Heh.. feminists weep

[KvHagedorn]

Married men earn more if wives do the chores-study

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050621/2005-06-21T230613Z_01_N21641992_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-LIFE-WAGES-DC.html

[KRSESQ]

If the difference was closer to thirty percent than a case probably could be made for moms staying home with the kids. But a three percent difference is hardly significant.

A more interesting study might be the difference between the earnings of families in which the mom goes out to work and dad stays home with the kids as opposed to both (or neither) working.

Gotta cover all the bases or the study is worthless.

Kevin

[Helevitia]

I'd bet women earn the same on average if the men do all the chores.

[Umfriend]

Not if they do not get the kids I think and even then I question it.

[Mehen]

I'd like to see a study on divorce rates vs. total earning vs. just man working vs. both working etc

[KvHagedorn]

I think it really boils down to division of labor.. hubby gets to focus on his job so becomes more skilled, wife focuses on hers and the same thing happens. The real benefit is when children have a parent there for the first few years of life. Homemaking in general has been underrated and given a bad rap as being somehow a subservient thing, but it really allows for a much more civilized society. Children grow up in an orderly home where a parent has time for them.. guests can come over and there is no embarrassment at the dirty laundry everywhere or the potato chips which are the only snacks available.. there is more charity because there are more women with time to dedicate to it.. there is time to dedicate to paying attention to school issues.. all sorts of things. I know from experience in being involved with the process of building custom homes that when the wife or husband is available to watch and direct the process and make certain decisions, the project progresses much more smoothly and quickly and the result is far superior. Really, being a cog in some corporate machine is far more subservient than being a homemaker.

[Umfriend]

I think it really boils down to division of labor.. hubby gets to focus on his job so becomes more skilled, wife focuses on hers and the same thing happens.

While not stated explicitly here, I somehow get the feeling that the type of job the wife is supposed to do is basically homemaking. For some, that just isn't rewarding enough.

The real benefit is when children have a parent there for the first few years of life. Homemaking in general has been underrated and given a bad rap as being somehow a subservient thing, but it really allows for a much more civilized society. Children grow up in an orderly home where a parent has time for them..

Other interesting studies show that women that stayed home for a few years to look after their kids will, if they choose to persue a career after such time, make considerably less money than women who continued working, even if at a lower pace. This is especially relevant in cases where man and wife divorce or when the wife becomes dissatisfied with the marriage but is financially dependent. If it is so important for kids to have parents at home (which I do not disagree with) then I do not see why that responsibility could not be shared between man and wife (or man and man in gay-men couples). The idea that with both parents working children can not grow up in an orderly home is false. In many countries (thinking France, Norway, Sweden) the percentage of women working is pretty high and yet the kids grow up well.

Housemaking is a subservient thing when protocol dictates who should do it.

guests can come over and there is no embarrassment at the dirty laundry everywhere or the potato chips which are the only snacks available..

You've clearly never been a guest at my home.

I know from experience in being involved with the process of building custom homes that when the wife or husband is available to watch and direct the process and make certain decisions, the project progresses much more smoothly and quickly and the result is far superior.

Yep, it's good to supervise such a project, so what?

Really, being a cog in some corporate machine is far more subservient than being a homemaker.

I guess that really depends on your character and circumstances. I'd go raving stark mad being a full time dad and homemaker. I happen to have a lot of fun at work and meet types of challenges there that simply aren't there at home only.

On "subservient", IMO it's really got to do with what one wants. I do not look down on any woman or man choosing to stay at home if that is what they want. Likewise, I don't denounce anyone for feeling staying at home doesn't tick their box. Homemaking, taking care of the kids IS subservient if protocol dictates you shoul dod it, full time and alone. That is what feminism is against.

[Gurm]

I think it really boils down to division of labor..

Absolutely. Whoever is at home has to run the household. It's relatively ridiculous for the spouse at home to expect the spouse at work to get home and then ALSO do the chores. Now on the other hand, some women should be prevented at all costs from operating power tools. This isn't me being sexist, it's me having observed Julie mow the lawn. Yikes! I do, however, imagine that there are plenty of MEN who should also be prevented from operating the bladed pushcart of death...

hubby gets to focus on his job so becomes more skilled, wife focuses on hers and the same thing happens.

Ha! Haha! *sigh* The worst part is that you don't see how sexist it is to couch it in this manner.

The real benefit is when children have a parent there for the first few years of life.

This I won't disagree with... raising your kids is the single most important thing you can possibly do, should you choose to have them in the first place. This is why I get so terribly angry with people like RedRed who imply (or outright state) that somehow I have been "wasting" my life for the past three years raising my child.

Homemaking in general has been underrated and given a bad rap as being somehow a subservient thing, but it really allows for a much more civilized society.

I agree. Homemaking HAS gotten a bad rap, and IS important for children and society. However, insisting that the woman be the one to do it... is ridiculous.

Children grow up in an orderly home where a parent has time for them..

Yup.

guests can come over and there is no embarrassment at the dirty laundry everywhere or the potato chips which are the only snacks available..

Heh. You're assuming that whoever is the homemaker is good at cleaning and shopping. There's a sizable percentage of both men and women that are not.

there is more charity because there are more women with time to dedicate to it..

Wow. I can't even begin to fathom how pigheadedly wrong that statement is. Let's address it, shall we?

"Women have more time..." exCUSE me? First you're making the assumption that it's the woman at home (again) which is sexist - pretty much par for the course with y'all religious types. THEN you're assuming that she has TIME for charity? Where does she find this miracle time? She shops, cleans, raises the kids, is probably LUCKY to find some personal time in there to take a breather... and you think she'll do CHARITY WORK too? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow.

there is time to dedicate to paying attention to school issues..

See my above point. Oh, wait - you think that once the kids go to school, the woman will STILL stay at home! I get it now! So in all the time that she USED to spend watching the kids, she'll now dedicate herself to charity and the PTA? WOW. WOOOOOOOOW. All of this for a 3% bump in hubby's salary? How much does he make? Aren't you the one who insists that the median salary in this country is way too low? Always bitches about the rich/poor divide?

Let's talk numbers here. A decent job in the IT field in Massachusetts right now pays ... well $50k would be GREAT. After a few years, sure you'll make more. But a LOT of the jobs are paying $30k for support positions. So let's split the difference. Assume that I could nail down $40k with a little work, right?

Julie makes $65k. AND gets 4% a year raise and 5-8% a year bonus!

HOW does it make more sense for me to be the one at work?

Admittedly it'd be good if for a while we could BOTH work, that would be wonderful. But when she makes DOUBLE my (potential) salary, I'd have to be the biggest chauvanistic idiot in the world to want her staying home. I'd have to be KvH.

In fact, let's assume that the order is reversed. Y'know, the man works at some sales or marketing job (the sort of position where being able to focus better on it means a percentage bump, yeah?) making ... $50k. A 3% increase is... wait for it... $1500 a year. So now he makes $51,500.

The wife could easily, one would assume, get a $25-$30k job. That means... $75,000 a year. Let's see... which is MORE? 75 or 51.5? Hell, for a few grand you can have a cleaning service come and keep the house neat, and for a few bucks extra a week, PeaPod will DELIVER your groceries. Hot damn!

But apparently KvH has discovered a magic way to turn $51,500 and a chipper "June Cleaver"esque demeanor from the wife into $75,000. I'd love to know his economic secret.

all sorts of things.

Well, we've shot down all those "sorts of things", so unless you have another secret hidden list...

I know from experience in being involved with the process of building custom homes that when the wife or husband is available to watch and direct the process and make certain decisions, the project progresses much more smoothly and quickly and the result is far superior.

ARE YOU HIGH ON CRACK? Wow. House builders ****ING HATE IT when the wife or husband is there all the damn time. Plus, your logic is ridiculous. "Supervising the building of your home is important, so women - quit your jobs and cook and clean for your husbands!"

Really, being a cog in some corporate machine is far more subservient than being a homemaker.

Agreed. I don't think there's anything subservient about being a homemaker. It IS, however, degrading to insist that it's the proper place of the woman.