an issue with it can host a big thing themselves. 

[Ice Queen]

1 hour ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Especially when you have your own mental health issues to deal with...trying to deal with someone elses on top is just...soo draining. Especially when they won't reciprocate in the same way...

I call them dementors. They just suck all the joy out of everything and are just a pain to be around.

[Lily Valley]

Mucking up the quote format, going to try this again.

[Lily Valley]

2 hours ago, Lyanna Stark said:

I really have little to no idea, but I try to "prune" and just prioritise to myself what I think is most important, and then do those things. So tree, presents, some activities, some decorations (our Christmas goat is a Must!) and the food stuffs I like and what I think the kids will like. The rest? I cannot deal with. In the future, perhaps bandy together with other women in similar situations?

Back in the day, my whole extended family used to gather, but nowadays everyone hates eachother, so perhaps the solution is going for "friends" instead of "family"?

Some of the easiest Christmases I ever had when my son was young were just this.  I had a pal who also didn't have family in the area.  We would all go to her house and get the kids to sleep.  They guys went to the pub (helpful) and we were up until 3am doing Santa stuff.  At least we kept each other company and shared all the cooking, wrapping and breakfast prep (and drank all the eggnog).   I think anything you can do to decrease the workload is a good idea.

I had one friend here as the mum of an older child / adult who liked to co-host and was REALLY GOOD at keeping the scale manageable.  She's not here anymore.   

This year I am going to be at home with ONE wrapped gift for my adult son, 2 cans of cat food for the cats, a pastry and a new pair of slippers.  If anyone wants to come over, they can bring wine.  I know my son is disappointed I'm not doing the big parties anymore, I'm just sick of it always being my turn.  His Dad could throw one.  My son could too.  He's an adult.

[karaddin]

TP - stereotype threat is an interesting one. As I understand it there have been some replication issues with the studies on it. Assuming the research hasn't been done by anyone else in the next 4 years, and I am able to replicate it, I'm intending to do my honours research on a mechanism that may nullify or even reverse stereotype threat. 

[TerraPrime]

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Exactly, it's a decision people have to make based on what is best for the man, woman and child. This is an area Western governments are going to have to look seriously at if they want to get their birthrates at a sustained level, because if the economic incentive is to have no/fewer children, that is exactly what people are going to do.

 

Yes, we do make these decisions for ourselves.

 

But let's not pretend that the rubrics we use to reach those decisions are free of cultural biases, social pressures, or internalized gender norms. Culturally, "what is best for women, men, and child" has a funny way of becoming "what's best for the men, first."  To use the child-rearing example here, interviews of mothers who work full-time jobs showed that they have a much better chance at equitable sharing of child-rearing duties if the couple explicitly talk about it and negotiate the limits. If certain things aren't explicitly negotiated, then it tends to default to the women. For instance, a couple may negotiate who's taking the kids into daycare, and obtain an equitable workshare. But if there's no discussion on who will take care of the contacts with pediatricians, then in that same couple, it tends to default onto the woman's shoulders, regardless of her career workload.

 

As for monetary/financial incentives in family decisions - I think that's begging the question. I think the core of the discussion, least to me, is the ways, both clear and opaque, in which women's career choices are penalized financially vis a vis men's career choices. Then, on the flip side, how men's decisions on family are penalized. So, to me, saying the economic incentive is a key factor is not really shedding insight, because that's precisely the question I am interested in - why is there a disparity in economic incentive in the first place.

[Hereward]

I just wanted to say that someone using "begging the question" correctly gives me an inordinate amount of joy.  

[mankytoes]

Just now, TerraPrime said:

Yes, we do make these decisions for ourselves.

But let's not pretend that the rubrics we use to reach those decisions are free of cultural biases, social pressures, or internalized gender norms. Culturally, "what is best for women, men, and child" has a funny way of becoming "what's best for the men, first."  To use the child-rearing example here, interviews of mothers who work full-time jobs showed that they have a much better chance at equitable sharing of child-rearing duties if the couple explicitly talk about it and negotiate the limits. If certain things aren't explicitly negotiated, then it tends to default to the women. For instance, a couple may negotiate who's taking the kids into daycare, and obtain an equitable workshare. But if there's no discussion on who will take care of the contacts with pediatricians, then in that same couple, it tends to default onto the woman's shoulders, regardless of her career workload.

 

As for monetary/financial incentives in family decisions - I think that's begging the question. I think the core of the discussion, least to me, is the ways, both clear and opaque, in which women's career choices are penalized financially vis a vis men's career choices. Then, on the flip side, how men's decisions on family are penalized. So, to me, saying the economic incentive is a key factor is not really shedding insight, because that's precisely the question I am interested in - why is there a disparity in economic incentive in the first place.

It's interesting you say that. If you asked most people "would you like to spend more time at work, or more time with your family?", I would guess more people would say more time with the family. The social pressure or conditioning is definitely for the man to work, and the woman to stay home. But I wouldn't say that's always in the man's interest.

It isn't just about who would earn more, it's about parenting skills as well. I had a good, two parent upbringing with my mum working part time, but I can't imagine my dad doing the primary child rearing, he is not patient and could never discipline, he's so soft, any time I cried he'd just lose his nerve and stop telling us off. Raising children isn't just a default role. My mum raised me really well and I'm so grateful for that.

Well that does kind of lead on from my point. If you don't give modern women, especially more eduated ones, the incentives to have children, they won't, and that's what we see across the West (and east- Japan is a great example of plummeting birthrate). Obviously it's totally up to whoever whether they want children, but a plummeting population is pretty much never in a countries' general interest.

That's what you are interested in, but I'm looking more at political solutions. I mean there's one really obvious reason- women have the babies. A woman started work at the same time as me, a month's training, must cost a couple of grand at least, and quit after two weeks because she got pregnant. That's not a risk with a male employee. The company is incentivised to give preferance to men, and no matter what you do regarding childcare or anything else, you can't change the biological fact that women are the ones who get pregnant and give birth.

[Chaldanya]

8 minutes ago, Hereward said:

I just wanted to say that someone using "begging the question" correctly gives me an inordinate amount of joy.  

This is the feminist thread, buster. There will be no joy here!

[Theda Baratheon]

It's so annoying you can never convince someone, as a woman, that you won't become pregnant because so many people think you will in the future, and even if you say you won't, you're lying to yourself and you'll change your mind. I have honestly never dreamed of a wedding or a family, it's personally something I have never envisioned for myself in the future. I think if the child rearing wasn't so heavily on the side of women my mind might change, but I have trouble enough looking after myself let alone another tiny little vulnerable human. But there's no way to genuinely convince someone of this. I like children as well, I think they're lovely and should be nurtured and respected and guided through life, but the idea of being a stay at home mother, with all the emotional and physical work that entails just does not appeal to me at all, it's not compatible with my personality. It feels like a CRIME to say these things as a young woman, but there we go. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

3 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

 

That's what you are interested in, but I'm looking more at political solutions. I mean there's one really obvious reason- women have the babies. A woman started work at the same time as me, a month's training, must cost a couple of grand at least, and quit after two weeks because she got pregnant. That's not a risk with a male employee. The company is incentivised to give preferance to men, and no matter what you do regarding childcare or anything else, you can't change the biological fact that women are the ones who get pregnant and give birth.

But there are plenty of risks with male employees too.  Male employee equally could quit on short notice, or be hit by a bus, or whatever. I call BS on this.  A couple of months off (should be more but I digress) overall shouldn't give rise to such a huge "incentive".  This is simply retroactively justifying the result.  I've had 3 children.  Strangely, I didn't become any stupider or less competent, or in fact, lose any of my knowledge as a result. 

[Lily Valley]

40 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

If certain things aren't explicitly negotiated, then it tends to default to the women. For instance, a couple may negotiate who's taking the kids into daycare, and obtain an equitable workshare. But if there's no discussion on who will take care of the contacts with pediatricians, then in that same couple, it tends to default onto the woman's shoulders, regardless of her career workload.

 

As for monetary/financial incentives in family decisions - I think that's begging the question. I think the core of the discussion, least to me, is the ways, both clear and opaque, in which women's career choices are penalized financially vis a vis men's career choices. Then, on the flip side, how men's decisions on family are penalized. So, to me, saying the economic incentive is a key factor is not really shedding insight, because that's precisely the question I am interested in - why is there a disparity in economic incentive in the first place.

 

This.  I have never had a male colleague call in to work because of a childcare issue.  I have never met a woman with young children who hadn't maxed out her leave to deal with school appointments, child illness, doctor's apppointments or errands.  It is ridiculous.  My female colleagues are usually better educated and more successful than their husbands, yet it is never a question of who has a "big job" and who has a "little career". 

It is ridiculous and it needs to change.

RE:  "Would you rather spend time at work or at home?"

LOL

I would have answered you every day that my son was young and we were fighting over his homework and evening chores, "I WOULD RATHER BE AT WORK!"  I love my work and I always have.  The years I had a crap JOB I would still have preferred to be at work than driving my son to an endless, tedious series of activities and appointments.  It sucks.  I would have been a much better parent if my only role were evening story reading and weekend trips to the zoo.

Even during the years my son's father was very involved, the school called me first.  The doctor called me first and (once) the State Trooper called me first.   100% of the time.  There were always two numbers listed.  My son's FATHER'S number was first.  He worked five minutes away at a job that was easy to leave.  This stuff needs to change across the board for women to have any kind of work/life balance. 

All of this stuff impacts performance.  If you CANNOT be at work or if you are constantly interrupted at work to deal with family, it impacts every aspect of your career.  When you pile on sexist bias in promotion practices, it becomes very difficult for women to get ahead.

It has been suggested for a long time that ambitious women "marry down"  http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/11/18/harvard_business_school_study_it_s_not_kids_but_husbands_that_hold_women.html

Oh, that won't work if you don't discuss it BEFORE you get married. 

Follow up study on women's careers:

https://hbr.org/2014/12/rethink-what-you-know-about-high-achieving-women

[mankytoes]

2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

But there are plenty of risks with male employees too.  Male employee equally could quit on short notice, or be hit by a bus, or whatever. I call BS on this.  A couple of months off (should be more but I digress) overall shouldn't give rise to such a huge "incentive".  This is simply retroactively justifying the result.  I've had 3 children.  Strangely, I didn't become any stupider or less competent, or in fact, lose any of my knowledge as a result. 

But the point is, pregnancy is ONLY a risk with women. Men and women can be hit by buses, or quit on short notice. I'm not saying companies should have that attitude, but they are going to look at their bottom line, not social progress.

I don't think anyone is saying you become less competent, but if you have an important role, it can't just not be done for a few months, or however long. And if your role involves client relationships, they want to keep speaking with the same person. You can "call BS" all you want, but if you look into it, you'll see the wage gap is much bigger in those sorts of roles. I don't know how else you explain that?

In the same sense, we get told you only pay women 77% of what you pay men, yet they're just as good. Why are companies not taking advantage of that, and hiring way more women? Do you just think companies are really stupid and sexist?

[Stubby]

[MOD]

A poster has been suspended for trolling this thread.

Please refrain from replying to that poster.

[/MOD]

[karaddin]

The whole men are worse at parenting (rather than a specific individual) is still a cultural artifact. Father's are treated like the back up parent, the ' weak' one who can't say no or the escalation authority that overrules the mother (in asshole abusive situations). If you're never expected to be 'it', the one it is all on and the one who has to make a decision now, you won't ever believe you can be that, you never will be that.

The only father I've ever seen that isn't like this is my brother in Sweden, he's had 6 months at home with each child while my sister-in-law is back at work. He can't second guess himself, so he had to step up and be an equal parent. It took a while to overcome the self doubt, but he's there now. Not saying everything in the house is evenly split, although I'm not saying it's not either, just that they parent as equals because he's had to learn how.

[Dr. Pepper]

I'm a foster parent and am around a lot of other foster parents.  There are a lot of same sex coupled female foster parents and a lot of single female foster parents.  Very few single male or same sex coupled male foster parents.  They are often viewed with suspicion or pity by judges, social workers, biological parents, other foster parents, everyone.  They see a man and think he either can't parent because it's a woman's job or they see a man and assume he's a creepy pedophile.  I have male friends who want to be foster or adoptive parents but  think their desire to parent is wrong because it's creepy.  It's a cultural system that teaches from birth that women are caregivers and men are just occasional babysitters or else there is something wrong with them.  In foster care, it's the children who suffer the most because there are fewer homes available to them so they end up housed in motels, couches at the cps office, in group homes, or even on the streets.  I'm sure children in more typical homes suffer as well, and not just because they are also being indoctrinated in a gendered division of labor.  

Acting as though men are incapable of being good caregivers is harmful to society.  

[Lily Valley]

35 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

But the point is, pregnancy is ONLY a risk with women. Men and women can be hit by buses, or quit on short notice. I'm not saying companies should have that attitude, but they are going to look at their bottom line, not social progress.

I don't think anyone is saying you become less competent, but if you have an important role, it can't just not be done for a few months, or however long. And if your role involves client relationships, they want to keep speaking with the same person. You can "call BS" all you want, but if you look into it, you'll see the wage gap is much bigger in those sorts of roles. I don't know how else you explain that?

In the same sense, we get told you only pay women 77% of what you pay men, yet they're just as good. Why are companies not taking advantage of that, and hiring way more women? Do you just think companies are really stupid and sexist?

It is AGAINST THE LAW in the US to discriminate on family status or potential family status.  It is AGAINST THE LAW to ask questions in an interview about a person's family status or future plans for family status.  We also have a lawsuit system in place in this country that vigorously sues the SHIT out of companies who screw up on this.

[TerraPrime]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

 

It isn't just about who would earn more, it's about parenting skills as well. I had a good, two parent upbringing with my mum working part time, but I can't imagine my dad doing the primary child rearing, he is not patient and could never discipline, he's so soft, any time I cried he'd just lose his nerve and stop telling us off. Raising children isn't just a default role. My mum raised me really well and I'm so grateful for that.

Parenting skills are learned. When you see young girls pushed/enticed into playing "keep house" and "tea party" while boys are shoehorned into playing "cowboys and indians," you're witnessing socialization by gender in action. When girls pick up a doll, they are practicing care-giving. When boys are denied the freedom to play with dolls in similar ways, they are being denied the chance to learn that skill. When young girls are more entrusted with baby sitting than young boys, we are socializing one gender differently than we do another. When young girls are taught house work more often than young boys are, we are socializing one gender differently than we do another.

So when you tell me that your mom is better at parenting, I say, of course she is. She either has a knack of it, and/or she's really benefited from all the social training. Your dad, on the other hand, probably never had the same chances to develop his parenting skills. Maybe, in part, it's because he didn't feel he could afford it by spending more time at home at the expense of career advancement? Which, you know, circles back to the issue.

And this is not a litany of complaint against the evils of men. Men suffer in these cases, too. I have mentored 3 graduate students, all male. In all cases, they were clueless on basic survival skills like ironing your shirt or putting together an outfit for a professional setting. Are there women who are deficient in these skills, yes. But I suspect (no data here) that proportionately, there are more men who are lacking in housekeeping skills. This is not an advantage, if you measure successful adulthood with self-sufficiency. Socialization based on gender roles harms both sexes.

 

Re: Hereward

LoL Thank you. If I could say that phrase while riding a tracker, I would. For you.

[Ice Queen]

53 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

But there are plenty of risks with male employees too.  Male employee equally could quit on short notice, or be hit by a bus, or whatever. I call BS on this.  A couple of months off (should be more but I digress) overall shouldn't give rise to such a huge "incentive".  This is simply retroactively justifying the result.  I've had 3 children.  Strangely, I didn't become any stupider or less competent, or in fact, lose any of my knowledge as a result. 

True anecdote: I once dated a man (an engineer, incidentally) who believed that if a woman got pregnant she should be fired. Needless to say, that relationship didn't last very long.

We may be headed in that direction, sorry to say.

As far as women choosing to not have children, I can foresee the day when birth control and abortion are both illegal and women have no say in how many children they have or when to have them.

I hope I'm wrong, I really do. But our government has taken a lurch to the right, and it's not worker friendly. It's certainly not friendly to women.

I used to have the child care argument with my ex all the time. He could take days off whenever he wanted. I could take days off, but it was PTO and you only get so much per year. It was always me who stayed home when the kids were sick or had an appointment. Always. It was the source of countless arguments.

One time I was stuck at home for three solid days with two sick kids. He came home from work and informed me that he was going to the bar with his brother. Like hell! He went to take a shower...and I got my keys and left him there with the kids. I went to the gym, went to the mall, then stopped and had a drink. It was great. When I got home, he looked awful, after only a few hours. He apologized and said he had no idea that's what I'd been dealing with all week.