Feminist PF/Econ Reading Recs?

Quote:

"kombat"In many cases, a woman only needs a week or two of actual time off work to give birth.

After that, they choose whether to go back to their career or stay home and raise the child.

2 weeks of time off work would not have any impact at all on their career advancement. If they chose to put their career ahead of having children (as their childless co-workers have), then they would easily remain on-par with their coworkers, in terms of salary and career opportunity. Why should it be otherwise?

I don't think its realistic or practical to expect a mom to be back at work within 2 weeks of giving birth. I'm involved with a private day care charity (we provide high quality child care to the working poor) and we don't accept infants until they are at least 6 weeks (standard in the industry) and most infant day care programs have quite the waiting list. Additionally, babies at two weeks require regular feeding (at least that is my understanding - I don't have kids) and as such a new mom who is breast feeding needs to be able to feed the baby basically on demand.

I agree with you that men and women who don't have kids don't have the excuse or reason to take time off or leave early. I've covered for co-workers at least 3 times in the last 4 years when they were out on maternity leave. I didn't get a thank you or extra pay from my employer. I don't think the solution to that problem is to further restrict parental leave or further punish those that take leave but instead provide more flexibility to all workers.

_________________
Sam

http://adventures-of-sam.blogspot.com
(Follow Sam's financial and real estate adventures.)

Last edited by Sam on Mon May 05, 2008 7:06 am; edited 1 time in total

	Sam wrote:
	I don't think its appropriate for women (who have no choice but to be the gender that bears the children) to be penalized in their work or careers.

If Mary takes a year off to have a baby, while Jenny spends that same year earning new certifications and building her skillset, why shouldn't Jenny be earning more than Mary when Mary comes back to work?

Jenny is now a more valuable asset, because she worked for it. Is it fair to Jenny to automatically "bump up" Mary's salary to keep them the same, even though Mary missed an entire year of work?

	Sam wrote:
	I don't think its realistic or practical to expect a mom to be back at work within 2 weeks of giving birth. I'm involved with a private day care charity (we provide high quality child care to the working poor) and we don't accept infants until they are at least 6 weeks (standard in the industry) and most infant day care programs have quite the waiting list.

What about a live-in nanny? If both parents are working, then surely that would be an option, at least until the infant is old enough to go to daycare.

Of course, I would much rather see a child being raised by its own parent, rather than a stranger. I'm simply pointing out that it is a choice. The parents choose what's important to them. If the woman wishes to keep up with her childless co-workers, then she'll have to sacrifice time with her child. If she values family time more than money, then she can take the full year of parental leave, and return to work a year later.

All I'm saying is, it is ridiculously unfair to expect her to be allowed to take a full year of parental leave, then return to work with a salary that has been automatically raised to stay on par with her childless coworkers, who have spent the same year advancing their careers. I'm sorry, but you can't have it all. We all have to make choices.

	Sam wrote:
	Additionally, babies at two weeks require regular feeding

That feeding doesn't have to be administered by the mother. A father or nanny is perfectly capable of providing a bottle of formula when needed. Or if the parents are adamant about breast milk, they can employ a breast pump and store the milk until needed.

I'm just pointing out that their are options that would allow the mother to return to work and remain on-par with her peers, if that were really important to her. If she chooses to stay with her child instead, then she is choosing to let her peers advance without her. It is unfair to automatically "catch her up" to her hard-working co-workers when she eventually chooses to return to work.

What about USERRA protections for those that serve in the military (mostly men)?

Why do we, as a country, provide employment protection for men and women who serve in the military? Because we have decided that those that serve are providing a public service that is worthy of our thanks and worthy of job security. I think maternity and paternity leave is similar. Yes giving birth and caring for children is a choice but is one that we as a society have decided is worthy of job security (but not wage security - no requirement that leave be paid in the USA) and also worthy of a tax deduction.

USERRA provides that employees returning from military service - for a period of up to five years - are entitled to reemployment in the job they would have attained had they not been called for military service. Upon return from leave, the employee is entitled to be reinstated to the position he or she would have held if the continuous employment had not been interrupted (the “escalator principle”). USERRA makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse an employee’s military leave of absence and prohibits discrimination in employment or reemployment based on such military service.

_________________
Sam

http://adventures-of-sam.blogspot.com
(Follow Sam's financial and real estate adventures.)

...

Last edited by LittleMissNoName on Mon May 05, 2008 9:56 am; edited 1 time in total

1. Do you think someone who chooses to take a year off to raise a child deserves the same pay raises, bonuses, and recognition as someone who spent that same year working hard at their job, advancing their career, and earning certifications? Do you think that's fair to the childless person?

2. Do you think someone who chooses to forego having children, in favor of focusing on their career, should not be rewarded for that dedication?

3. Do you think someone who is frequently absent or late from work due to having children should be treated differently than someone who does not have children, is always on time, and requires dramatically fewer unexpected absences? Does the parent deserve to be held to a lower standard, or offered more forgiveness, simply because they've demonstrated an ability to reproduce? Is it fair that a childless co-worker is held to a higher standard, for the same pay?

4. Do you recognize that a large part of the "gender pay gap" can be explained by the fact that more women than men tend to take advantage of parental leave of absences, despite the fact that either parent is free to take the time, if they so choose?

Edited By JerichoHill

LittleMissNoName wrote:

am seriously apologetic that this has devolved into a borderline hostile/dismissive bunch of nonsense about feminism in general, instead of staying on-topic about specific challenges women face on the road to financial freedom. I just read a thread (linked from FF) about myriad of detailed ways women in abusive relationships can save in order to leave. THIS is the kind of thing I am talking about. Yes, yes, what about teh menz, b/c men are victims of DV too, but there are reasons women face special challenges in matters of domestic life and, ergo, personal finance. Sheesh, dude. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU!

In all fairness to everyone, this is a loaded topic. It's prone to invective and rhetoric from all sides because of the passion it inspires. Nobody likes being thought of as heartless or unfair, but that's usually the kind of conversation that feminism invites when it is the topic among a mixed crowd.

I don't consider the types of issues you are describing here to be feminist. That's just my perspective, though. When I think of something as being feminist, I think of it along political lines as attempting to achieve some sort of gender neutrality or equality through social change. In my mind's eye, I would associate a feminist PF blog with something that would illustrate to women the means and methods by which they might achieve that neutrality or equality.

That's why what you are describing, namely blogs that provide information specific to the types of situations women encounter, does not strike me as feminist. It strikes me the same as it would if it were a blog dedicated to illustrating the issues associated with any social subset (gender, race, income level, profession, location, etc.) and how to deal with those specific issues.

I see a difference between dealing with issues within their own context and their own solutions and dealing with issues within the context of achieving some level of equality with another group or the whole.

rhino wrote:

$15-20 an hour?

http://www.nannylocators.com/nannysalary.htm

	Quote:
	Live in (average 45-50 hours - $400-$600 weekly) Live out (average 45-50 hours - $500-$700 weekly) Mother's helper (average - $8-13 per/hour)

Or another one:
http://www.enannysource.com/nanny/salaries-family.aspx

	Quote:
	Nanny Salaries * Live-in Nannies $250-$800 per week * Live-out Nannies (about 40-50 hours per week) $250-$800 per week * Part-time nannies $6.00-$17.50 per hour

Yet another source:
http://www.gtmassociates.com/Nanny%20&%20Household%20Help%20Salary%20Information.html

Those are all pre-tax.

EDIT:

I'll do the math for you:

$800 a week times 4 times 12 equals: $38,400
I don't know where you are getting $80K from.

From this page: http://www.indeed.com/salary/Nanny.html

Says National Average is $27,000 [pre-tax]

Please go back to my calculations. I explained that the going rate is $15-20 an hour. Please look up nanny rates on Craigslist for Vancouver, Toronto, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Chicago or any other major urban centre. Then calculate for seven days a week, 10 hours a day -- not a regular work week. Then adjust for a natively fluent English speaker raised in your country, with a great education, etc. Now have them work every week of the year, since they don't get any vacation. $22 an hour was cheap. I recently paid $20 an hour for some postpartum nanny services and my nanny did not speak English fluently or have post-secondary education.

Yes, you can get a nanny for minimum wage. However, they don't speak English, have any education (not even high school) and they will turn over as soon as they have enough experience to get a job somewhere else.

Also, $800 a week is $800 x 52 = $42k and you still have to provide benefits. AND those nanny locator services always advertise low rates -- they're like the apartment finding services that bait and switch.

_________________
Andrea
<p>

For what it is worth, I was definitely joking in my first post about male privilege.

Anyway, I hate to be a stereotype, but my wife loves expensive jewelry and spending money on clothes and shoes (she has the restraint not to frivolously waste money on these loves though!). She would definitely consider staying out of the workplace for a while if we have a child, and she expects me to be the primary breadwinner while she pursues a field that she loves, but which does not pay a high amount of money (teaching high school). I am proud that I can give her that freedom.

Also, I know a *lot* of stay at home moms, but no stay at home dads. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think stay at home dads sometimes get the short end of the stick because there are a lot of day programs that focus on mothers with young children, but I am not aware of any that focus on dads and their kids.

	marsman57 wrote:
	Also, I know a lot of stay at home moms, but no stay at home dads. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think stay at home dads sometimes get the short end of the stick because there are a lot of day programs that focus on mothers with young children, but I am not aware of any that focus on dads and their kids.

"Take your kid to OTB" Day?

Razz

Bronk wrote:

LittleMissNoName wrote:

am seriously apologetic that this has devolved into a borderline hostile/dismissive bunch of nonsense about feminism in general, instead of staying on-topic about specific challenges women face on the road to financial freedom. I just read a thread (linked from FF) about myriad of detailed ways women in abusive relationships can save in order to leave. THIS is the kind of thing I am talking about. Yes, yes, what about teh menz, b/c men are victims of DV too, but there are reasons women face special challenges in matters of domestic life and, ergo, personal finance. Sheesh, dude. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU!

In all fairness to everyone, this is a loaded topic. It's prone to invective and rhetoric from all sides because of the passion it inspires. Nobody likes being thought of as heartless or unfair, but that's usually the kind of conversation that feminism invites when it is the topic among a mixed crowd.

I don't consider the types of issues you are describing here to be feminist. That's just my perspective, though. When I think of something as being feminist, I think of it along political lines as attempting to achieve some sort of gender neutrality or equality through social change. In my mind's eye, I would associate a feminist PF blog with something that would illustrate to women the means and methods by which they might achieve that neutrality or equality.

That's why what you are describing, namely blogs that provide information specific to the types of situations women encounter, does not strike me as feminist. It strikes me the same as it would if it were a blog dedicated to illustrating the issues associated with any social subset (gender, race, income level, profession, location, etc.) and how to deal with those specific issues.

I see a difference between dealing with issues within their own context and their own solutions and dealing with issues within the context of achieving some level of equality with another group or the whole.

This is not directed at you Bronx, but your summary is good:

Exactly, its a loaded topic but I think that the educated folks here can have a discussion on their disagreements. However, I am noting that there are personal attacks in this thread. It appears, to me, with my mod-hat on, that this thread goes through periods of good discussion and periods of personal attacks. You CAN have a discussion, with disagreement, without calling each other names. Let's see that discussion through.

_________________
C.R.E.A.M
Government Economist
CoffeeCents - PF lessons in 15 minutes
Czar of GRS Forums.

I guess for me, it's an issue of fairness. I simply don't think it's fair to cut someone more slack, and artificially augment their salary, simply because they have children. In doing so, you're effectively punishing those who have chosen not to have children.

If a person doesn't wish to fall behind in their career, and they also want children, then they have to make a choice, in my opinion. And I don't believe gender has anything to do with it. As I already said, mother nature only dictates about 2 weeks worth of the ordeal - not nearly long enough to derail a career. After that, either parent can choose to stay home and raise the child. Regardless of whatever social pressures the couple may feel, the choice still lies entirely with them.

Zulu113 wrote:

I might regret this, but asking in good faith.

I'm curious why you ask. Do you detect alot of chauvinism or discrimination among some of the personal finance blogs? What sort of things would make a PF blog a feminist one? I've always thought the topic was about as gender-neutral as possible. I can't think of anytime I've thought 'hmm that would be good advice if I were a woman' or along those lines. However, I am admittedly poor at sensing that sort of thing, which is why I wonder about your reasons.

cheers,
Zulu

I notice a difference in some writers, not so much blogs, about what one "feels" towards their money or debt, and acknowledging or creating an emotional connection to the dollar signs. This writing is generally targeted at women, wheras other writers apparently targeting men don't attempt to apply anthropomorphisms.

_________________
Go Blue!

kombat wrote:

I guess for me, it's an issue of fairness. I simply don't think it's fair to cut someone more slack, and artificially augment their salary, simply because they have children. In doing so, you're effectively punishing those who have chosen not to have children.

If a person doesn't wish to fall behind in their career, and they also want children, then they have to make a choice, in my opinion. And I don't believe gender has anything to do with it. As I already said, mother nature only dictates about 2 weeks worth of the ordeal - not nearly long enough to derail a career. After that, either parent can choose to stay home and raise the child. Regardless of whatever social pressures the couple may feel, the choice still lies entirely with them.

Well, that's not exactly correct. Today, with modern medical care, Mom can be back up and running in a very short order. It was a much longer medical ordeal for recovery decades ago when our knowledge was less.

_________________
C.R.E.A.M
Government Economist
CoffeeCents - PF lessons in 15 minutes
Czar of GRS Forums.

	JerichoHill wrote:
	Well, that's not exactly correct. Today, with modern medical care, Mom can be back up and running in a very short order.

Uhm... I agree. I think that's exactly what I said. :)

My point was that the whole "only women can have babies, so it's unfair that their career is jeopardized by childbirth" doesn't hold water, because they in fact only need to miss a couple of weeks to give birth. After that, either (or neither) parent can leave their job to raise the child. It's their choice. If mom wants to go back to work, she can. If she'd rather take a year off and raise her baby, she can. But it's her choice to do so, and it's unfair to expect her to return a year later at the same level as her co-workers, who have spent the intervening time building their skillsets and advancing their careers.

Last edited by kombat on Mon May 05, 2008 11:09 am; edited 1 time in total