6 ms·

Sometimes I think that this issue will get a news report similar to the one flash-forward from The Simpsons: "[year 40 years from now] 40 year study concludes:

by knorker 10y ago

Sometimes I think that this issue will get a news report similar to the one flash-forward from The Simpsons: "[year 40 years from now] 40 year study concludes: diet and exercise leads to weight loss". Except it'll be: "40 year study concludes: choosing a less lucrative field, and putting more time into family leads to lower salary at work". We can have all the equality possible. That doesn't change the fact that nobody can have it all. You can't be a primary caregiver and also have an equal career to someone who isn't (statistically, obviously). Traditionally it's been the father who has (for lack of a better word) neglected the children. If you want an equally successful career you need to choose to (again, bad word here) neglect the children. There are only 24 hours in the day.

progval 10y ago
> If you want an equally successful career you need to choose to (again, bad word here) neglect the children. Or make the other parent not neglect them
- ps4fanboy 10y ago
  What a disgusting supposition
ps4fanboy 10y ago
People on this site will argue that you dont have to "neglect" your children and have a career but that is only because they have money to out source their parental duties to other more poorer families who care for their own kids and yours.
- bubuga 10y ago
  > only because they have money to out source their parental duties Holy jumping to assumptions, batman.
  - ps4fanboy 10y ago
    Assumptions? it is just simple math, if your not working your not earning, so you have a choice, make less money and look after your kids or pay someone else too.
    - bubuga 10y ago
      > Assumptions? it is just simple math No, it's a baseless assumption. You're somehow assuming that the only reason someone may even argue that you dont have to "neglect" your children and have a career is "only because they have money to out source their parental duties". That's a blatant baseless assumption. You may feel that, considering your career and the way you've been managing it, the only reason why someone may succeed in not neglecting their kids is if they pay someone else to do their job, but that obviously doesn't mean that your baseless assumption has any truth to it. Simple math isn't worth anything if you get the facts all wrong.
      - ps4fanboy 10y ago
        It is really simple, can you explain to me how you can have a career, not outsource your parental duties and maintain the same income level as someone who outsourced (or had a spouse) looking after their children. You cannot do it, and will not.
        bubuga 10y ago
        I see you magically added the "maintain the same income level" gem to try to move your goalpost. But even considering your goalpost-moving argument, why do you assume that preserving a high income level is a priority over not neglecting your children? If you and people like you constantly prioritize maximizing your personal income level over not neglecting your own children, it is rather obvious that you will end up neglecting your children to pursuit a larger paycheck. But that doesn't mean your job demands it. It's you that is demanding it. You neglect your children because you opt to pursuit a higher paycheck. But that doesn't mean anyone is forced to neglect their children just to keep a well-paying job. That's only your own personal choice, and you don't justify your personal life choices by throwing blanket accusations and baseless assumptions like you've been doing in this thread.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  What about, e.g. boarding schools?
littletimmy 10y ago
I wouldn't say "neglect". Working hard to provide for your family is the very opposite of neglect.
- TempestSA 10y ago
  Neglect is a loaded word. Children don't need hard working parents who earn lots of money though. What children need is your love and your time, along with support, security, food etc. It's all about having a work life balance, usually working hard comes at the expense of your family.
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    this. many people work hard to provide for their families, end up in a bad spiral of more-work-for-more-money and what they fail to see is child's view - they want their daddy and mommy to be with them as much as possible, talk to them, tech them, spend their time together. In this case it's not just quality, quantity matters too. this helps kid on so many levels that money just cannot buy, and forms their personality in one way or the other. will kids survive neglect? of course they will. but if your idea of a good parent is that your kids just survive, think again. this world has already plenty of human beings ridden with all kinds of inner issues stemming from childhood
- knorker 10y ago
  I repeatedly admitted it was not the best word.
  - littletimmy 10y ago
    What I was trying to get at is that neglect is not even a crude approximation of reality in this case. This tendency to see the family as a collection of individuals is a rather new way of thinking. So when we say "the father as an individual" is "neglecting" the "child as an individual", we misrepresent reality. What used to be the way to think about this was that the family is the fundamental unit, and the persons are components of this machine. So the father doesn't take action (in this case work outside the home) of his own accord, but (ideally speaking), plays his role as is in the interests of the family. Similarly, the mother does not stay at home out of some oppression, but plays her role as what is in the best interests of the family. It is modern feminism that has eroded this idea of the family as a unit, and replaced it with the idea of the family as a collection of individuals.
inopinatus 10y ago
You've jumped to a conclusion the study does not appear to draw. It does not state that being a married primary caregiver correlates with a lower expected salary. It says that being a married woman with offspring correlates with a lower expected salary. In other words that there is systematic bias against married women with children, not against all married caregivers with children. The idea that men can be a primary caregiver still blows minds. edit: s/leads to/correlates with/ which I agree is an important nuance but doesn't change my point.
- ps4fanboy 10y ago
  Until 50% of the female marrying population want to marry a man who is willing to be the primary caregiver, this is unlikely to change, we are the product of expectations of men to women and women to men.
- avar 10y ago
  Let's not assume that correlation is causation here. One explanation is that female primary caregivers face systematic discrimination their male peers don't face. Another is that female primary caregivers, more so than their male counterparts, lose interest in focusing on work after they have a child, and thus fall into the rut of a lower performing employee that inevitably gets paid less. I don't know which it is. Are their studies that try to find out?
  - tzs 10y ago
    > Another is that female primary caregivers, more so than their male counterparts, lose interest in focusing on work after they have a child, and thus fall into the rut of a lower performing employee that inevitably gets paid less. This study was looking at pay one year after receipt of PhD. I'd expect that it would usually take longer for people to start being separated by performance in the types of jobs that PhDs typically get.
- bubuga 10y ago
  > It says that being a married woman with offspring leads to a lower expected salary. No, it doesn't. It says that there is a correlation between being a married woman with offspring and a lower expected salary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau... Furthermore, if you even had read the article you would've noticed the bit where it says "Weinberg says that the data cannot identify or tease apart factors that might explain why married women with children earn less — among the possibilities"
toddkazakov 10y ago
What a surprise!
llamaz 10y ago
On the other side of things --- the social standing of men is determined heavily by how competent you are and if you are in a position of leadership.

by knorker 10y ago

progval 10y ago

> If you want an equally successful career you need to choose to (again, bad word here) neglect the children. Or make the other parent not neglect them

ps4fanboy 10y ago
What a disgusting supposition

ps4fanboy 10y ago

People on this site will argue that you dont have to "neglect" your children and have a career but that is only because they have money to out source their parental duties to other more poorer families who care for their own kids and yours.

bubuga 10y ago
> only because they have money to out source their parental duties Holy jumping to assumptions, batman.
- ps4fanboy 10y ago
  Assumptions? it is just simple math, if your not working your not earning, so you have a choice, make less money and look after your kids or pay someone else too.
  - bubuga 10y ago
    > Assumptions? it is just simple math No, it's a baseless assumption. You're somehow assuming that the only reason someone may even argue that you dont have to "neglect" your children and have a career is "only because they have money to out source their parental duties". That's a blatant baseless assumption. You may feel that, considering your career and the way you've been managing it, the only reason why someone may succeed in not neglecting their kids is if they pay someone else to do their job, but that obviously doesn't mean that your baseless assumption has any truth to it. Simple math isn't worth anything if you get the facts all wrong.
    - ps4fanboy 10y ago
      It is really simple, can you explain to me how you can have a career, not outsource your parental duties and maintain the same income level as someone who outsourced (or had a spouse) looking after their children. You cannot do it, and will not.
      - bubuga 10y ago
        I see you magically added the "maintain the same income level" gem to try to move your goalpost. But even considering your goalpost-moving argument, why do you assume that preserving a high income level is a priority over not neglecting your children? If you and people like you constantly prioritize maximizing your personal income level over not neglecting your own children, it is rather obvious that you will end up neglecting your children to pursuit a larger paycheck. But that doesn't mean your job demands it. It's you that is demanding it. You neglect your children because you opt to pursuit a higher paycheck. But that doesn't mean anyone is forced to neglect their children just to keep a well-paying job. That's only your own personal choice, and you don't justify your personal life choices by throwing blanket accusations and baseless assumptions like you've been doing in this thread.
Chris2048 10y ago
What about, e.g. boarding schools?

littletimmy 10y ago

I wouldn't say "neglect". Working hard to provide for your family is the very opposite of neglect.

TempestSA 10y ago
Neglect is a loaded word. Children don't need hard working parents who earn lots of money though. What children need is your love and your time, along with support, security, food etc. It's all about having a work life balance, usually working hard comes at the expense of your family.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  this. many people work hard to provide for their families, end up in a bad spiral of more-work-for-more-money and what they fail to see is child's view - they want their daddy and mommy to be with them as much as possible, talk to them, tech them, spend their time together. In this case it's not just quality, quantity matters too. this helps kid on so many levels that money just cannot buy, and forms their personality in one way or the other. will kids survive neglect? of course they will. but if your idea of a good parent is that your kids just survive, think again. this world has already plenty of human beings ridden with all kinds of inner issues stemming from childhood
knorker 10y ago
I repeatedly admitted it was not the best word.
- littletimmy 10y ago
  What I was trying to get at is that neglect is not even a crude approximation of reality in this case. This tendency to see the family as a collection of individuals is a rather new way of thinking. So when we say "the father as an individual" is "neglecting" the "child as an individual", we misrepresent reality. What used to be the way to think about this was that the family is the fundamental unit, and the persons are components of this machine. So the father doesn't take action (in this case work outside the home) of his own accord, but (ideally speaking), plays his role as is in the interests of the family. Similarly, the mother does not stay at home out of some oppression, but plays her role as what is in the best interests of the family. It is modern feminism that has eroded this idea of the family as a unit, and replaced it with the idea of the family as a collection of individuals.

inopinatus 10y ago

You've jumped to a conclusion the study does not appear to draw. It does not state that being a married primary caregiver correlates with a lower expected salary. It says that being a married woman with offspring correlates with a lower expected salary. In other words that there is systematic bias against married women with children, not against all married caregivers with children. The idea that men can be a primary caregiver still blows minds. edit: s/leads to/correlates with/ which I agree is an important nuance but doesn't change my point.

ps4fanboy 10y ago
Until 50% of the female marrying population want to marry a man who is willing to be the primary caregiver, this is unlikely to change, we are the product of expectations of men to women and women to men.
avar 10y ago
Let's not assume that correlation is causation here. One explanation is that female primary caregivers face systematic discrimination their male peers don't face. Another is that female primary caregivers, more so than their male counterparts, lose interest in focusing on work after they have a child, and thus fall into the rut of a lower performing employee that inevitably gets paid less. I don't know which it is. Are their studies that try to find out?
- tzs 10y ago
  > Another is that female primary caregivers, more so than their male counterparts, lose interest in focusing on work after they have a child, and thus fall into the rut of a lower performing employee that inevitably gets paid less. This study was looking at pay one year after receipt of PhD. I'd expect that it would usually take longer for people to start being separated by performance in the types of jobs that PhDs typically get.
bubuga 10y ago
> It says that being a married woman with offspring leads to a lower expected salary. No, it doesn't. It says that there is a correlation between being a married woman with offspring and a lower expected salary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau... Furthermore, if you even had read the article you would've noticed the bit where it says "Weinberg says that the data cannot identify or tease apart factors that might explain why married women with children earn less — among the possibilities"

toddkazakov 10y ago

What a surprise!

llamaz 10y ago

On the other side of things --- the social standing of men is determined heavily by how competent you are and if you are in a position of leadership.