They care about which 25 yr old promising employee is worth more than the other, in terms of liklihood to stick around and provide some roi. Sorry but the female one has a great big black mark against her in that regard. No matter how equal everything else is, or what this particular female employee's true intentions are (the employer is not allowed to ask btw) this fact of life makes everything not equal for the female. Investment in HER is more risky than investment in HIM because it IS. Risk IS evaluated and risk cannot be deterimined in terms of a single data point. Its a statistical concept.
I was writing about women specifically. However just because I write a statement specifically about women it doesn't mean it wouldn't apply to men as well. I made no mention of men because this conversation is not about men. Saying that women have different needs at different times in their lives says NOTHING about whether men have those same needs or not. I believe they do but it is irrelevant to this discussion.
Since grimalskins daughters are only 6 and 10, their main childhood memories of her (informing their adult lives) will be "mom/girl as teacher". The 10 year old will know when she is 18 that in the distant past, mom was an engineer. The 6 year old? To her- mom was always a teacher. Very stereotypical. It matters not a bit what she did before she was a teacher. At least not to kids. And this whole argument is about setting examples.
You are absolutely right that school systems are not full of female teachers who used to be engineers. But they are full of female teachers. And to kids, what you did in the dim and distant past is irrelevant.
If we are talking about professional women (graduate or post-graduate education), then employers who calculate on women having a higher risk of leaving are buying into a stereotype that has no basis. One link I found on the subject indicated that higher educated women actually were slightly *less* likely to leave a particular company than men:
Again, it's a stereotype and apparently it doesn't even matter that it is a stereotype with no foundation in regards to the professional classes...the stereotype persists.
Whew! Feel better now having got that off your chest? Having a bit of a hard day? Of course your post had very little to do with anything I have actually said or posted, but hey, why let that minor detail get in the way of a good rant? Still, I'll address a couple of the issues:
"Don't fix anything because the "perception" which at this point is NOT a "percetion" but a "fact" will linger?"
What I found particularly interesting about this was that the data is based on working patterns in the 1980s...a good 20 years ago now. The idea that professional women (professional women alone has been the topic of this debate, btw, that is the only class of women that has interested Grimal) are leaving in higher percentages to be unemployed or at home is, in fact, mere perception based on nothing in reality...in other words, not fact. It has been a perception with no facts to support it for the last 20 years, and the perception has not gone away. So what, do you reckon a hundred years would do the trick?
"Women either stop the whining b*tching complaining and other bellyaching about how the world isn't giving them their due. Get out there. Prepare themselves as young women to be ABLE to and to fully EXPECT to be able to support their families for the long term without building in quitting plans. Get out there and marry men with less earning potential far more often."
This has come up with you several times now...you seem to be convinced that girls are still being raised with the expectation of marrying a nice upstanding man someday who will support them SAH for the rest of their lives. I really don't know what kind of time-warp you grew up in or are raising your children in, but in my world, as well as that of pretty much all of my American friends, we (girls) were raised to expect to have a career of some kind and figure out how to support ourselves....and that was *gasp* 25+ years ago. SAH/WOH was never part of the discussion....everyone was focussed on what kind of career they were going to have long-term. We all figured the SAH/WOH part would get figured out later depending on circumstances. Heck, most of my friends growing up had WOH moms, many of them university professors, lawyers and doctors. Science and engineering were seen as perfectly fine options for girls.
In the US, I've seen statistics showing that about 30% of all women are outearning their husbands...so women are already marrying men with less earning potential in pretty significant numbers. Really, where did you grow up? What rock are you living under that you really think the message that girls need careers too is somehow new or needs to be more widespread?
No they don't. Its not a chicken and egg problem. Simply, men will not even be able to consider being sahps until they end up in marriages where such a move would represent a financially sound decision. There is no point discussing attitudes this side of that becasue there is absolutely - no point. Might as well discuss how men feel about shouldering the burden of assuming pregnancy responsibility. Not possible and so who cares. Means nothing. And anyway - who cares if anyone, man or woman, is willing "consider sah a valid choice" or not? All manner of people do, and have always, considered *sah* a valid choice. They are mostly rich though. Men and women. Who cares. That is simply is an "if you can afford it and can do it without hating other people for being willing to work for more, and witout having to ask other people to spend part of their paycheque to subsidize your life - whatever. WHO cares. Otherwise, shut up and work". Period.
Yes I figure the analysis is correct and yes, I would guess that statistically the SAHM is more likely to be uneducated. I think Grimal might actually have a number of references about the statistics of SAH/WOH and education levels. I know that she has often in the past brought up the point that a SAHM is much more likely statistically to be under educated (no college or post-graduate degree) than a WOHM.
No way. I was 4 they year my Mom stayed home but she was already "a teacher" to me. She was just off for a year. And a big part of who my Dad is is the guy who got his hs diploma when I was little then his university degree when I was still little. He was done by the time I was 7. I absolutely fully remember him as a university student. Kids aren't nearly as narrow minded and clued out as you seem to think. Maybe you are, but kids aren't. What teachers did, what they do, who they are, is all a very big deal to kids. Especially once they get out of primary grades and start to see people in the teachers.
Pages
Jenna
Well, I'll half agree with you. Attitudes need to change on BOTH sides. I think the attitudes on the female side are being addressed.
Mondo
You are absolutely right that school systems are not full of female teachers who used to be engineers. But they are full of female teachers. And to kids, what you did in the dim and distant past is irrelevant.
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/98/981104wagegap.html
Again, it's a stereotype and apparently it doesn't even matter that it is a stereotype with no foundation in regards to the professional classes...the stereotype persists.
Laura
"Don't fix anything because the "perception" which at this point is NOT a "percetion" but a "fact" will linger?"
Here's a link that might be interesting for you:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/98/981104wagegap.html
What I found particularly interesting about this was that the data is based on working patterns in the 1980s...a good 20 years ago now. The idea that professional women (professional women alone has been the topic of this debate, btw, that is the only class of women that has interested Grimal) are leaving in higher percentages to be unemployed or at home is, in fact, mere perception based on nothing in reality...in other words, not fact. It has been a perception with no facts to support it for the last 20 years, and the perception has not gone away. So what, do you reckon a hundred years would do the trick?
"Women either stop the whining b*tching complaining and other bellyaching about how the world isn't giving them their due. Get out there. Prepare themselves as young women to be ABLE to and to fully EXPECT to be able to support their families for the long term without building in quitting plans. Get out there and marry men with less earning potential far more often."
This has come up with you several times now...you seem to be convinced that girls are still being raised with the expectation of marrying a nice upstanding man someday who will support them SAH for the rest of their lives. I really don't know what kind of time-warp you grew up in or are raising your children in, but in my world, as well as that of pretty much all of my American friends, we (girls) were raised to expect to have a career of some kind and figure out how to support ourselves....and that was *gasp* 25+ years ago. SAH/WOH was never part of the discussion....everyone was focussed on what kind of career they were going to have long-term. We all figured the SAH/WOH part would get figured out later depending on circumstances. Heck, most of my friends growing up had WOH moms, many of them university professors, lawyers and doctors. Science and engineering were seen as perfectly fine options for girls.
In the US, I've seen statistics showing that about 30% of all women are outearning their husbands...so women are already marrying men with less earning potential in pretty significant numbers. Really, where did you grow up? What rock are you living under that you really think the message that girls need careers too is somehow new or needs to be more widespread?
Laura
Laura
Pages