Gender pay gap solution: Ban stay-at-home moms

[Dezerte]

Or, force both parents to spend an equal amount of time with their kids (since we're dealing in black and white-solutions).

[Deianeira]

Well, I guess you don't understand how business works

It's a fast-moving, global economy these days, can't take 3 years off work and expect to still be competent, you go back to being fresh out of school if you take 3 years out of work

The rest of the world doesn't just freeze because you need to have children, we all keep going

3 years of your client list / customers / colleagues twiddling their thumbs waiting for you to return? You'll be worthless by the time you do

Now I'm not suggesting a solution, it's a difficult problem - but forcing companies to take back 3 year off-work employees will just cripple them so they'll get replaced by companies that don't have those rules, or don't hire families

In any case, the article is about the wage gap myth and how solving it would require forcing women to work more, which is not ok

You do know that the vast majority of jobs don't have client lists or the like. Also let me ask you if someone works in a restaurant wouldn't be able to take leave for 3 years and come back and perform just as good?

[Mayhem]

You do know that the vast majority of jobs don't have client lists or the like. Also let me ask you if someone works in a restaurant wouldn't be able to take leave for 3 years and come back and perform just as good?

It´s almost as if other countries have the secret to maternity leave figured out. And by other countries i mean actually almost all other countries on earth.



And if you need references, here´s an OECD report:

https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_P...ve_systems.pdf
(page 3)

[Forgettable]

So many posters thinking that the suggestion to ban women from staying at home is legitimate instead of absurd hyperbole to make a point. It's cringe-worthy.

[Deleted]

You do know that the vast majority of jobs don't have client lists or the like. Also let me ask you if someone works in a restaurant wouldn't be able to take leave for 3 years and come back and perform just as good?

I didn't realise restaurants gave 3-year maternity leave to employees, seems a lot, I was talking about large companies where people work as part of a team etc

[Deleted]

Thanks for confirming what I was already suspicious of.

Stop flirting.

[Grimreaper]

How very grown up and responsible of you. There are ways to prevent pregnancy you know. If you don't want to father a child, use contraception, simple as that.

And noone of them are 100% safe. You're not even safe even if you never have sex.

[Deleted]

How very grown up and responsible of you.

Yes, the person with all decision making power get all of the resulting liability.
Which is the way it is for every other fucking kind of thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have a single example?

Here go nuts.
Or here, where a court said it explicitly:

Hermesmann v. Seyer (State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer 847 P.2d 1273 (Kan. 1993)) was a precedent-setting Kansas, United States case in which Colleen Hermesmann successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman.

[Deleted]

You can shout and throw the toys out of your pram all you want, but if you can't take responsibility for your own actions

Kansas, United States case in which Colleen Hermesmann successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman

...

"Autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

Karen Decrow - One time president of NOW.

[Cannibalus]

Well, I make more than enough money to support my wife and 2 kids. So her being able to stay at home, enjoy her life and raise the kids is something she wants. So as well as you make some good points:

Make staying at home with kids illegal, just like child labor is illegal.

You are an idiot.

Infracted

And how do you two get along? You obviously have a pecking order right? You're the fucking man in the house. And she has to lie in order to comfort you after a hard day at work "oh honey i've had such a hard day" "oh honey let me rub your back, i can understand you fully". After she sat her whole ass on the couch atleast half a day.

And that's the other reason why today's world is filled with idiots that have wierd views on women, men, pecking orders, being honest to the person they love and more. Because they are raised by people like you. Because Mr. limp dick pseudo-Alpha male prefers the fragile housewife. You couldn't handle a strong woman.

[Masark]

Here go nuts.
Or here, where a court said it explicitly:

So Kansas is nuts. That has already been established.

[Deleted]

Aye, you really strengthened your argument there. .

It completely and utterly refuted yours.

Its a broken splinter to a diarrhetic argument when you have to reference some cultural backwater.

This is the same case, from the cultural backwater of 'California'

A 34-year-old woman seduces a 15-year-old boy and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a daughter and thereafter applies for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Is the child's father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d).) We conclude he is liable for child support.

Just stop it with your millennial a-sjw bullshit.

Please stop refusing to see reality.

- - - Updated - - -

So Kansas is nuts. That has already been established.

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/50/842.html
same case, From CALIFORNIA.

[Grym]

Doing the math in our family, if my wife was to work full time, her entire paycheck would go to daycare. So what's the point of sending them to daycare when it is not benefitting monetarily, and only hurting your relationship with your kids by allowing someone else to raise them.

Depends, is your wife's job a progressive career?

If so, it is much better off to have a carer. Yeah for now, most/all of her salary goes to the carer. But what about in 4-5 years time? When your kid goes to school? Now she will have way too much time. She can go back to work at this point but experience wise she is already 4-5 years behind, which is a massive set back.

If she is determine with her career she will use that as investment, so she doesn't stay out of the loop. So when the kid goes to school her career is still on its way for promotions and such, and at that point you will be much better off.

[jackofwind]

You are proposing anti-social laws in order to overcome statistically irrelivent circumstances.

There you go, if it doesn't happen enough there's no need to make sure it doesn't happen at all.

[derpkitteh]

uh, no thanks.

i actually want to be the stay at home housewife.

[THE Bigzoman]

You're speculating, but sure, that's probably one factor. Women go through pregnancy and get saddled with the kids while men can run off. And I'm expected to believe that they're the ones that are hard done by, because they have to pay a percentage of that salary they earned from their uninterrupted career and their lack of obligations.



I'm sorry to hear that you were raped.



Er, is someone strapping you to a wall and milking you for semen?

I think it's pretty obvious I hate MRAs and the rest of the Deadbeat Dad Alliance.

There's only three ways you can dismiss that as speculation. You either:

A. Think time is infinite.

B. Don't believe the thousands of data points showing that women work less in the labor force in the long-run.

C. Don't believe that actions carry opportunity costs.


All three are plainly absurd.


I'm not going to address the deadbeat dad portion, given that married women with husbands show the same tendencies to not work and the fact that she even conceived a child with a "deadbeat" begs me to question one's character judgement.

[Thetruth1400]

I think it sounds like a wonderful idea - primarily because its the only way to solve the 'paygap'.

Well, considering the "pay gap" isn't real and a false number based on occupational choices, it's pretty hard to eliminate other than educating people on why reporting on a false statistic doesn't really show the whole truth.

Sure, men make 22 cents more per working hour, but that's because the jobs they choose are high paying, while women choose lower paying jobs. In the same job where men and women have literally the same everything, there is a very small gap of 3 - 8 cents difference, that's it. With such a small margin of error, you can easily chalk it up to outside factors like men being expected to be the bread winners and putting in the effort to get a better deal on their pay instead of just accepting the first offer.

Banning stay at home parents is downright stupid though. Considering the average babysitter gets paid $13.50 an hour, unless one of the parents is making far more than that, it makes absolutely no sense. How stupid would it be to send a mother to work at minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, only to have the family have to turn around and pay $13.50 an hour to have their child watched and cared for while they're at work? Right away, the father in your example, would be shelling out $6.25 more an hour for his wife to work while someone else watches their child. That's not even accounting for taxes, transportation for the mother, increased insurance costs, etc. all of which would exist only if the mother is forced into working.

All in all, it's a downright stupid idea.

[THE Bigzoman]

Well, considering the "pay gap" isn't real and a false number based on occupational choices, it's pretty hard to eliminate other than educating people on why reporting on a false statistic doesn't really show the whole truth.

Sure, men make 22 cents more per working hour, but that's because the jobs they choose are high paying, while women choose lower paying jobs. In the same job where men and women have literally the same everything, there is a very small gap of 3 - 8 cents difference, that's it. With such a small margin of error, you can easily chalk it up to outside factors like men being expected to be the bread winners and putting in the effort to get a better deal on their pay instead of just accepting the first offer.

Banning stay at home parents is downright stupid though. Considering the average babysitter gets paid $13.50 an hour, unless one of the parents is making far more than that, it makes absolutely no sense. How stupid would it be to send a mother to work at minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, only to have the family have to turn around and pay $13.50 an hour to have their child watched and cared for while they're at work? Right away, the father in your example, would be shelling out $6.25 more an hour for his wife to work while someone else watches their child. That's not even accounting for taxes, transportation for the mother, increased insurance costs, etc. all of which would exist only if the mother is forced into working.

All in all, it's a downright stupid idea.

Was it supposed to be a serious proposal?

I got whiffs of satire as I skimmed through the OP

[Mormolyce]

There's only three ways you can dismiss that as speculation. You either:

A. Think time is infinite.

B. Don't believe the thousands of data points showing that women work less in the labor force in the long-run.

C. Don't believe that actions carry opportunity costs.


All three are plainly absurd.


I'm not going to address the deadbeat dad portion, given that married women with husbands show the same tendencies to not work and the fact that she even conceived a child with a "deadbeat" begs me to question one's character judgement.

You're speculating the causal link. And that that's the only factor.

[Ragedaug]

I'm afraid people will miss the point and think the suggestion is completely genuine instead of a conduit to make another point.

"afraid"... =) I got a chuckle out of that. 95% of the folks who respond to the OP will respond to the title without having a clue what the wall-o-text said.

I thought it brought up some good points for discussion, which, unfortunately, won't be discussed on this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

Was it supposed to be a serious proposal?

I got whiffs of satire as I skimmed through the OP

They seemed like legit points. I would challenge you to read them and show how the points lack merit or how they shouldn't be taken seriously.