On the personal level, I empathise with you for having the stress of an extra workload. *hugs*
On the political level... sorry for disagreeing, but the fact that some women have children and may have to stay home when the child is sick (and why is it taken for granted that it's the mom that has to stay home, not the dad (in cases where there is a dad and it's not a 'single mom' situation)?) is not a legitimate reason why women (including those who don't have children and don't want children and maybe even can't have children - because employers will treat you as fertile until proven otherwise) should make 75 cent to a man's dollar.
We women aren't "the cause of the problem". Yes, we're the ones with the uteruses (uterii?) that the children come out of (that is, if a man put his sperm in us first, to name that side of the equation), but the fact that children exist and motherhood exists is not the problem; how work is organised and childcare is organised in this society is the problem. I don't know how childcare will be organised in
( ... )
While it's not really my intention to get into a huge debate about this subject, I'll address a couple of points that you made. Just for fun, I guess. :)
...the fact that some women have children and may have to stay home when the child is sick...is not a legitimate reason why women...should make 75 cent to a man's dollar.As I said, I believe that if you remove all the emotionalism and outraged feminist sensibilities from the equation for the moment, it's quite plain to me that the cause of this is economic and that the rationale behind it is likely statistical. Granted, I have no official figures to back this up, but I have been in the working world for...uh, quite a while now, and I've made some observations. In my experience, when there is an issue involving a kid, be it an illness or a doctor's appointment or an afternoon school play or whatever, it's invariably the mother who takes off from work to deal with it. We can argue why this is so, but it's really beside the point. It seems to be just how it is
( ... )
Always with the multi-part replies when talking to Devi. :)nightwind69March 7 2007, 05:36:44 UTC
I think it all comes down to the fact that women cost more for employers to employ. This I have long suspected and now know for a fact, now that I am privy to the health insurance premiums for each employee of my company. Considering just the employer-paid portion of health insurance premiums, not even addressing productivity, women cost more than men. For instance, coworker and I are in roughly the same age bracket (He's about 8 years older than me, actually), both without pre-existing conditions, neither of us smokers. He's male, I'm female. The portion of his premium that the company pays is roughly three-quarters that of mine, even though he's older than me. Why? Because I'm still of child-bearing age, and even though I have zero intention of having a child, the possibility exists that I will. And the insurers know it. The insurers also know that pregnancy care is very costly. BUT, the insurer can't discriminate against women who DO intend to have children by charging them more, so they therefore have to charge the same for every
( ... )
Re: Always with the multi-part replies when talking to Devi. :)ravenclaw_deviMarch 7 2007, 11:06:02 UTC
While I can see where you're coming from, I still don't feel that inequality of any kind should be seen as someting that "just is," but I don't want to get into a huge debate either.
Oh, I certainly don't begrudge her calling out when she is sick. I know she can't help it. Crohn's is a nasty disease, indeed. I feel a little more annoyed when she calls out because her kid is sick. Again, I know she can't help it. It's not her fault that her kid is sick, nor is it his fault that he's sick and too young to be home by himself. It's just...a sucky situation. Sucks for her because she doesn't earn any money and she's out of personal time. Sucks for me because I have to do a ton of extra work. Sucks for the company because they have to pay me about $25 an hour to do work that they pay her $10 an hour to do. Sucks all around
( ... )
I see what you're getting at. However, please be fair... at least about the health insurance. Our rates got hiked (nearly doubled) a couple years ago because so many of our young men fathered children and the company/insurance paid out. Yeah, there were a lot of new moms that year, but the dads got counted for the same amount.
Guess we're too liberal up here in the northwest. :)
On the same note, I'm really glad my mother worked through most of my childhood. (She was in grad school when I was very small.) I have two professional role models right in the family, one of whom is of the same gender and can tell me things like what to do when the VP of the company insists on talking to my chest, from personal experience. (I have an email on this topic somewhere. :) ) Yes, I changed preschools like nobody's business until we found a good one, and she worked 30-hour weeks for several years, but I wouldn't trade it for a stay-at-home mom.
I'm confused...Why would a health insurance company pay anything for a man to father a kid? That's...incomprehensible to me. It costs nothing for a kid to be fathered. Costs way too much for a kid to be mothered, if you know what I mean.
As for the other issue...I guess it's all a matter of perspective. My mother and I didn't get along very often or very well, but I was very glad that she was there all the time when I was a kid, nonetheless. When I was a kid I wished she'd go away and get a job sometimes, sure. :) But now, looking back on it... Well, I tend to think that kids in general do better on pretty much every level when they're with a parent (either one, doesn't have to be Mom), as opposed to a day care center, no matter how good it is. But I'm speaking in generalities, and there are always exceptions to every generalization. :)
I'm confused...Why would a health insurance company pay anything for a man to father a kid? That's...incomprehensible to me. It costs nothing for a kid to be fathered. Costs way too much for a kid to be mothered, if you know what I mean.
'Cos the father married the mother and listed her as a dependent. Therefore, even though it's the father who's working, the insurance is shelling out for both of their costs. And the kids' costs, too. Yes, that means higher premiums for both employee and employer for married employees and families.
When our insurance company hiked the rates, they also explained to us (via one of our payroll people) that they estimate/adjust the likelihood of health events within-company... so our history of being a company with a lot of small children changed all of our assumed risk. On the other hand, we were also a company with few heart attacks, and so on.
If I can interject - it's not just moms that stay home with the kids anymore. Hubby works with 95% men, and many times they've called in to cover the kid being home
( ... )
The taking time off is what I've heard for women being paid on average less than men. For women who are intent on doing well in their career, the time to have children is a tricky one--particularly when you consider that most people have more than one child. It sets them back a year or two in their rise through the ranks.
I also suspect that there are fewer women who are really driven in their career compared to men. I could be hugely wrong on this one, but I know that I, while hugely interested in my actual job, do not identify myself with its title or feel a burning desire to seek out promotions (since that would invariably mean leaving the current workplace). It's my fourth job since leaving university and the third different field. Compare this to my husband, who has the more traditional approach to his career in keeping his eyes on possible promotions and where he can go next
( ... )
Obviously, a pool of one is not proof of anything, but I have wondered if this [lack of huge career-driven-ness in the female of the species] is a tendency of our genders. I don't think it's social programming...
At the risk of stepping on toes...I think it is. I think that gender roles exist and that they exist for a reason. Namely, one person can't do everything. This is not to say that I think the traditional Western gender roles are necessarily the "right" ones, but it is quite obvious to me that men and women are, in general, "wired" differently and that there are reasons for this. I could explain why I think this is so in two different ways, but I'll refrain from doing so because my intention here is not to step on any toes
( ... )
Well, by social programming, I meant what society tells us: i.e. women stay at home with the kids and men go out and work. Social conditioning, perhaps is a better term.
You can go ahead and step on my toes all you want. :) We can't really discuss the specifics of my background and why [i]I[/i] in particular may not be career-driven, because you don't know it, so I can't take it personally. ;) I can theorise other reasons for it that have nothing to do with my gender, but that's not something I care to do online anyway.
One thing about two-income marriages is that, lovely idea as it is to have both husband and wife financially independent, sooner or later one career is likely to take priority. For example, if one person moves in order to take a golden job opportunity, the other person will almost certainly have to leave their own job with no guarantee of getting anything as good in the new area. At least this is something my husband and I are never likely to argue over!
Comments 17
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
On the political level... sorry for disagreeing, but the fact that some women have children and may have to stay home when the child is sick (and why is it taken for granted that it's the mom that has to stay home, not the dad (in cases where there is a dad and it's not a 'single mom' situation)?) is not a legitimate reason why women (including those who don't have children and don't want children and maybe even can't have children - because employers will treat you as fertile until proven otherwise) should make 75 cent to a man's dollar.
We women aren't "the cause of the problem". Yes, we're the ones with the uteruses (uterii?) that the children come out of (that is, if a man put his sperm in us first, to name that side of the equation), but the fact that children exist and motherhood exists is not the problem; how work is organised and childcare is organised in this society is the problem. I don't know how childcare will be organised in ( ... )
Reply
While it's not really my intention to get into a huge debate about this subject, I'll address a couple of points that you made. Just for fun, I guess. :)
...the fact that some women have children and may have to stay home when the child is sick...is not a legitimate reason why women...should make 75 cent to a man's dollar.As I said, I believe that if you remove all the emotionalism and outraged feminist sensibilities from the equation for the moment, it's quite plain to me that the cause of this is economic and that the rationale behind it is likely statistical. Granted, I have no official figures to back this up, but I have been in the working world for...uh, quite a while now, and I've made some observations. In my experience, when there is an issue involving a kid, be it an illness or a doctor's appointment or an afternoon school play or whatever, it's invariably the mother who takes off from work to deal with it. We can argue why this is so, but it's really beside the point. It seems to be just how it is ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
I hope so, 'cause I like to think I'm not one who takes advantage of a disease, feeling like slag while I'm working or not.
Whirlwind
Reply
Reply
Guess we're too liberal up here in the northwest. :)
On the same note, I'm really glad my mother worked through most of my childhood. (She was in grad school when I was very small.) I have two professional role models right in the family, one of whom is of the same gender and can tell me things like what to do when the VP of the company insists on talking to my chest, from personal experience. (I have an email on this topic somewhere. :) ) Yes, I changed preschools like nobody's business until we found a good one, and she worked 30-hour weeks for several years, but I wouldn't trade it for a stay-at-home mom.
Reply
As for the other issue...I guess it's all a matter of perspective. My mother and I didn't get along very often or very well, but I was very glad that she was there all the time when I was a kid, nonetheless. When I was a kid I wished she'd go away and get a job sometimes, sure. :) But now, looking back on it... Well, I tend to think that kids in general do better on pretty much every level when they're with a parent (either one, doesn't have to be Mom), as opposed to a day care center, no matter how good it is. But I'm speaking in generalities, and there are always exceptions to every generalization. :)
Reply
'Cos the father married the mother and listed her as a dependent. Therefore, even though it's the father who's working, the insurance is shelling out for both of their costs. And the kids' costs, too. Yes, that means higher premiums for both employee and employer for married employees and families.
When our insurance company hiked the rates, they also explained to us (via one of our payroll people) that they estimate/adjust the likelihood of health events within-company... so our history of being a company with a lot of small children changed all of our assumed risk. On the other hand, we were also a company with few heart attacks, and so on.
Reply
Reply
I also suspect that there are fewer women who are really driven in their career compared to men. I could be hugely wrong on this one, but I know that I, while hugely interested in my actual job, do not identify myself with its title or feel a burning desire to seek out promotions (since that would invariably mean leaving the current workplace). It's my fourth job since leaving university and the third different field. Compare this to my husband, who has the more traditional approach to his career in keeping his eyes on possible promotions and where he can go next ( ... )
Reply
At the risk of stepping on toes...I think it is. I think that gender roles exist and that they exist for a reason. Namely, one person can't do everything. This is not to say that I think the traditional Western gender roles are necessarily the "right" ones, but it is quite obvious to me that men and women are, in general, "wired" differently and that there are reasons for this. I could explain why I think this is so in two different ways, but I'll refrain from doing so because my intention here is not to step on any toes ( ... )
Reply
You can go ahead and step on my toes all you want. :) We can't really discuss the specifics of my background and why [i]I[/i] in particular may not be career-driven, because you don't know it, so I can't take it personally. ;) I can theorise other reasons for it that have nothing to do with my gender, but that's not something I care to do online anyway.
One thing about two-income marriages is that, lovely idea as it is to have both husband and wife financially independent, sooner or later one career is likely to take priority. For example, if one person moves in order to take a golden job opportunity, the other person will almost certainly have to leave their own job with no guarantee of getting anything as good in the new area. At least this is something my husband and I are never likely to argue over!
Reply
Leave a comment