Display:


Re: Women and the Process (none / 0)

I can't quote the studies, but this has been talked about before in other venues.  The whole motherhood v. career thing, I mean.  I've read somewhere that women in business often are perceived as less committed to the job because they might just drop out at any point to raise their families, where men are not likely to do the same.  Patently unfair, to be sure, but the perception is there.  Once women are past childbearing age, their ambitions can then be taken more seriously.  I know I've seen this done as some sort of survey or study of corporate managers in the past decade or so...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:09:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Women and the Process (2.00 / 1)

We are actually studying this in my Sociology class right now.

I just got finished writing a paper on a proposal by David Brooks of the New York times in which he argues that women should sequence their lives to avoid conflict between work and family.

For instance, after graduation from college, a woman should get married and have babies and take care of them for twenty years.  Then, when she got to be about 40 years of age, she can enter the labor market with full attention to her career.

I won't even bother getting into why this is absolutely ridiculous, but the message is--ladies, if you have kids, you're just not dependable.  And hey, if you do have kids and aren't actively caring for them, you're a bad mother.


John McCain smells like mothballs.
by asherrem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Women and the Process (2.00 / 1)

As much as I have always loathed Brooks, that puts the cap on it.  Grrrrrr.


by mady on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Women and the Process (2.00 / 1)

Too many men don't realize this gender paradigm hurts them too.  Just as women are supposed to "drop out and make babies", male roles prevent them from enjoying that very opportunity (less the biological constraints, of course).  Being closely involved with child-rearing is a wonderful thing, but it's a choice too often denied to men by the same paradigm that imposes it on women.

Despite the increasingly equal (not there yet) opportunities for working women, the "man as breadwinner" mindset still dominates; and both genders lose.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:50:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Women and the Process (2.00 / 1)

Very true!

I'm a new dad, in a very equal-partnership type marraige.  It has been interesting to see that stuff come up.  It would be absurd, for instance, to be a stay at home dad.  People do it, but it would definitely be going against the grain.


by nwgates on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:37:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Women and the Process (none / 0)

Hey, congrats!  


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Women and the Process (2.00 / 0)

Thanks!!!

He is 7 & 1/2 weeks.  Beautiful little fat boy.  Joyfull.


by nwgates on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:43:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Women and the Process (2.00 / 1)

From a kid's perspective:  When I was ten and my sister was 5, my dad was laid off from work.  My stepmother worked and he stayed home for a year and took care of us until she was in full time elementary school.  We both remember that time so fondly.  We had his full attention, he loved to cook, he just doted on both of us.  I think every child should have the experience of both parents' nurturing, and for my father who enjoyed his kids far more than he did his job, it was one of the best years of his life.


by mady on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]