7 ms·

The dogmatism of putting all women to work for the last 50 years. Here we are, women have gotten their "equal" pay (rightly so) and are nearly all employees or

by hirako2000 5y ago

The dogmatism of putting all women to work for the last 50 years. Here we are, women have gotten their "equal" pay (rightly so) and are nearly all employees or freelancers. After a long battle, so of course childcare like everything else needs paid. Most social workers are women. What's the way out, migrants from poorer countries? Just pushing the problem for later. We are waking up to the fact this model cannot work for the overall population. It has been promoted by those who would greatly benefit from having everyone at work, and echoed by those who would somewhat benefit, and echoed more times all the way down to those who had everything to loose. The problem of childcare cost is unsolvable with women at work, it's as simple as that. At best the average working woman will pay the same as she earns to afford full time child care. But if tax is taken into account, then it won't cover it. Or we squeeze more staff per child. I think it will take some more time for most of us to come around to the reality of a model doomed to fail.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Many countries have state-run or state-subsidised childcare. Universal or managed childcare - like health care - is one of those things that is a massive drag on the economy if it isn't provided. https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/childcare-around-the-world-how-other-countries-do-it-better-1.3626710 https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/childcare-a...
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  Most of the countries with state run daycare have even lower fertility than US has. I don’t think there is a single country with all of: government childcare, high female labor market participation, and above replacement fertility. If anything, the correlation is opposite: the more subsidized the childcare is, the fewer children are born.
  - riffraff 5y ago
    While I agree with your point in general, the Faroe islands might qualify. I do not know why, but they have a 2.4 fertility rate, could be related to an influx of women from poor countries (which in turn might not participate in the workforce, confirming what you state).
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      If you asked me, I’d say that the most probable cause is that people in Faroe Islands have less opportunity to get Education and build a Career, which makes childbearing more attractive in relative terms, as opportunity cost is lower. For the same reason, policies that in the west make it easier to have Education and Career, like subsidized daycare, end up depressing the fertility even further, contrary to expectations.
IkmoIkmo 5y ago
> The dogmatism of putting all women to work for the last 50 years. > The problem of childcare cost is unsolvable with women at work, it's as simple as that. What kind of nonsense is this? One in six women never go on to have children, it's great news that these women's access to the labour market has improved. Second, childcare ratios aren't 1 to 1. In fact they're about 1 to 4 for babies <1 year, 1 to 10 for 5 year olds, and 1 to 12 at school age. Suppose all women had children (they don't), society still greatly benefits from the efficiency of a childcare ratio as high as 1:12 as opposed to women caring for their child 1:1. Third, children aren't permanently children, and certainly not permanently babies. The first few years requires a lot of parental or private childcare, but afterwards kids mostly go to school for most of the day. A woman will have at least 45 years between adulthood and retirement and most of that kids won't need constant parental care like the first few years. Making sure women stay active in the labour force (even part-time) will greatly help their chances in the labour market throughout their career. Fourth, I see no reason why we're speaking about women rather than about parents. Providing income and childcare are shared responsibilities. It's fine to arrange it in your own family as you wish, but society shouldn't speak about these topics as if they should only apply to women.
- hirako2000 5y ago
  I do expect some sensitivity when daring to question women being in the work force rather than prioritising the care of their own children. Let me be clear first, I entirely agree with you that society shouldn't tell us what is right with this regard. But society has spoken, the dogma of having women be the same as men and get to work. With the pretence of more freedom and independence of course. I don't speak for women, nor men. Each person is free to decide whether they should enter the workforce or not. I'm not advocating that women shouldn't be allowed to work. I disagree with the ratio argument you've proposed, I'm sorry 1 carer for 12 toddlers is undeseriable. Ask any stay-at-home moms how it goes when they get their 3rd kid. And a carer will never care as much as a parent, so 1 to 12 is surely compromising on the children well being. I would gladly consider parents rather than women, but for the vast majority of human history it appears that females have been rather focusing on taking care of home and children. Things can be arranged differently, but there are surely some deep rooted reasons as to the adoption of the role fulfilled by women for so long, and it must have shown superiority over having men take that role since it has survived across very different cultures. We aren't hunter gatherers, we are even past the sedentary model that organised societies for millenia, so models can and better be questioned, but the childcare dead end needs to be looked at the way it is. It is not working. Yes children grow up, I give you that. And of course it is natural for women who were mostly taking care of their own children to find an occupation, work is one. My comment was in the context of the child care chaos we've created. Not in the context of trying to hijack the thread into claiming women should not be in the workplace.
dboreham 5y ago
I don't think it was dogmatism -- it was the need to have money. The cost of living rose such that families needed two incomes.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  Even where it is not strictly necessary for women to work having women in the workforce can be an economic advantage. For instance it is plausible that the increasing proportion of women in work since the 1950s has contributed as much to Norway's economy as the oil.
- hirako2000 5y ago
  It is dogmatism. Just look at the propaganda from the 50s and 60s. And all the way to today, it is less cheesy but nonetheless propagandist: schools educating boys and girls to get jobs, encouraging girls to be more ambitious, campaigns to get women in industries they are not interested in, and to fight for equal pay. Add to that how politically incorrect the comments I made are. If that is not a dogma, I don't know what is.
  - dboreham 5y ago
    "the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others" So you're saying that the general progression away from the patriarchy wasn't evidence-based?
Misdicorl 5y ago
I agree with your conclusion. Childcare is a societal issue that needs to be addressed at the societal level. Women who stay at home is a poppycock solution. At a cynical minimum it wastes tremendous resources. I want smart, competent, engaged women to have children. I also want them to choose how to direct their considerable energies as they see fit.
- hirako2000 5y ago
  I'm all with you. I'm denouncing the dogma that put women to work. It doesn't imply that women should be kept off the work force.
- Frost1x 5y ago
  If we make childcare a societal issue then we need to broaden that to make it easier for anyone and everyone to not only care for children but have children. There are plenty of those who want children but can't have them for a variety of reasons, some of which are other related costs (medical, legal adoption, etc.). If you select childcare alone you bias towards those can easily have children which can foster resentment and opposition for tax based support. We already do this a bit where everyone pays for for public schooling regardless to if they have children or not and we also subsidize parents further by allowing them to be claimed as dependents. Let's not keep this limited and make it so anyone wanting a child through a socially acceptable method be able to afford them long term since ultimately that's more generically what we're taking about.
edmundsauto 5y ago
I think you could have preserved the good points if you had removed what I perceive as sexism. Instead of saying the problem is having put women to work, the issue is that costs (due to larger houses, desire for luxuries, and generally keeping up with the Joneses) have increased. They have also increased because incomes have increased, and the ways in which to spend your money have also increased. It has nothing to do with genders - it has to do with the carrying cost of a household nowadays is tied to dual incomes (+ housing and health care costs have eaten up a lot of surplus income)
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  It does have to do with sex. There are of course exceptions, but women are naturally more equipped and inclined to be nurturers and caregivers, and men providers, especially for young children. It is also why women are disproportionate in early childhood care and education jobs (it gets somewhat more even with older kids; e.g there is a much higher proportion of male teachers at most high schools compared to elementary schools or preschool/daycare).
  - hirako2000 5y ago
    It is sad to see the most logical comment out there is getting downvoted given the logical aptitudes of this community. Statistics show you are right, evolutionary biology says you are right.
    - edmundsauto 5y ago
      Evolutionary bio makes psychology look like Newtonian physics, in terms of objectivity and generalizability. Statistics show the combined result of nature and nurture. How would you even begin to design an ethical study that could prove causation?
      - hirako2000 5y ago
        Stats and evolutionary biology converge on this topic. On the opposite side, we have politically loaded opinions.
NikolaNovak 5y ago
FWIW, I think your argument would earn a lot more consideration if you used a gender neutral term like "partner/spouse/parent" rather than "women", because it distracts from what I charitably assume is the seed of your point. Certainly, my wife and I have ~semi-annual conversations on whether our lifestyle still makes sense (2 parents working, 2 kids under 5 in daycare:). There's definitely room to discuss that on societal level too. But there's no immediate assumption that my wife would necessarily be the one to quit work and spend extra time with kids - we're both engaged parents, both have our strengths and weaknesses, and once breastfeeding stage was complete both equally capable of parenting; and at the same time have both been career oriented and hold very successful positions. in short: "Are we as society on average supporting the model of two parents working" - a reasonable even crucial discussion to have. "Should women be working" - hopefully settled a long time ago and anybody still questioning this will seem regressive at least, misogynistic more likely :-/
- hirako2000 5y ago
  Point taken. My other comment hopefully clarifies the rather provocative choice of terms. I think the debate hasn't been settled though. It wasn't so long ago that women were, for the most part, prioritising being a successful housewives rather than their careers. Surely they had little to no choice since society expected just that from them. I wouldn't argue that the pressure wasn't forcing their hands, but was a model where the roles were gender defined. The good thing with clearly defined roles for something as challenging as being a parent is that one can work towards developing the required abilities to become an adult well equipped when family comes around. I do see your point though. Your parental situation is not a rarety any longer, a gender based role assignment can't de facto be most adequate. I don't have a desire to regress. It does seem to me we have regressed though. We created created society of kids at day care then schools, and are only starting to see the contradictions that come with that.
- iso1210 5y ago
  Two parents work 5 days a week because family houses cost so much they're unaffordable unless you have two parents working. If the norm was instead working 2/3 days a week for less pay, there would be less money to spend on houses, so prices would come down (because the money that's charged is what can be afforded) But part time jobs are nowhere near as common as full time jobs - especially for professionals. Having parents looking after kids is a far better solution than outsourcing parenting to an external company, but it's far less profitable, and reduces things like GDP and stock markets, which is bad.
mcv 5y ago
The big thing that went wrong when women went to work, is that it didn't really help households in any way. What should have happened is that either households doubled their income, or each earner would work only 3 days a week at most. Instead, thanks to decades of stagnating wages and rising housing costs, households wouldn't have any more money to spend, but have a lot less time. What should have been a great deal turned into a terrible deal. Unequal pay meant that initially, men didn't want to work any less when their wives started working, rising housing costs and child care ate up pretty much all the extra income, and stagnating wages meant that even as the pay gap closed, households still weren't getting ahead. We're overworked and underpaid, and employers just got more productivity for the same money as before. We should go to a 24 hour working week.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

Many countries have state-run or state-subsidised childcare. Universal or managed childcare - like health care - is one of those things that is a massive drag on the economy if it isn't provided. https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/childcare-around-the-world-how-other-countries-do-it-better-1.3626710 https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/childcare-a...

xyzzyz 5y ago
Most of the countries with state run daycare have even lower fertility than US has. I don’t think there is a single country with all of: government childcare, high female labor market participation, and above replacement fertility. If anything, the correlation is opposite: the more subsidized the childcare is, the fewer children are born.
- riffraff 5y ago
  While I agree with your point in general, the Faroe islands might qualify. I do not know why, but they have a 2.4 fertility rate, could be related to an influx of women from poor countries (which in turn might not participate in the workforce, confirming what you state).
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    If you asked me, I’d say that the most probable cause is that people in Faroe Islands have less opportunity to get Education and build a Career, which makes childbearing more attractive in relative terms, as opportunity cost is lower. For the same reason, policies that in the west make it easier to have Education and Career, like subsidized daycare, end up depressing the fertility even further, contrary to expectations.

IkmoIkmo 5y ago

> The dogmatism of putting all women to work for the last 50 years. > The problem of childcare cost is unsolvable with women at work, it's as simple as that. What kind of nonsense is this? One in six women never go on to have children, it's great news that these women's access to the labour market has improved. Second, childcare ratios aren't 1 to 1. In fact they're about 1 to 4 for babies <1 year, 1 to 10 for 5 year olds, and 1 to 12 at school age. Suppose all women had children (they don't), society still greatly benefits from the efficiency of a childcare ratio as high as 1:12 as opposed to women caring for their child 1:1. Third, children aren't permanently children, and certainly not permanently babies. The first few years requires a lot of parental or private childcare, but afterwards kids mostly go to school for most of the day. A woman will have at least 45 years between adulthood and retirement and most of that kids won't need constant parental care like the first few years. Making sure women stay active in the labour force (even part-time) will greatly help their chances in the labour market throughout their career. Fourth, I see no reason why we're speaking about women rather than about parents. Providing income and childcare are shared responsibilities. It's fine to arrange it in your own family as you wish, but society shouldn't speak about these topics as if they should only apply to women.

hirako2000 5y ago
I do expect some sensitivity when daring to question women being in the work force rather than prioritising the care of their own children. Let me be clear first, I entirely agree with you that society shouldn't tell us what is right with this regard. But society has spoken, the dogma of having women be the same as men and get to work. With the pretence of more freedom and independence of course. I don't speak for women, nor men. Each person is free to decide whether they should enter the workforce or not. I'm not advocating that women shouldn't be allowed to work. I disagree with the ratio argument you've proposed, I'm sorry 1 carer for 12 toddlers is undeseriable. Ask any stay-at-home moms how it goes when they get their 3rd kid. And a carer will never care as much as a parent, so 1 to 12 is surely compromising on the children well being. I would gladly consider parents rather than women, but for the vast majority of human history it appears that females have been rather focusing on taking care of home and children. Things can be arranged differently, but there are surely some deep rooted reasons as to the adoption of the role fulfilled by women for so long, and it must have shown superiority over having men take that role since it has survived across very different cultures. We aren't hunter gatherers, we are even past the sedentary model that organised societies for millenia, so models can and better be questioned, but the childcare dead end needs to be looked at the way it is. It is not working. Yes children grow up, I give you that. And of course it is natural for women who were mostly taking care of their own children to find an occupation, work is one. My comment was in the context of the child care chaos we've created. Not in the context of trying to hijack the thread into claiming women should not be in the workplace.

dboreham 5y ago

I don't think it was dogmatism -- it was the need to have money. The cost of living rose such that families needed two incomes.

kwhitefoot 5y ago
Even where it is not strictly necessary for women to work having women in the workforce can be an economic advantage. For instance it is plausible that the increasing proportion of women in work since the 1950s has contributed as much to Norway's economy as the oil.
hirako2000 5y ago
It is dogmatism. Just look at the propaganda from the 50s and 60s. And all the way to today, it is less cheesy but nonetheless propagandist: schools educating boys and girls to get jobs, encouraging girls to be more ambitious, campaigns to get women in industries they are not interested in, and to fight for equal pay. Add to that how politically incorrect the comments I made are. If that is not a dogma, I don't know what is.
- dboreham 5y ago
  "the tendency to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others" So you're saying that the general progression away from the patriarchy wasn't evidence-based?

Misdicorl 5y ago

I agree with your conclusion. Childcare is a societal issue that needs to be addressed at the societal level. Women who stay at home is a poppycock solution. At a cynical minimum it wastes tremendous resources. I want smart, competent, engaged women to have children. I also want them to choose how to direct their considerable energies as they see fit.

hirako2000 5y ago
I'm all with you. I'm denouncing the dogma that put women to work. It doesn't imply that women should be kept off the work force.
Frost1x 5y ago
If we make childcare a societal issue then we need to broaden that to make it easier for anyone and everyone to not only care for children but have children. There are plenty of those who want children but can't have them for a variety of reasons, some of which are other related costs (medical, legal adoption, etc.). If you select childcare alone you bias towards those can easily have children which can foster resentment and opposition for tax based support. We already do this a bit where everyone pays for for public schooling regardless to if they have children or not and we also subsidize parents further by allowing them to be claimed as dependents. Let's not keep this limited and make it so anyone wanting a child through a socially acceptable method be able to afford them long term since ultimately that's more generically what we're taking about.

edmundsauto 5y ago

I think you could have preserved the good points if you had removed what I perceive as sexism. Instead of saying the problem is having put women to work, the issue is that costs (due to larger houses, desire for luxuries, and generally keeping up with the Joneses) have increased. They have also increased because incomes have increased, and the ways in which to spend your money have also increased. It has nothing to do with genders - it has to do with the carrying cost of a household nowadays is tied to dual incomes (+ housing and health care costs have eaten up a lot of surplus income)

throwawayboise 5y ago
It does have to do with sex. There are of course exceptions, but women are naturally more equipped and inclined to be nurturers and caregivers, and men providers, especially for young children. It is also why women are disproportionate in early childhood care and education jobs (it gets somewhat more even with older kids; e.g there is a much higher proportion of male teachers at most high schools compared to elementary schools or preschool/daycare).
- hirako2000 5y ago
  It is sad to see the most logical comment out there is getting downvoted given the logical aptitudes of this community. Statistics show you are right, evolutionary biology says you are right.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    Evolutionary bio makes psychology look like Newtonian physics, in terms of objectivity and generalizability. Statistics show the combined result of nature and nurture. How would you even begin to design an ethical study that could prove causation?
    - hirako2000 5y ago
      Stats and evolutionary biology converge on this topic. On the opposite side, we have politically loaded opinions.

NikolaNovak 5y ago

FWIW, I think your argument would earn a lot more consideration if you used a gender neutral term like "partner/spouse/parent" rather than "women", because it distracts from what I charitably assume is the seed of your point. Certainly, my wife and I have ~semi-annual conversations on whether our lifestyle still makes sense (2 parents working, 2 kids under 5 in daycare:). There's definitely room to discuss that on societal level too. But there's no immediate assumption that my wife would necessarily be the one to quit work and spend extra time with kids - we're both engaged parents, both have our strengths and weaknesses, and once breastfeeding stage was complete both equally capable of parenting; and at the same time have both been career oriented and hold very successful positions. in short: "Are we as society on average supporting the model of two parents working" - a reasonable even crucial discussion to have. "Should women be working" - hopefully settled a long time ago and anybody still questioning this will seem regressive at least, misogynistic more likely :-/

hirako2000 5y ago
Point taken. My other comment hopefully clarifies the rather provocative choice of terms. I think the debate hasn't been settled though. It wasn't so long ago that women were, for the most part, prioritising being a successful housewives rather than their careers. Surely they had little to no choice since society expected just that from them. I wouldn't argue that the pressure wasn't forcing their hands, but was a model where the roles were gender defined. The good thing with clearly defined roles for something as challenging as being a parent is that one can work towards developing the required abilities to become an adult well equipped when family comes around. I do see your point though. Your parental situation is not a rarety any longer, a gender based role assignment can't de facto be most adequate. I don't have a desire to regress. It does seem to me we have regressed though. We created created society of kids at day care then schools, and are only starting to see the contradictions that come with that.
iso1210 5y ago
Two parents work 5 days a week because family houses cost so much they're unaffordable unless you have two parents working. If the norm was instead working 2/3 days a week for less pay, there would be less money to spend on houses, so prices would come down (because the money that's charged is what can be afforded) But part time jobs are nowhere near as common as full time jobs - especially for professionals. Having parents looking after kids is a far better solution than outsourcing parenting to an external company, but it's far less profitable, and reduces things like GDP and stock markets, which is bad.

mcv 5y ago

The big thing that went wrong when women went to work, is that it didn't really help households in any way. What should have happened is that either households doubled their income, or each earner would work only 3 days a week at most. Instead, thanks to decades of stagnating wages and rising housing costs, households wouldn't have any more money to spend, but have a lot less time. What should have been a great deal turned into a terrible deal. Unequal pay meant that initially, men didn't want to work any less when their wives started working, rising housing costs and child care ate up pretty much all the extra income, and stagnating wages meant that even as the pay gap closed, households still weren't getting ahead. We're overworked and underpaid, and employers just got more productivity for the same money as before. We should go to a 24 hour working week.