11 ms·

> One of the things that drives poverty for women is the cultural expectation that we provide caregiving to our own children and other relatives essentially for

> One of the things that drives poverty for women is the cultural expectation that we provide caregiving to our own children and other relatives essentially for free and that society owes us nothing for this imposition on our time and energy. There are other factors, but that's a big one. You have a source for that? I would think that the wage gap would be a much more significant factor than cultural expectations. And I would hope that people would provide caregiving to their own children for free.

DoreenMichele 9y ago
There are many sources. Off the top of my head, you can look for books, articles etc about the feminization of poverty, pink collar ghetto and the second shift. I have read far too many books (articles etc) over the course of decades to remember them all. And I would hope that people would provide caregiving to their own children for free. So would I. But why is it only women are expected to provide such care and are classified as gold digging whores if they think the father should provide for them while they do so and also provide some compensation into the future for the lost career building opportunities it costs them? Parents should both be responsible for the product of having gotten jiggy together, not just mothers.
- justonepost 9y ago
  This is true, to some extent, and false to some extent as well. There are plenty of fathers who split primary care giving. Also, once children reach school age, primary care giving responsibilities decrease and can be split between parents more easily.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    The stats I have seen suggest that full time moms do 60 hours of women's work per week. Working moms still do 40. To make up for the loss of 20 hours of women's work, men began doing an extra 10 minutes per day, or 1 hour and 10 minutes per week. Those stats are not current. Given the reactions I got from working women at a Fortune 500 company over the detail that my sons took over the cooking and cleaning, I have zero reason to believe we are anywhere near achieving parity.
    - computerex 9y ago
      Where are you getting these numbers?
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        Lots and lots and lots of reading over the years.
        anonemouse145 9y ago
        "Lots and lots of reading", yes that scholarly peer reviewed journal. I know it well.
        DoreenMichele 9y ago
        The 60 hours of work a week for homemakers comes from a book called "More work for mother." It is a figure that has been stable for 300 years. I don't recall where specifically I got some of the other figures. I was trying to sort my life out, not prepare for debate on an internet forum I had not yet heard of and which did not exist when I was doing a lot of this reading in my 20s.
        computerex 9y ago
        I don't think the statistics you posted about men working an extra 10 mins a day is accurate. It actually sounds quite absurd.
        dang 9y ago
        You've posted plenty of comments that break the HN guidelines. If you keep doing this will ban you. Especially, please cut the ideological flamebait and—as in this case—nasty snark. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      So... 18.83 hours of that work are unnecessary, and were never demanded by any other person in the household? Isn't that a bit like squeegee men demanding payment for impromptu windshield cleanings that nobody ever asked for? At various times, different members of our household have been responsible for the domestic tasks, as the other one exported labor and imported money. I'm not saying which of us is male or female, or even implying that there's one of each. You can assume, if you like. My spouse takes a vastly different approach to meal preparation than I do. I will make one meal for everyone, using a fixed menu that I decide. Everyone else can eat it, or not. The spouse is more of a restaurant cook, taking orders and fulfilling requests. In my opinion, that's really a colossal waste of time and resources, and probably spoiling our kids, but I'm not the one doing it, so that's fine. Similar with other aspects of housework. When I clean a toilet, I use bleach, a sponge or paper towel, and a brush, and it takes me about five minutes. When my spouse does it, there is some kind of ritual for evoking the cleaning daemons, with nitrile gloves and 12 different chemicals and it apparently takes all f'in' day. When I do laundry, I separate bleachables from colors, and separate colors by dye type if that load needs splitting. I make the machines do most of the work, then put the clean clothes into the correct closet after they finish. When my spouse does it, again, there is some sort of lengthy ritual with blood sacrifice involved, leaving the laundromancer too exhausted afterward to actually put the clean clothes away. I get it. When I'm at a real, paying job, I sometimes pad out simple tasks to make them look more complicated, just so I won't get allocated extra work just because I have the capacity. But my spouse will even make a big deal about pushing the "clean" button on the Roomba automated floor-cleaning robot. Now, when the household cleaning duties are shared, it is no longer necessary to invent stupid, complicated chores that don't actually need to be done, on whatever aggressive schedule was there before to make yourself look busy. There is no reason to demand an equal division of housework when so much of it is unnecessary bullshit. If all that petty crap really needs doing, we are both perfectly capable of buying, building, or modding a tool that can evaporate away most of the effort behind it, instead of turning it into some kind of broomhandle-measuring contest to prove who does more around the house. My spouse can continue believing in the labor theory of value, and I can continue believing in the market clearing theory of value, and then I can still get yelled at for all those things I don't do because I never agreed that they needed doing, and never agreed that there is any relative advantage in having one particular person do them instead of the other. I can guess how those working women reacted. They probably assumed the sons were doing an inadequate, slipshod job. And they might be. But you aren't really saving yourself work if you have to micromanage them, so you have to let them half-ass it if you really want to save yourself the effort. It does you no good whatsoever to wind yourself up to make other people do their job the "right" way, because then you might as well just do it yourself, the way you want it done.
- GhostVII 9y ago
  > But why is it only women are expected to provide such care and are classified as gold digging whores if they think the father should provide for them while they do so and also provide some compensation into the future for the lost career building opportunities it costs them? Parents should both be responsible for the product of having gotten jiggy together, not just mothers. How does that contribute to women being in poverty at a higher rate than men? If the parents are married, they share finances so they are either both in poverty, or neither are in poverty. If they are divorced, the primary caregiver will be compensated for their time through child support payments. And I don't think stay at home mothers are generally classified as "gold digging whores", maybe my experience is different from yours though.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    Most poor people in the US are women and their children. Most of those women were solidly middle class until one of three things happened: 1) She got unexpectedly pregnant. 2) She got divorced. 3) Her spouse died. Due to the fact that women live longer and men are, on average, about 4 years older than their wives, 90 percent if the time, when someone is burying their spouse it is a woman burying her husband. (for hetero couples, a stat that will change with same sex marriage) I did the homemaker thing. I have 6 years of college. My post divorce life has been far less lush than that of my ex.
    - throw47555 9y ago
      These are fair points. But with all my respect and sympathy for women who survive their spouses and see their condition worsen afterwards, I have even more sympathy for the man that dies. I hope you are not suggesting that dying young is another form of male oppression :)
      - nkrisc 9y ago
        He's dead, what does he care? We can't change that so might as well focus our attention on the survivors.
- gowld 9y ago
  In the USA, alimony and child support serve this purpose. Other developed countries are similar, or have strong non-gendered social security. In USA, while women are in poverty more than men, likely for the reasons you highlight, women receive more social services than men, for those same reasons. Homelessness disproportionately impacts men (by far), because woman and children have more access to social services.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    Europe has a better track record here. European women historically advocated for getting help with the burden of bearing and raising kids. American women seem to have modeled feminist positions on the historic American attitude of don't tread on me. Those social services mitigate some of the harm, but don't empower women to reclaim their lives effectively. Also, the American track record for alimony and child support is not great of late.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    According to https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/adult-poverty-rate-by-gender/ https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/adult-poverty-rate..., poverty rates between men and women are comparable; only 3% difference. Also, besides poverty, I would expect a comparable expectation on men to make up the deficit by working harder. I'm guessing the disparity is really driven by a significant disparity between single mothers and single fathers.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  I think it's probably has something to do with the fact that females have all the biological equipment necessary for child-rearing and males have all the biological equipment necessary to hit it and quit it. Furthermore, only the female can be absolutely certain (without some investigation) that her child is actually her child. The male usually has to accept some deception risk. The instinct for pair-bonding--and, in humans, the cultural institution of marriage--evolved as behavioral adaptations to the unfairnesses inherent in having two sexes. It would appear that equal outcomes demand equal commitment. As the biological commitment is a few kcal and a few minutes for one, versus years of time and many more kcal for the other, that leaves an awful lot of effort to make those scales balance. Simple analysis suggests that females should cartelize and police each other's behavior with respect to males, embargoing reproduction from any male deemed too selfish in regard to child-rearing responsibilities. But cartels are tough to keep together, and males can counter with misogynistic and patriarchal strategies of their own. The biological discrepancy will therefore likely never be resolved to anything even close to fairness. It's never going to be free, either. There is always an opportunity cost. Providing resources to an existing child precludes using them yourself or applying them to a theoretical future child.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  >are classified as gold digging whores if they think the father should provide for them while they do so That's not a fair characterization. A lot of successful men select for that trait during courtship. I earn enough money to raise a family on my salary. I would prefer that my spouse would stay at home. I've been slandered as a chauvinistic sexist for articulating this viewpoint but I still hold it.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  > But why is it only women are expected to provide such care and are classified as gold digging whores if they think the father should provide for them while they do so and also provide some compensation into the future for the lost career building opportunities it costs them? I'm inclined to believe this opinion runs diametrically opposite to the general consensus in Australia, insofar as legislation can be considered the general consensus. I'll admit some men, and some women, may lean in the general direction of the opinion you've state, but I feel "gold digging whores" is overly strong. But their opinions hardly matter as we have strong child support legislation, with a strong Child Support Agency to enforce the laws to direct an appropriate amount of money to the resident-parent to aid in funding the child. We also have a fairly well run welfare system.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    I feel "gold digging whores" is overly strong. In the US, full time moms tend to get viewed and treated like leeches, regardless of their socioeconomic class. I was a homemaker a long time. I have six years of college. I was a military wife and homeschooling mom. But America is pretty sucktastic about treating full-time wives like pariahs and non contributors. If your land is more civilized than mine, I am very glad to hear it. Edit: And I am not questioning it. I met an Australian friend for lunch/dinner with a group of friends in San Francisco years ago. He talked very differently about his full-time homemaker wife than is the cultural norm here.
justonepost 9y ago
I think the concern is that mothers rather than fathers are expected to provide care giving.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  Fathers are also expected to provide full financial support, both culturally and legally.
  - rangersanger 9y ago
    Assuming the father 1)is known 2) is able 3) is willing. Re #3, Paternity must be established and that burden falls on the mother. Where the assumed father does not voluntarily submit to a paternity test, the mother has to file suit to compel him. That's not something that's going to be easy for someone already in poverty. When the Welfare People Come is great read on the the way the welfare system is stacked against those who need to use it that delves into this and OP's points in greater detail.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      Another factor is the large number of men put in prison for long periods of time, and even when they get out their record destroys their ability to earn money to support their families. > 1) is known If the woman doesn't know who the father is, who's choice was that? > 2) is able yes > 3) is willing The courts routinely assess child support on both willing and unwilling fathers. It's not an option for fathers.
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        If the woman doesn't know who the father is, who's choice was that? In some cases, the man who raped her.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
rjtavares 9y ago
Well, there are studies that find that the wage gap has a lot to do with caregiving. This freakonomics episode talks about that: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender...
rayiner 9y ago
There is a reason poor urban neighborhoods are full of poor single moms, not single dads, and it’s not the wage gap. Indeed, the wage gap all but disappears when you eliminate child-rearing related differences from the equation.
- weberc2 9y ago
  Out of curiosity, why did you scope to urban neighborhoods? Either the finding holds true for urban, suburban, and rural poor neighborhoods or child-rearing responsibilities is probably not the cause (instead, it would probably be something that correlates with population density). What am I missing? EDIT: I can't reply ("I'm posting too fast"), but I'm genuinely asking for clarity--not making a point or impugning anyone's character.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    I've spent many years living or working in depressed industrial/port cities, so urban poverty is the first thing that comes to mind. It's apparently also true in rural areas, though I've never spent enough time in any such places to see who was carting around the kids. https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1074&context=carsey https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https:/....
    - weberc2 9y ago
      Ah, thanks for clarifying.
  - wickawic 9y ago
    It seems uncharitable to glom onto a single word of the GP's statement; suburban and rural areas are also full of single mothers.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      I was just asking for clarity; not making a point of any kind.
Spooky23 9y ago
Have you had a child recently? My wife was a finance director and made good coin. Given the cost of daycare and the difficulty of getting late childcare (we both have jobs where the day ends when it ends sometimes, daycare assumes your day ends at 4 everyday), it was a no brainer for her to stop working. When she returns to the workforce, she’ll be on the bottom as an analyst or some other gig. For people with less resources, it’s far worse.
- tjoff 9y ago
  In more developed countries that would be illegal. You are guaranteed to be able to return to the same position and pay. Also daycare would be subventionized.
  - arcticfox 9y ago
    > In more developed countries that would be illegal. You are guaranteed to be able to return to the same position and pay. Even if you quit entirely, beyond straightforward maternity/paternity leave? I don't think I'd be in favor of that type of regulation. In my opinion, if you make the decision to quit (for whatever reason), you can come back to get whatever job your skills let you get. I also think "developed" isn't the adjective you're looking for, maybe "tightly-regulated".
    - tjoff 9y ago
      > Even if you quit entirely, beyond straightforward maternity/paternity leave? Of course not. The point is that there shouldn't be any economical or work-related downside (other than slightly less pay during maternity/paternity leave) for having a child. (Obviously raising a child costs money but I hope you get the idea) Developed is quite apt for any society that values its members.
      - alexanderstears 9y ago
        >The point is that there shouldn't be any economical or work-related downside (other than slightly less pay during maternity/paternity leave) for having a child. but there are productivity downsides to having a child - taking more sick days, less flexibility, etc. To the extent that we expect equal pay for equal work and we have lowered expectations for parents who work, there should be downsides to having a child or upsides to remaining childless. >Developed is quite apt for any society that values its members. Still, developed isn't the right dimension. Pygmy tribes value all their members, but they're not developed. Well, do they even 'value' their members? They don't value their members enough to integrate into the global economy and enjoy the benefits of evidence based medicine and trade. Development is more closely related to infrastructure and safety/security. We understand poor parts of Mexico to be less developed than NYC because of ease of access to infrastructure and the difference in safety/security.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

There are many sources. Off the top of my head, you can look for books, articles etc about the feminization of poverty, pink collar ghetto and the second shift. I have read far too many books (articles etc) over the course of decades to remember them all. And I would hope that people would provide caregiving to their own children for free. So would I. But why is it only women are expected to provide such care and are classified as gold digging whores if they think the father should provide for them while they do so and also provide some compensation into the future for the lost career building opportunities it costs them? Parents should both be responsible for the product of having gotten jiggy together, not just mothers.

justonepost 9y ago
This is true, to some extent, and false to some extent as well. There are plenty of fathers who split primary care giving. Also, once children reach school age, primary care giving responsibilities decrease and can be split between parents more easily.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  The stats I have seen suggest that full time moms do 60 hours of women's work per week. Working moms still do 40. To make up for the loss of 20 hours of women's work, men began doing an extra 10 minutes per day, or 1 hour and 10 minutes per week. Those stats are not current. Given the reactions I got from working women at a Fortune 500 company over the detail that my sons took over the cooking and cleaning, I have zero reason to believe we are anywhere near achieving parity.
  - computerex 9y ago
    Where are you getting these numbers?
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      Lots and lots and lots of reading over the years.
      - anonemouse145 9y ago
        "Lots and lots of reading", yes that scholarly peer reviewed journal. I know it well.
        DoreenMichele 9y ago
        The 60 hours of work a week for homemakers comes from a book called "More work for mother." It is a figure that has been stable for 300 years. I don't recall where specifically I got some of the other figures. I was trying to sort my life out, not prepare for debate on an internet forum I had not yet heard of and which did not exist when I was doing a lot of this reading in my 20s.
        computerex 9y ago
        I don't think the statistics you posted about men working an extra 10 mins a day is accurate. It actually sounds quite absurd.
        dang 9y ago
        You've posted plenty of comments that break the HN guidelines. If you keep doing this will ban you. Especially, please cut the ideological flamebait and—as in this case—nasty snark. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    So... 18.83 hours of that work are unnecessary, and were never demanded by any other person in the household? Isn't that a bit like squeegee men demanding payment for impromptu windshield cleanings that nobody ever asked for? At various times, different members of our household have been responsible for the domestic tasks, as the other one exported labor and imported money. I'm not saying which of us is male or female, or even implying that there's one of each. You can assume, if you like. My spouse takes a vastly different approach to meal preparation than I do. I will make one meal for everyone, using a fixed menu that I decide. Everyone else can eat it, or not. The spouse is more of a restaurant cook, taking orders and fulfilling requests. In my opinion, that's really a colossal waste of time and resources, and probably spoiling our kids, but I'm not the one doing it, so that's fine. Similar with other aspects of housework. When I clean a toilet, I use bleach, a sponge or paper towel, and a brush, and it takes me about five minutes. When my spouse does it, there is some kind of ritual for evoking the cleaning daemons, with nitrile gloves and 12 different chemicals and it apparently takes all f'in' day. When I do laundry, I separate bleachables from colors, and separate colors by dye type if that load needs splitting. I make the machines do most of the work, then put the clean clothes into the correct closet after they finish. When my spouse does it, again, there is some sort of lengthy ritual with blood sacrifice involved, leaving the laundromancer too exhausted afterward to actually put the clean clothes away. I get it. When I'm at a real, paying job, I sometimes pad out simple tasks to make them look more complicated, just so I won't get allocated extra work just because I have the capacity. But my spouse will even make a big deal about pushing the "clean" button on the Roomba automated floor-cleaning robot. Now, when the household cleaning duties are shared, it is no longer necessary to invent stupid, complicated chores that don't actually need to be done, on whatever aggressive schedule was there before to make yourself look busy. There is no reason to demand an equal division of housework when so much of it is unnecessary bullshit. If all that petty crap really needs doing, we are both perfectly capable of buying, building, or modding a tool that can evaporate away most of the effort behind it, instead of turning it into some kind of broomhandle-measuring contest to prove who does more around the house. My spouse can continue believing in the labor theory of value, and I can continue believing in the market clearing theory of value, and then I can still get yelled at for all those things I don't do because I never agreed that they needed doing, and never agreed that there is any relative advantage in having one particular person do them instead of the other. I can guess how those working women reacted. They probably assumed the sons were doing an inadequate, slipshod job. And they might be. But you aren't really saving yourself work if you have to micromanage them, so you have to let them half-ass it if you really want to save yourself the effort. It does you no good whatsoever to wind yourself up to make other people do their job the "right" way, because then you might as well just do it yourself, the way you want it done.
GhostVII 9y ago
> But why is it only women are expected to provide such care and are classified as gold digging whores if they think the father should provide for them while they do so and also provide some compensation into the future for the lost career building opportunities it costs them? Parents should both be responsible for the product of having gotten jiggy together, not just mothers. How does that contribute to women being in poverty at a higher rate than men? If the parents are married, they share finances so they are either both in poverty, or neither are in poverty. If they are divorced, the primary caregiver will be compensated for their time through child support payments. And I don't think stay at home mothers are generally classified as "gold digging whores", maybe my experience is different from yours though.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  Most poor people in the US are women and their children. Most of those women were solidly middle class until one of three things happened: 1) She got unexpectedly pregnant. 2) She got divorced. 3) Her spouse died. Due to the fact that women live longer and men are, on average, about 4 years older than their wives, 90 percent if the time, when someone is burying their spouse it is a woman burying her husband. (for hetero couples, a stat that will change with same sex marriage) I did the homemaker thing. I have 6 years of college. My post divorce life has been far less lush than that of my ex.
  - throw47555 9y ago
    These are fair points. But with all my respect and sympathy for women who survive their spouses and see their condition worsen afterwards, I have even more sympathy for the man that dies. I hope you are not suggesting that dying young is another form of male oppression :)
    - nkrisc 9y ago
      He's dead, what does he care? We can't change that so might as well focus our attention on the survivors.
gowld 9y ago
In the USA, alimony and child support serve this purpose. Other developed countries are similar, or have strong non-gendered social security. In USA, while women are in poverty more than men, likely for the reasons you highlight, women receive more social services than men, for those same reasons. Homelessness disproportionately impacts men (by far), because woman and children have more access to social services.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  Europe has a better track record here. European women historically advocated for getting help with the burden of bearing and raising kids. American women seem to have modeled feminist positions on the historic American attitude of don't tread on me. Those social services mitigate some of the harm, but don't empower women to reclaim their lives effectively. Also, the American track record for alimony and child support is not great of late.
- weberc2 9y ago
  According to https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/adult-poverty-rate-by-gender/ https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/adult-poverty-rate..., poverty rates between men and women are comparable; only 3% difference. Also, besides poverty, I would expect a comparable expectation on men to make up the deficit by working harder. I'm guessing the disparity is really driven by a significant disparity between single mothers and single fathers.
logfromblammo 9y ago
I think it's probably has something to do with the fact that females have all the biological equipment necessary for child-rearing and males have all the biological equipment necessary to hit it and quit it. Furthermore, only the female can be absolutely certain (without some investigation) that her child is actually her child. The male usually has to accept some deception risk. The instinct for pair-bonding--and, in humans, the cultural institution of marriage--evolved as behavioral adaptations to the unfairnesses inherent in having two sexes. It would appear that equal outcomes demand equal commitment. As the biological commitment is a few kcal and a few minutes for one, versus years of time and many more kcal for the other, that leaves an awful lot of effort to make those scales balance. Simple analysis suggests that females should cartelize and police each other's behavior with respect to males, embargoing reproduction from any male deemed too selfish in regard to child-rearing responsibilities. But cartels are tough to keep together, and males can counter with misogynistic and patriarchal strategies of their own. The biological discrepancy will therefore likely never be resolved to anything even close to fairness. It's never going to be free, either. There is always an opportunity cost. Providing resources to an existing child precludes using them yourself or applying them to a theoretical future child.
alexanderstears 9y ago
>are classified as gold digging whores if they think the father should provide for them while they do so That's not a fair characterization. A lot of successful men select for that trait during courtship. I earn enough money to raise a family on my salary. I would prefer that my spouse would stay at home. I've been slandered as a chauvinistic sexist for articulating this viewpoint but I still hold it.
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
> But why is it only women are expected to provide such care and are classified as gold digging whores if they think the father should provide for them while they do so and also provide some compensation into the future for the lost career building opportunities it costs them? I'm inclined to believe this opinion runs diametrically opposite to the general consensus in Australia, insofar as legislation can be considered the general consensus. I'll admit some men, and some women, may lean in the general direction of the opinion you've state, but I feel "gold digging whores" is overly strong. But their opinions hardly matter as we have strong child support legislation, with a strong Child Support Agency to enforce the laws to direct an appropriate amount of money to the resident-parent to aid in funding the child. We also have a fairly well run welfare system.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  I feel "gold digging whores" is overly strong. In the US, full time moms tend to get viewed and treated like leeches, regardless of their socioeconomic class. I was a homemaker a long time. I have six years of college. I was a military wife and homeschooling mom. But America is pretty sucktastic about treating full-time wives like pariahs and non contributors. If your land is more civilized than mine, I am very glad to hear it. Edit: And I am not questioning it. I met an Australian friend for lunch/dinner with a group of friends in San Francisco years ago. He talked very differently about his full-time homemaker wife than is the cultural norm here.

justonepost 9y ago

I think the concern is that mothers rather than fathers are expected to provide care giving.

WalterBright 9y ago
Fathers are also expected to provide full financial support, both culturally and legally.
- rangersanger 9y ago
  Assuming the father 1)is known 2) is able 3) is willing. Re #3, Paternity must be established and that burden falls on the mother. Where the assumed father does not voluntarily submit to a paternity test, the mother has to file suit to compel him. That's not something that's going to be easy for someone already in poverty. When the Welfare People Come is great read on the the way the welfare system is stacked against those who need to use it that delves into this and OP's points in greater detail.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    Another factor is the large number of men put in prison for long periods of time, and even when they get out their record destroys their ability to earn money to support their families. > 1) is known If the woman doesn't know who the father is, who's choice was that? > 2) is able yes > 3) is willing The courts routinely assess child support on both willing and unwilling fathers. It's not an option for fathers.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      If the woman doesn't know who the father is, who's choice was that? In some cases, the man who raped her.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]

rjtavares 9y ago

Well, there are studies that find that the wage gap has a lot to do with caregiving. This freakonomics episode talks about that: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender...

rayiner 9y ago

There is a reason poor urban neighborhoods are full of poor single moms, not single dads, and it’s not the wage gap. Indeed, the wage gap all but disappears when you eliminate child-rearing related differences from the equation.

weberc2 9y ago
Out of curiosity, why did you scope to urban neighborhoods? Either the finding holds true for urban, suburban, and rural poor neighborhoods or child-rearing responsibilities is probably not the cause (instead, it would probably be something that correlates with population density). What am I missing? EDIT: I can't reply ("I'm posting too fast"), but I'm genuinely asking for clarity--not making a point or impugning anyone's character.
- rayiner 9y ago
  I've spent many years living or working in depressed industrial/port cities, so urban poverty is the first thing that comes to mind. It's apparently also true in rural areas, though I've never spent enough time in any such places to see who was carting around the kids. https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1074&context=carsey https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https:/....
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Ah, thanks for clarifying.
- wickawic 9y ago
  It seems uncharitable to glom onto a single word of the GP's statement; suburban and rural areas are also full of single mothers.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    I was just asking for clarity; not making a point of any kind.

Spooky23 9y ago

Have you had a child recently? My wife was a finance director and made good coin. Given the cost of daycare and the difficulty of getting late childcare (we both have jobs where the day ends when it ends sometimes, daycare assumes your day ends at 4 everyday), it was a no brainer for her to stop working. When she returns to the workforce, she’ll be on the bottom as an analyst or some other gig. For people with less resources, it’s far worse.

tjoff 9y ago
In more developed countries that would be illegal. You are guaranteed to be able to return to the same position and pay. Also daycare would be subventionized.
- arcticfox 9y ago
  > In more developed countries that would be illegal. You are guaranteed to be able to return to the same position and pay. Even if you quit entirely, beyond straightforward maternity/paternity leave? I don't think I'd be in favor of that type of regulation. In my opinion, if you make the decision to quit (for whatever reason), you can come back to get whatever job your skills let you get. I also think "developed" isn't the adjective you're looking for, maybe "tightly-regulated".
  - tjoff 9y ago
    > Even if you quit entirely, beyond straightforward maternity/paternity leave? Of course not. The point is that there shouldn't be any economical or work-related downside (other than slightly less pay during maternity/paternity leave) for having a child. (Obviously raising a child costs money but I hope you get the idea) Developed is quite apt for any society that values its members.
    - alexanderstears 9y ago
      >The point is that there shouldn't be any economical or work-related downside (other than slightly less pay during maternity/paternity leave) for having a child. but there are productivity downsides to having a child - taking more sick days, less flexibility, etc. To the extent that we expect equal pay for equal work and we have lowered expectations for parents who work, there should be downsides to having a child or upsides to remaining childless. >Developed is quite apt for any society that values its members. Still, developed isn't the right dimension. Pygmy tribes value all their members, but they're not developed. Well, do they even 'value' their members? They don't value their members enough to integrate into the global economy and enjoy the benefits of evidence based medicine and trade. Development is more closely related to infrastructure and safety/security. We understand poor parts of Mexico to be less developed than NYC because of ease of access to infrastructure and the difference in safety/security.