3 ms·

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 firs

by 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.

danShumway 5y ago
Surprising sexism aside, I think the broader point here is that focusing on specifically the women is kind of weird and unnecessary. The issue isn't that men and women are being treated equally, the issue is that both parents are expected to work. If women drop out of the workforce, are employers suddenly going to start doubling salaries so household income will stay the same? If not, then this isn't really a problem with gender roles, it doesn't seem. It sounds to me like the thread of logic you're following is: - Women have started working more, so child care is harder - Child care costs went up during the pandemic, so more workers of all genders are staying home to care for their children directly - Therefore, there's a labor shortage. Well, the obvious conclusion from that thread of logic is that employers apparently need women to work in order for the economy to keep functioning, and if they stop working and stop sending their kids to daycare then there'll be a labor shortage. If you don't have a plan to fix that problem, then complaining about gender roles seems kind of useless. If you're worried about the direction of childcare and you think more women should be in that role, then shouldn't you be happy that more people are staying home now to take care of their kids, and that this is forcing the market to adjust salaries to meet the new numbers of available workers? You can't both have your cake and eat it, you can't be upset that women aren't staying home to look after their kids and upset that there are fewer available workers to hire once parents start staying home to watch their kids.
- wrycoder 5y ago
  > If women drop out of the workforce, are employers suddenly going to start doubling salaries so household income will stay the same? Taken in reverse, that's pretty much what happened when women entered the workforce in large numbers. It now generally takes two incomes to support a household, where it used to take one. (Yes, the standard of living and expectations in general are higher these days, but still.)
  - danShumway 5y ago
    Well then this thread is very odd, because if people have that perspective about why current wages are what they are, then I don't understand what they're complaining about with the current labor shortage. They should see lower supply driving up wages as a good thing.
    - wrycoder 5y ago
      Yes, for the government to respond to wage inflation by allowing inflation in the general market basket of goods would be an error imo.
- hirako2000 5y ago
  I am not upset women aren't staying home to take care of children. I'm upset that women have so willingly been trapped in fighting for their rights to be part of the Labour force, and in the end have to work full time without the ability to afford child care. At least you got a few things right. Yes, women have been working "more" and it has created the difficulty to get their children proper care. It's rather logical. You can add to that it is not just women's problem. It's men's too. It is our problem : we have a model that cannot solve an absolute road block: if women work, and get equal pay, then childcare become out of reach to a large portion of the population. Unless you increase the kids to carer ratio of course, or build robots as carer. I think the issue with the work arounds are rather obvious. Or maybe not since I've only commented with simple logical critics but many won't cease to conceive a society with women taking care of their children until a proven solution comes along. I don't have a plan to fix that problem, no. That's why I blame the dogma that introduced the problem in the first place. And I refer to the previous model that worked for millenia, which is a gender based role system. It doesn't have to be that way, but sure let's consider any way, but I don't see why criticising today's model and referring to one that worked is useless.

danShumway 5y ago

Surprising sexism aside, I think the broader point here is that focusing on specifically the women is kind of weird and unnecessary. The issue isn't that men and women are being treated equally, the issue is that both parents are expected to work. If women drop out of the workforce, are employers suddenly going to start doubling salaries so household income will stay the same? If not, then this isn't really a problem with gender roles, it doesn't seem. It sounds to me like the thread of logic you're following is: - Women have started working more, so child care is harder - Child care costs went up during the pandemic, so more workers of all genders are staying home to care for their children directly - Therefore, there's a labor shortage. Well, the obvious conclusion from that thread of logic is that employers apparently need women to work in order for the economy to keep functioning, and if they stop working and stop sending their kids to daycare then there'll be a labor shortage. If you don't have a plan to fix that problem, then complaining about gender roles seems kind of useless. If you're worried about the direction of childcare and you think more women should be in that role, then shouldn't you be happy that more people are staying home now to take care of their kids, and that this is forcing the market to adjust salaries to meet the new numbers of available workers? You can't both have your cake and eat it, you can't be upset that women aren't staying home to look after their kids and upset that there are fewer available workers to hire once parents start staying home to watch their kids.

wrycoder 5y ago
> If women drop out of the workforce, are employers suddenly going to start doubling salaries so household income will stay the same? Taken in reverse, that's pretty much what happened when women entered the workforce in large numbers. It now generally takes two incomes to support a household, where it used to take one. (Yes, the standard of living and expectations in general are higher these days, but still.)
- danShumway 5y ago
  Well then this thread is very odd, because if people have that perspective about why current wages are what they are, then I don't understand what they're complaining about with the current labor shortage. They should see lower supply driving up wages as a good thing.
  - wrycoder 5y ago
    Yes, for the government to respond to wage inflation by allowing inflation in the general market basket of goods would be an error imo.
hirako2000 5y ago
I am not upset women aren't staying home to take care of children. I'm upset that women have so willingly been trapped in fighting for their rights to be part of the Labour force, and in the end have to work full time without the ability to afford child care. At least you got a few things right. Yes, women have been working "more" and it has created the difficulty to get their children proper care. It's rather logical. You can add to that it is not just women's problem. It's men's too. It is our problem : we have a model that cannot solve an absolute road block: if women work, and get equal pay, then childcare become out of reach to a large portion of the population. Unless you increase the kids to carer ratio of course, or build robots as carer. I think the issue with the work arounds are rather obvious. Or maybe not since I've only commented with simple logical critics but many won't cease to conceive a society with women taking care of their children until a proven solution comes along. I don't have a plan to fix that problem, no. That's why I blame the dogma that introduced the problem in the first place. And I refer to the previous model that worked for millenia, which is a gender based role system. It doesn't have to be that way, but sure let's consider any way, but I don't see why criticising today's model and referring to one that worked is useless.