5 ms·

I'd be curious to hear more precisely what you'd propose here. My impression that, unfortunately, many such attempts to (essentially) make life better for work

by iguy 8y ago

I'd be curious to hear more precisely what you'd propose here. My impression that, unfortunately, many such attempts to (essentially) make life better for working mothers appear to have pushed us away from families-with-kids, and towards ever more singletons (including single mothers). They tend, I think, to move us from a system in which the family is the economic unit, to one in which its personal compromises are not necessary.

gumby 8y ago
Why do you say that is unfortunate?
- iguy 8y ago
  Because I think nearly everyone involved in attempting to change how things work was sincere in their hope that this would only lead to improvement. Yet on some pretty important measures, like the proportion of lower-class kids who get to grow up with a father, we've done very badly indeed.
patentatt 8y ago
Not sure where you’re going with this, but for starters I’d give new parents (both parents) like 5 years paid parental leave. Yeah, I suggested 5 years. With some sort of workforce reentry rights or support to facilitate getting back in the workforce. I’d start the discussions there.
c0vfefe 8y ago
This is true especially regarding divorce. Biasing divorce renumerations overwhelmingly towards one gender has greatly weakened the shared financial incentive to keep families intact.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  A lot of that is due to historical societal reasons. In a society where one gender makes money and the other takes care of kids, I don't know how it could have been any other way. In today's society, what's fair is for the non-custody parent to help support the children by reimbursing the custody parent. Or in cases of joint custody, the one with higher income reimburses the one with lower income. Which I believe is the way it's done in my state.
  - ratboy666 8y ago
    Historically, you are wrong. Custody of Infants Act 1839. Prior to this, men both "made the money" and received custody of the children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custody_of_Infants_Act_1839 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custody_of_Infants_Act_1839 FredW

by iguy 8y ago

gumby 8y ago

Why do you say that is unfortunate?

iguy 8y ago
Because I think nearly everyone involved in attempting to change how things work was sincere in their hope that this would only lead to improvement. Yet on some pretty important measures, like the proportion of lower-class kids who get to grow up with a father, we've done very badly indeed.

patentatt 8y ago

Not sure where you’re going with this, but for starters I’d give new parents (both parents) like 5 years paid parental leave. Yeah, I suggested 5 years. With some sort of workforce reentry rights or support to facilitate getting back in the workforce. I’d start the discussions there.

c0vfefe 8y ago

This is true especially regarding divorce. Biasing divorce renumerations overwhelmingly towards one gender has greatly weakened the shared financial incentive to keep families intact.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
A lot of that is due to historical societal reasons. In a society where one gender makes money and the other takes care of kids, I don't know how it could have been any other way. In today's society, what's fair is for the non-custody parent to help support the children by reimbursing the custody parent. Or in cases of joint custody, the one with higher income reimburses the one with lower income. Which I believe is the way it's done in my state.
- ratboy666 8y ago
  Historically, you are wrong. Custody of Infants Act 1839. Prior to this, men both "made the money" and received custody of the children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custody_of_Infants_Act_1839 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custody_of_Infants_Act_1839 FredW