OT: How Did Women Inundating The Labor Market Affect The Economy?



J

Jason Earl

Guest
DZ <101*[email protected]*6123867.16572.3433.50*58> writes:

> Jason Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dally <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Feminism is arguing that women ought to be able to work at the
>>> levels that they're capable of in non-traditional fields.

>>
>> OK, then I am a feminist too.

>
> I'm a feminist too. Women ought to be able to work where they want -
> they are so cute after all! I find their demands to do whatever they
> wish so irresistible.


Dmitri, you are awesome.

Jason
 
D

Dally

Guest
Spungo wrote:

> You are a kook. Period.


Well, I guess you told ME!

Dally
 
J

Jason Earl

Guest
Dally <[email protected]> writes:

> Jason Earl wrote:
>
>> Dally <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>Jason Earl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't think that mothers are even replaceable by loving caring
>>>>fathers. I am a father myself, and I love my kids, but there is more
>>>> to being a mother than being able to breastfeed.
>>>
>>>It's good if a kid has a loving father AND a loving mother. It's
>>>even better if the kid has a loving father, a loving mother and a
>>>loving Grammy and a loving Grandpa and a loving Uncle whose only
>>>twelve years older than the kid and lives there, too.
>>>
>>>Not everyone gets everything they'd like to have.

>> Of course not. Life is rough, and then you die. However, I
>> personally believe that having a mother around (especially when the
>> kids are young), trumps just about everything else. Once again, I'm
>> pretty old-fashioned. I still believe that there is something magical
>> about mothers.

>
> I agree that mothers are grand, but having mothers at home trumps
> everything else? I'm not sure I agree with that. Is it okay for the
> mother to go to work so the kid can afford college? Medical insurance?
> How about to reduce the stress on the father so he can change careers
> or be less burdened by having to work two jobs (meaning he never sees
> his wife and they end up getting divorced?)
>
>>>>Even Dally would probably concede that men and women are different
>>>>enough so as not to be interchangeable. Women make better mothers
>>>>than men do :).
>>>
>>>I agree with this, but going to work doesn't stop them from being
>>>mothers. Never did, and it doesn't now.

>> No, but in many cases it means that someone else spends a lot of
>> time
>> substituting for the mother, and that's something that is a relatively
>> recent phenomenon.

>
> I don't believe this is true... but then, you go on to refute it in a
> moment, too.
>
>> This is especially true if you hire strangers to
>> watch your children. Leaving your children with grandparents or an
>> aunt on a daily basis is something that's been done forever. Leaving
>> your children with random strangers in a daycare is something else
>> entirely.

>
> Most women still use family-based childcare. I live far from family
> (and my parents were working during the infant years) so I paid
> through the teeth for high quality childcare, but I was unusual in
> that I'm highly compensated and could AFFORD high quality childcare.
> Most women - now and always - just left the kids with whoever would
> watch them (or with an older child.) Remember all those dreams
> about the "good old days when we used to play outside after school
> until it was dark and Mom never even knew where we were?" You
> weren't playing alone, there were latch-key kids out there, too.
>
> The other point I'd make is that "random strangers" don't STAY
> random strangers. From my perspective I engaged the services of a
> professional nanny to help me learn the parenting ropes. If I'd had
> my mother nearby - well - shudder - it wouldn't have been as useful.
> The woman who did my infant care was MUCH better at understanding
> infants than I was. I recall her telling me all sorts of things I
> wouldn't have known on my own, from what was causing diaper rash to
> when a kid had an ear infection.
>
> Stupid, uneducated children can give their kids love, but it's not
> necessarily enough. And besides, you can still give your kids love
> even if you go to work. You're not at work 100% of the time.
>
> Well, no, that's not true. I've definitely known some fathers who
> have been at work 100% of the time their kids are awake. A guy in
> my engineering department 15 years ago had a conversation with me
> about this. He thought he was doing such a great thing to work two
> jobs so his wife could stay home with the kids.
>
> His wife had an affair and they got divorced. That guy was so
> utterly screwed - screwed out of spending time with his kids,
> screwed out of a normal relationship with his wife, and screwed into
> having to work two jobs without any help from the other adult in the
> family.


That's just dumb. It's far better to do without some of the luxuries
than to miss your life completely. I work so that I can enjoy my
family. If I don't have time to hang out with my family then
something at work needs to give.

> Feminism is sometimes about PEOPLE's rights.


They should have called it people-ism then.

>> If you would have had unlimited resources there is little question
>> that you would have stayed home when your children were little.

>
> No... I would have worked part-time. Working full-time seriously
> sucked and I don't recommend that time famine to anyone. But
> part-time was great. Except for the money. I need stimulation, my
> own achievements, and to provide a larger world to my children than
> our livingroom. I like working.


Yeah, my wife teaches dance for the same reason.

>> The price you paid to be in this position was that you missed your
>> children's early years. In your case it would appear that this was
>> a good decision.

>
> I didn't miss them. I was there every single day.
>
> Do you feel like you're missing YOUR children's early years?


I wake up with the children every morning, feed them, dress them, and
make sure that the oldest is ready for school. I don't work late, and
I don't have any hobbies that take me outside of the home. Even
weight training is a family affair. Instead of kettlebell swings I do
"kidbell" swings. My kids love that.

However, there is still an 8 hour (sometimes more, sometimes less)
hole in my day where I don't see my children. There is no question
that I miss a great deal.

>> Lots of people still make the choice to make do with less in order
>> to give their young kids a full-time mother. Making do with less
>> is not something that is very popular in our society. That's not
>> feminism's fault, but it certainly doesn't help.

>
> It's not as simple as a moralistic view about whether they need
> cable TV or not. Health insurance benefits, the ability to get a
> decent education (when more and more places require private school
> to do so), the ability for the woman to keep her job skills current
> enough to retain some earning abilities... there are lots of reasons
> why the choice to work makes a lot of sense for the entire family,
> INCLUDING the children.


I recognize this. However, there are still lots of folks that manage
to make do with one income. Sure, their children might have to go to
public schools, and possibly (gasp) a public university.

>>>Actually, I'm curious: do you guys know women who had no economic
>>>input through-out their lives? Not before the kids, not after the
>>>kids, not ever? Just stayed home and ate bon bons and scrubbed the
>>>kitchen sink until is shone?

>> My mother and both of my grandmothers were stay at home mothers.
>> All three graduated from college, received their teaching
>> certificates, and then went on to raise families instead of
>> entering the work force.

>
> They never taught? Not before marriage? No home-schooling
> afterwards? No taking in of neighbor children?


My mother never taught. My grandma Jones taught at the local one room
school when all of her children were old enough to be in her class.
That's probably cheating :). She was with her children all day, but
she got paid to watch them.

>> My grandma Earl and my mother were both the wives of small town
>> lawyers (my grandfather and father became partners in a law firm), and
>> so they didn't really have anything to do with their husband's
>> business, and neither worked outside the home.

>
> Your father and grandfather wouldn't have been able to make partner
> if they had to rear the kids, stay home with snuffly noses, be there
> to let in the plumber and could never entertain clients. There is
> some economic value to a wife of a high-functioning man who only
> gets to be high functioning because he has a wife.


My father and grandfather were partners. The firm was "Earl & Earl
Attorneys at Law." There is no question, however, that both men would
have been far less successful without their wives. The old adage
about good men having good wives is pure gold.

>> They didn't eat many bon bons (although my grandmother makes
>> ridiculously good cinnamon rolls). Both my mother and grandmother
>> raised 8 children (each), and were very active in the community so
>> they were also very very busy.

>
> So, they WERE in the work force - that's what "active in the community"
> means. You just didn't spot it until now.


I suppose that if you consider being active in the church as being
part of the workforce then you have a point. I think that you are
stretching a bit though.

> Obviously they were engaged in the home during the time they had 8
> small children at home, but what did / do they do now? Volunteer at
> the library? Work at the hospital auxiliary? Fundraise for the
> church steeple? Watch grandkids so their daughters can work? Can
> you spot how your mother(s) actually ARE engaged in the labor force
> without being counted?


Both my grandpas are dead now. Grandma Jones lives with my parents.
Grandma Earl lives by herself. She just got a job working for one of
my uncles. Both women spent a few years caring for their ailing
husbands. Grandpa Jones had Alzheimer's, Grandpa Earl just got old.

>> I can honestly say that I know of dozens of women with similar
>> stories. College educated women who chose to raise families and
>> keep house rather than enter the work force. Of course, I'm
>> Mormon, and I grew up in a rural community, so I am probably an
>> outlier.
>>
>>>I don't know those women.

>> They exist. They just don't run in your social circles.

>
> You're describing women who are active in their communities, doing
> unpaid economic work.


Yes. If that counts then I agree with your assessment that women have
always been "in the workforce." Of course, June Cleaver would have
qualified as well.

My point is that there used to be more women who, while active, didn't
have a career as such, and whose lives revolved around caring for
their family. If you'll agree that this used to be more the case in
the past than it is now, then the discussion is over. We both agree
:). Either way it is always interesting to discuss with you.

Jason
 
J

Jason Earl

Guest
Dally <[email protected]> writes:

> Jason Earl wrote:
>
>> Dally <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>DZ wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't see how feminism fits into this story at all.
>>>
>>>Middle class now requires two high salaries.

>> You have an interesting definition of "middle class" if your client
>> with a vacation house qualifies.
>>
>>>It isn't feminism that makes that woman go to work, it's feminism
>>>that allowed her access to the sort of earning power that the middle
>>>class lifestyle demands.

>> Fah, feminism did nothing of the sort. Economics did that trick.
>> When educated women started putting their careers before the raising
>> of their families it was only a matter of time before they started
>> making the same as men. Employers (in the aggregate) are just worried
>> about getting the most bang for their buck. The only reason that
>> there is still a differential today is that employers can't be sure
>> that a given individual woman they hire won't decide to get pregnant
>> and miss a lot of work (or worse yet, quit) in the future. This makes
>> employers somewhat less likely to invest in women.

>
> I agree with this.


Agreeing with a female Massachusetts Democrat. Someone's likely to
take away my Republican party card.

>> Feminism simply made it fashionable to trade raising your own children
>> in exchange for building the sort of career that men traditionally
>> built.

>
> I wouldn't say "fasionable", though I see why you would. I'd say
> "acceptable". Personally, I've not seen any backlash against women
> dropping out of the paid work force from time to time as family
> situations warrant it. In fact, I've seen movements towards family
> leave and flexible work hours to try to keep people from just up and
> quitting when family needs would previously have required it. So
> it's not "fashionable" to work up to your economic potential, it's
> "possible".


Fashionable is a loaded term. I use it because I'm old fashioned and
I think that society should do what it can to favor stay-at-home
mothers. Possible is probably better.

>> Besides which, by your definition a single woman (or man) can't
>> achieve a middle class lifestyle unless they can earn the
>> equivalent of two high salaries. As someone that saw what actual
>> poverty looked like in Peru I am having a bit of a hard time
>> wrapping my head around being "lower class."

>
> "Lower class" in the U.S. means having cable TV, a car, a pack-a-day
> cigarette habit and eating meat every day. It's mind boggling to
> anyone who's ever been poor.


I'm just ribbing you. I know what you mean.

>> However, if you are right then feminism basically condemned all
>> single parents to lower class status simply because the middle
>> class now brought in two high salaries.

>
> I'm not sure I follow this. Single parents were ALWAYS doomed to
> lower class. When wasn't this true?


I thought part of feminism was that women don't need men. Or maybe I
have that confused with lesbianism :).

> But single people can be middle class just because they scale their
> lifestyle to one person's needs. A couple have roughly twice the
> consumerism. A couple with kids have far higher costs than a single
> person.


You don't have to tell me that. I have three children. Children are
definitely not the investment that they were in the 1800s :). I like
them though.

>> Admit it Dally. You to admit it you are not middle class at all.
>> You're officially upper-class.

>
> I didn't say I was middle class. My maternal grandparents were
> millionares and I went to an elite New England Liberal Arts college
> and have a master's degree. But my mother was a poor single parent
> (disabled by wealth, it's a complicated story) and my paternal line
> are poor midwestern farmers, so I see both sides.


It sounds like your mother did a fair job :).

>> If you lived out West you would even have to vote Republican.

>
> The shocking thing is that I'm not Republican now, considering my
> pedigree and the fact that I'm a relatively wealthy business
> owner/employer. I consider this a failing of the Republican turn
> towards corporate greed and away from its core values of
> independence, smaller government and staying out of other people's
> business.


Republicans are just better at economics than the Democrats. If you
had paid attention in your economics class you would understand. It's
all economics in the end, and the more you try and meddle, the more
the market has to compensate.

Jason
 
D

Dally

Guest
Ryan Case wrote:

> Dally wrote:
>
>> They can work from home or on the farm like I do. (Jason mentioned
>> that his grandmother occasionally drove a tractor, but he really has
>> no idea of how much is involved with running a farm if he thinks
>> "occasionally drove the tractor" was her only contribution.)


After re-reading Jason's post I notice that he mentioned she did a lot
more work besides, so I unfairly thought he didn't notice her contribution.

> I believe that he stated she contributed much more then that and was
> using it as an above and beyond the usual things that she did scenario.
> Aren't you born and raised in Boston?


No. I came to MA for college. My father (and all his father ad
infinitum) is a farmer. My mother took me to the city for a couple of
years but we mostly lived on farms, mostly on a subsistance-level
homestead in Vermont where we ate what we raised. When I wasn't on the
farm in Vermont I was on the farm in Michigan.

> Didn't Jason say that he worked
> his g'pa's farm every summer? Are you really going to suggest that an
> East Coast accountant knows more about running a farm then an IEWH
> farmer's grandson?


I'm saying the women WORKED and weren't counted as being in the labor
force. Yes, I've got a pretty good idea of what a "housewife" does who
lives on a farm. And I not only value it as labor, I value it a lot
more than either of you seem to, because I'm claiming that they were
working just as much back then as the women who go out to work in
industry are doing now.


>> Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, and I'm quite likely combining you
>> with someone else's post, but I keep hearing people say that women
>> have gone to work and left the poor little children in daycare and
>> isn't having women in the workplace awful for the kids. I think this
>> is dreaming for a good old day that never really existed for most people.

>
> O.K. I think that we have managed to finally meet in the same
> conversation here. I don't disagree that there have always been some
> women in the workforce. I don't disagree that changes in our society
> have allowed women a more equal place in the workforce, but I also don't
> disagree that more women are spending more time in the workforce and
> less time at home with their children either. This is at least what I
> see where I live. I also state that I believe that children are better
> off with a parent at home, be it father or mother.


I think children are better off being cared for by someone who is
watching out for them. In practice that is usually the lower-earning
parent. But I also think it's BETTER that women who work get paid up to
the amount that they can command. I'm not saying it's better for woman
to go to work, I'm saying it's better that woman who already ARE working
get paid commensurate with their skills.

Sometimes - often - that means setting up formal childcare arrangements
because the new job demands more reliable hours.

For example, say you're on the church building committee. You meet for
long hours, you do huge fundraising projects, you oversea blueprints,
you wrangle with the town planning commission, you chair endless
sub-committees... isn't that work? Now let's say you get hired to be
the project director for the building of a new building at a college.
Can you see how one of those would be considered a woman "entering the
workforce", but it works out to the same set of skills, same time
requirements, same amount of letting the kids fend for themselves?

> >
> > The crux of what I'm arguing is that women haven't ENTERED the labor
> > force, they were always working. Because of education, because of
> > feminism, because of changing social values, women are able to command a
> > salary commensurate with their abilities, now.

>
> Which you have to concede means different positions more often then not.


Yes, I'll concede that. And I'll further concede that it appears she's
entering the counted labor force when she takes a job like that, AND
more likely to use daycare than before she was able to command a salary
commensurate with her abilities.

Dally
 
D

DZ

Guest
Dally <[email protected]> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> Dally <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Middle class now requires two high salaries.

>>
>> Not high enough it seems, as they can't manage, but thanks for
>> clearing that up!

>
> Heh. No one ever makes enough money. No matter how much you have,
> you always spend slightly more. In my work I see over and over
> again that money doesn't equal happiness, but I have detected a
> rotten spot in the continuum where money seems to make people
> unhappy. It's right around 100K - you're making enough not to be
> poor, but not enough to be wealthy. You think you ought to be able
> to have a timeshare and be able to send your kid to private school,
> but also to have a newish car and an XBox 360 and a good cellphone
> plan and eat free range pesticide-free foods and have a cleaning
> person. But you just can't have it all. So you're in debt and
> unhappy with your desire for things you can't quite afford.


I'm pretty certain that I can flip burgers or dig holes in frozen soil
for a lot less without being upset. However, I don't recall a dunk
into unhappiness once my salary crossed over the rotten spot.
Free-range meat gives you worms :) Public schools are not that
bad. Car's supposed to get you from A to B (I would even be
embarrassed to drive a luxury car). The real trouble is when someone
can't afford a needed medical treatment that's out there but is too
expensive.

>>>It isn't feminism that makes that woman go to work, it's feminism
>>>that allowed her access to the sort of earning power that the middle
>>>class lifestyle demands.

>>
>> Given that women are now "allowed", what is the present day relevance
>> of feminism?

>
> How about to value the work that women do even when men can't spot it?
> I.e., to uphold the option to stay home when the kids are little. :)
> (I'm not arguing that women OUGHT to enter the workforce, just that they
> always HAVE been working whether you notice it or not.)
> Feminism means less and less and people get away from the mindset it was
> required to shake. Can you even understand why someone might think a
> woman couldn't be a pharmacist?


No, I can't. It's so last century. Besides, all the scary doctors from
my childhood vaccination memories are females.
 
R

Ryan Case

Guest
Dally wrote:

> Ryan Case wrote:
>
>> Dally wrote:
>>
>>> They can work from home or on the farm like I do. (Jason mentioned
>>> that his grandmother occasionally drove a tractor, but he really has
>>> no idea of how much is involved with running a farm if he thinks
>>> "occasionally drove the tractor" was her only contribution.)

>
>
> After re-reading Jason's post I notice that he mentioned she did a lot
> more work besides, so I unfairly thought he didn't notice her contribution.
>
>> I believe that he stated she contributed much more then that and was
>> using it as an above and beyond the usual things that she did scenario.
>> Aren't you born and raised in Boston?

>
>
> No. I came to MA for college. My father (and all his father ad
> infinitum) is a farmer. My mother took me to the city for a couple of
> years but we mostly lived on farms, mostly on a subsistance-level
> homestead in Vermont where we ate what we raised. When I wasn't on the
> farm in Vermont I was on the farm in Michigan.
>
>> Didn't Jason say that he worked his g'pa's farm every summer? Are you
>> really going to suggest that an East Coast accountant knows more about
>> running a farm then an IEWH farmer's grandson?

>
>
> I'm saying the women WORKED and weren't counted as being in the labor
> force. Yes, I've got a pretty good idea of what a "housewife" does who
> lives on a farm. And I not only value it as labor, I value it a lot
> more than either of you seem to, because I'm claiming that they were
> working just as much back then as the women who go out to work in
> industry are doing now.
>
>
>>> Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, and I'm quite likely combining you
>>> with someone else's post, but I keep hearing people say that women
>>> have gone to work and left the poor little children in daycare and
>>> isn't having women in the workplace awful for the kids. I think this
>>> is dreaming for a good old day that never really existed for most
>>> people.

>>
>>
>> O.K. I think that we have managed to finally meet in the same
>> conversation here. I don't disagree that there have always been some
>> women in the workforce. I don't disagree that changes in our society
>> have allowed women a more equal place in the workforce, but I also
>> don't disagree that more women are spending more time in the workforce
>> and less time at home with their children either. This is at least
>> what I see where I live. I also state that I believe that children are
>> better off with a parent at home, be it father or mother.

>
>
> I think children are better off being cared for by someone who is
> watching out for them. In practice that is usually the lower-earning
> parent. But I also think it's BETTER that women who work get paid up to
> the amount that they can command. I'm not saying it's better for woman
> to go to work, I'm saying it's better that woman who already ARE working
> get paid commensurate with their skills.
>
> Sometimes - often - that means setting up formal childcare arrangements
> because the new job demands more reliable hours.
>
> For example, say you're on the church building committee. You meet for
> long hours, you do huge fundraising projects, you oversea blueprints,
> you wrangle with the town planning commission, you chair endless
> sub-committees... isn't that work? Now let's say you get hired to be
> the project director for the building of a new building at a college.
> Can you see how one of those would be considered a woman "entering the
> workforce", but it works out to the same set of skills, same time
> requirements, same amount of letting the kids fend for themselves?
>
>> >
>> > The crux of what I'm arguing is that women haven't ENTERED the labor
>> > force, they were always working. Because of education, because of
>> > feminism, because of changing social values, women are able to

>> command a
>> > salary commensurate with their abilities, now.

>>
>> Which you have to concede means different positions more often then not.

>
>
> Yes, I'll concede that. And I'll further concede that it appears she's
> entering the counted labor force when she takes a job like that, AND
> more likely to use daycare than before she was able to command a salary
> commensurate with her abilities.
>
> Dally



Good,

So we agree, mostly, it seems.

Ryan
 
R

Ryan Case

Guest
<snip>
>
> Admit it Dally. You to admit it you are not middle class at all.
> You're officially upper-class. If you lived out West you would even
> have to vote Republican.
>
> Jason


O.K. you made me laugh.


Hell, she could even have a maid in house with a 100K income here.
 
D

DZ

Guest
Jason Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> Jason Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Dally <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> Feminism is arguing that women ought to be able to work at the
>>>> levels that they're capable of in non-traditional fields.
>>>
>>> OK, then I am a feminist too.

>>
>> I'm a feminist too. Women ought to be able to work where they want -
>> they are so cute after all! I find their demands to do whatever they
>> wish so irresistible.

>
> Dmitri, you are awesome.


P.S. "Because they worth it!" (L'Oreal)
 
J

Jason Earl

Guest
Dally <[email protected]> writes:

> Ryan Case wrote:
>
>> Dally wrote:
>>
>>> They can work from home or on the farm like I do. (Jason mentioned
>>> that his grandmother occasionally drove a tractor, but he really
>>> has no idea of how much is involved with running a farm if he
>>> thinks "occasionally drove the tractor" was her only contribution.)

>
> After re-reading Jason's post I notice that he mentioned she did a
> lot more work besides, so I unfairly thought he didn't notice her
> contribution.


The older I get the more I realize how hard my parents and
grandparents worked.

>> I believe that he stated she contributed much more then that and
>> was using it as an above and beyond the usual things that she did
>> scenario. Aren't you born and raised in Boston?

>
> No. I came to MA for college. My father (and all his father ad
> infinitum) is a farmer. My mother took me to the city for a couple
> of years but we mostly lived on farms, mostly on a subsistance-level
> homestead in Vermont where we ate what we raised. When I wasn't on
> the farm in Vermont I was on the farm in Michigan.


Now that's work.

>> Didn't Jason say that he worked his g'pa's farm every summer? Are
>> you really going to suggest that an East Coast accountant knows
>> more about running a farm then an IEWH farmer's grandson?

>
> I'm saying the women WORKED and weren't counted as being in the
> labor force. Yes, I've got a pretty good idea of what a "housewife"
> does who lives on a farm. And I not only value it as labor, I value
> it a lot more than either of you seem to, because I'm claiming that
> they were working just as much back then as the women who go out to
> work in industry are doing now.


Come to think of it quite a few years Grandma Jones would have counted
as part of the labor force (she was a teacher in a one room school).
I can't believe I forgot that.

>>> Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, and I'm quite likely combining
>>> you with someone else's post, but I keep hearing people say that
>>> women have gone to work and left the poor little children in
>>> daycare and isn't having women in the workplace awful for the
>>> kids. I think this is dreaming for a good old day that never
>>> really existed for most people.

>>
>> O.K. I think that we have managed to finally meet in the same
>> conversation here. I don't disagree that there have always been
>> some women in the workforce. I don't disagree that changes in our
>> society have allowed women a more equal place in the workforce, but
>> I also don't disagree that more women are spending more time in the
>> workforce and less time at home with their children either. This is
>> at least what I see where I live. I also state that I believe that
>> children are better off with a parent at home, be it father or
>> mother.

>
> I think children are better off being cared for by someone who is
> watching out for them. In practice that is usually the
> lower-earning parent. But I also think it's BETTER that women who
> work get paid up to the amount that they can command. I'm not
> saying it's better for woman to go to work, I'm saying it's better
> that woman who already ARE working get paid commensurate with their
> skills.


Certainly.

> Sometimes - often - that means setting up formal childcare
> arrangements because the new job demands more reliable hours.
>
> For example, say you're on the church building committee. You meet
> for long hours, you do huge fundraising projects, you oversea
> blueprints, you wrangle with the town planning commission, you chair
> endless sub-committees... isn't that work? Now let's say you get
> hired to be the project director for the building of a new building
> at a college. Can you see how one of those would be considered a
> woman "entering the workforce", but it works out to the same set of
> skills, same time requirements, same amount of letting the kids fend
> for themselves?


Yes, but the woman on the church building committee probably doesn't
need daycare. Either the church works around her schedule, or they
find someone else.

>> > The crux of what I'm arguing is that women haven't ENTERED the
>> > labor force, they were always working. Because of education,
>> > because of feminism, because of changing social values, women
>> > are able to command a salary commensurate with their abilities,
>> > now.

>> Which you have to concede means different positions more often then
>> not.

>
> Yes, I'll concede that. And I'll further concede that it appears
> she's entering the counted labor force when she takes a job like
> that, AND more likely to use daycare than before she was able to
> command a salary commensurate with her abilities.
>
> Dally


It's possible. A civil discussion on USENET where everyone feels a
little more informed when all is said and done.

I can't think of any points on this subject where I don't agree with
Dally. Ryan (another IEWH) is clearly a genius.
 
R

Ryan Case

Guest
Jason Earl wrote:


>>
>>I agree with this.

>
>
> Agreeing with a female Massachusetts Democrat. Someone's likely to
> take away my Republican party card.


I'm considering making you move to Bellvue, or Bellingham!
>
>
 
J

Jason Earl

Guest
Ryan Case <[email protected]> writes:

> Jason Earl wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>I agree with this.

>> Agreeing with a female Massachusetts Democrat. Someone's likely to
>> take away my Republican party card.

>
> I'm considering making you move to Bellvue, or Bellingham!


I only wish. I am currently living in (gasp) Utah.

Jason
 
D

Dally

Guest
Jason Earl wrote:

> It's possible. A civil discussion on USENET where everyone feels a
> little more informed when all is said and done.
>
> I can't think of any points on this subject where I don't agree with
> Dally. Ryan (another IEWH) is clearly a genius.


Well, I'm still not voting Republican. Or shopping at Wal*mart. But we
can agree to disagree on that one.

Dally