If men and women are inherently different such that the optimal configuration of a family is a father and mother, then does it not follow that these differences might lend themselves to a society segregating men and women so that these differences may optimally be expressed? For instance, let's say that there is a very low probability that men will have character trait X that women have in abundance. Does it not follow that society, businessmen, should take note of this and tailor job roles and expectations accordingly?
I'm not sure that I'm arguing for anything. I would just like to talk about this and kind of see where it leads.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Your arguement hinges on these factors:
a) Men and women are inherently different b) These differences are important
= Idea A
c) Society should segregate people based on their innate skills
= Idea B
A+B = Segregation of sexes
My main problem is with B. It seems wrong morally to me, and can be applied to every single group, racial, social, et cetra.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, life isn't fair. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Storm, how do you feel about the dystopia of Brave New World, in which people are bred to be good at their jobs and content in them?
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
I think society ought to be as gender blind as possible, allowing for the maximum degree of self-determination. People should be able to determine their own "gender roles".
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Do these sort of gender roles really exist, or are they culturally constructed? And, if they are culturally constructed, then waht about people who don't fit the norm like butchy atheletic women or effeminate men. What do they say about these roles, are they just freaks or wild cards or part of the spectrum? Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, Tom, if people are happy, that's really all that's important, right?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
The biggest problem I see with your question is..
quote:society segregating men and women so that these differences may optimally be expressed
When society is making the decision to optimize the difference, you are usurping the individual right to choose in favor of a system where choices are determined by society. From reading your previous posts, I am left to assume you already agree with me that this is wrong and you are using this post to drive home that having society segregating homosexuals’ right to choose marriage is wrong.
If that is your intent, then I see 3 things wrong.
1. Homosexuals do have the same opportunity to choose to marry someone of the opposite sex.
2. Society is working through the body of laws to grant the most freedoms, and there are great strides in having civil unions.
3. I think my position of the historical evolution of family law does not segregate anyone, it just calls for a different structure of laws to deal with a different structure of unity....if that is the case, please see the "On fairness" thread.
If I have misread your intent of this post, I apologize and will just stick with my assertion that state sponsored choices are evil and anti-life. Brave New World says it better then I ever could.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I wrote in a thread about the obvious difference in sports between men and women. Take athletics for example: the majority (if not all, I'm not sure) of the world records are better for men than for women. The physical strength of men is *usually* greater than that of women.
But... If, when applying for a job, a woman performs better than any other male candidate, why shouldn't she get it ?! If a job is really better suited for men or for women, then it is most likely that they'll do better at whatever test they're given. But if someone of the other sex performs better, by all means, hire that person !
Another example from sports: in the top 100 chess players, you see 99 men, and one woman ! Of course it has to do with men generally being more interested in chess than women - due to various reasons, I won't discuss them now -, but does this mean she shouldn't have the same opportunities that men have ? She had the courage to play in male tournaments, and won. She's now a Grand Master. She earned that title. So I see no reason why she wouldn't be allowed to have it...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Men and women are inherently different
I agree with this
quote: These differences are important
I agree with this.
edit: I don't think that it is possible for society to be gender-blind unless people are gender-blind. Fairness and equal opportunity are good thing, but trying to be blind seems a waste of effort. Does it matter to you whether or not you are male or female? It probably does. It's a very important part of each person.
[ April 05, 2004, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Alexa, is it not your position that men and women are inherently different and that it is because of this ineherent difference, the law is constructed as it is for marriage?
[ April 05, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Of the three "hinges" that Phanto pointing out from the text of the opening statement, I would agree with (a) and (b) (although I'm not sure exactly how important the difference is -- it may not be that important).
(c) I have a problem with. Because that seems to leave a lot of free will and choice out of the equation.
Farmgirl
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
We need some structure in society, which means that some people will not fit. But we should shoot for the optimal majority being happy, free to be who they are, and productive. The optimal majority would be as many and as diverse as possible.
But there will always be people who don't fit.
Not enough system and civilization quickly erodes as it becomes everybody for himself.
Too much system and people lose their freedoms. This leads to a reduction in diversity and happiness. You might think that such a people could be more productive, but the history of the Soviet Bloc countries pretty much disproves this. People start doing the bare minimum acceptable. People who excel are typically stifled by their peers because it makes their peers look bad.
The difficulty is in finding that Golden Mean.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Yeah, I think most (or at least a lot) of life is about making up and trying to overcome for your innate shortcomings, and I wouldn't want to deny people the chance to do that.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Yes, but I disagree with how you state it.
quote: is because of this ineherent difference, the law is constructed
When I read that it makes me think the law is constructed to support the differences. That is not the case. The differences are real. The laws are constructed to work some sort of arbitrary equality around those differences.
Lets say 2 people get a divorce. Since men tend to make more money then women, and money is a major source of power, then men would have the power to take the kids and leave the mom with nothing. If we add to that example a mom who sacrificed her education and career to support the family, then we can see the need for a law to provide financial restitution/support to the abandoned mom.
We also have determined that since mothers give birth to their children (usually), then mothers should be able to keep the children, regardless of who makes the most money.
The laws are more in place to equalize difference that already exists, I take exception with your implication that the laws are used to govern peoples decisions because society "knows best."
Family law has developed around a very specific definition of family. Making a separate union with it's own set of laws for homosexual unions makes sense to me. Homosexual issues are qualitatively different then those faced by traditional marriages.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
People are inherently different. And only the person themselves can know what is the right job or role for them. The bad part is when roles are imposed from the outside, instead of being chosen by the individual.
I wonder why all the clasically female teenage jobs like babysitting pay so much less than the classically male teenage jobs like mowing lawns? And why, since that's the case, would girls not decide to do the things that pay more? A high school kid who did my yard made $50 for around 2 hours of work, or 2 1/2 max. He did have more capital expenses (mower, weedeater, and blower) yet his parents bore almost all of those. What do babysitters make nowadays? Much less than that, isn't it?
Why would girls not flock to jobs like mowing lawns, I wonder, and away from babysitting, and therefore even up the teen job market? The only reason I can see is society's expectations. The main way I'm different from most girls is that I am not influenced much by society's expectations. I've always felt my own choices for what I wanted to do overruled society's.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The laws are more in place to equalize difference that already exists, I take exception with your implication that the laws are used to govern peoples decisions because society "knows best."
I don't see where I said that society 'knows best' (edit: or implied it). As far as I can tell, I am saying exactly what you are saying--that laws/society are constructed because there are inherent differences between the sexes.
[ April 05, 2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I agree that women are inherently different than men. And I agree that these differences are important. I believe they lead to general tendencies for specific roles in life. The trouble comes, however, when someone tries to apply ideas that are true in general, but may not be true in relation to a specific person. Imposing specific consequences on general truths strikes me as a bad idea.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:We also have determined that since mothers give birth to their children (usually), then mothers should be able to keep the children, regardless of who makes the most money.
Are there any experts out there who can verify the veracity of this statement? It doesn't seem true to me, but I could be wrong.
quote:Homosexuals do have the same opportunity to choose to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Wouldn't supporting the rights of homosexuals to marry people of the opposite sex be supporting reproductively dysfunctional marriages? And, as a thought experiment, what effects, if any, would advocating such marriages do to long term divorce rates?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
JW, do you think?
[ April 05, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:I wonder why all the clasically female teenage jobs like babysitting pay so much less than the classically male teenage jobs like mowing lawns? And why, since that's the case, would girls not decide to do the things that pay more? A high school kid who did my yard made $50 for around 2 hours of work, or 2 1/2 max. He did have more capital expenses (mower, weedeater, and blower) yet his parents bore almost all of those. What do babysitters make nowadays? Much less than that, isn't it?
Why would girls not flock to jobs like mowing lawns, I wonder, and away from babysitting, and therefore even up the teen job market? The only reason I can see is society's expectations. The main way I'm different from most girls is that I am not influenced much by society's expectations. I've always felt my own choices for what I wanted to do overruled society's.
Uhhhh..... I think you're way overpaying your yard worker. I did a lot of both yard work (mowing, weeding, raking) and babysitting/day care as a kid, and they paid about the same, around $10/hour or less. $25/hour for a high schooler doing anything is insane.
And while I hated both babysitting and lawnmowing, I would have picked the former over the latter any day of the week, even if lawnmowing had paid more. Yard work sucks, especially in 100+ temperatures. Heck, you still choose not to do it yourself, by hiring the high schooler. It's not that girls don't choose to do yard work, it's that girls aren't forced to do yard work as often as boys are.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I apologize. When I read all of your posts on this thread, including the first post, I got the impression that you were implying society should be the deciding mechanism with regards to individual choice because they “know best.”
quote: Does it not follow that society, businessmen, should take note of this and tailor job roles and expectations accordingly?
Since there are inherent differences between genders, and you were arguing that we should use these differences to determine what people should be able to do with work, gender roles, and parenting, my natural conclusion was that you were using the ridiculousness of your position (juxtaposed on my arguments against homosexual marriage), to weaken my argument that admitting homosexual unions under traditional marriage laws was not logical.
I do sometimes read people wrong. My apologies.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The problem with your argument is that all the Trait X's are variables in all people. While, in general, Trait X is higher in men than in women, there are many specific men that have it much lower than many specific women.
This is hard for some people to believe. They insist that no woman can do a job requiring high X, or that no man can do a job requiring low X.
So deciding arbitrarilly that one's gender decides your future is not good.
Besides, you leave out the question of how we determine what jobs X is required for. Besides siring children, no job comes to mind that men are specifically designed to do.
No job, besides birthing babies, comes to mind that a woman is specifically designed to do.
There are many loving, caring, motherly men out there, and if they want to be "Stay At Home Moms" then their children are very lucky.
Even if that man is in love with another man.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:I think society ought to be as gender blind as possible, allowing for the maximum degree of self-determination. People should be able to determine their own "gender roles".
I totally agree with this.
I guess I'm unusual in this thread in not being convinced of Phanto's premises A and B. Beyond that, if I grant that they are generally true, I don't see the relevance of it. So what if one gender often outperforms the other in some specific role? In what way does it benefit society to codify this? You wouldn't hire a drug-addicted 17-year-old stripper to abysit your kids just because she was female. So clearly, we still exercise discretion. It is in this discretion that things like exceptions to the norm can be taken into account.
Create a system that allows people to do what they are best suited for, and happiest doing, regardless of whether or not they are typical of their gender.
-o-
quote:We also have determined that since mothers give birth to their children (usually), then mothers should be able to keep the children, regardless of who makes the most money.
I disagree with this quite vehemently.
When did we determine this? I missed the memo.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Are there any experts out there who can verify the veracity of this statement? It doesn't seem true to me, but I could be wrong.
Wouldn't supporting the rights of homosexuals to marry people of the opposite sex be supporting reproductively dysfunctional marriages? And, as a thought experiment, what effects, if any, would advocating such marriages do to long term divorce rates?
Saxon75
After work, I will get the references that show women tend to get custody because they gave birth to the children. I was thinking anecdotal evidence would be enough support that claim. If you want expert opinion or references, I will try and oblige. UofUlawguy...do you know where I can research Saxon75's concern?
Homosexuals already have the right to marry the opposite sex. I am not sure it would affect divorce rate. Heterosexuals have already done a dandy job of taking out the sanctity of marriage. lol
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I apologize. When I read all of your posts on this thread, including the first post, I got the impression that you were implying society should be the deciding mechanism with regards to individual choice because they “know best.”
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does it not follow that society, businessmen, should take note of this and tailor job roles and expectations accordingly?
Since there are inherent differences between genders, and you were arguing that we should use these differences to determine what people should be able to do with work, gender roles, and parenting, my natural conclusion was that you were using the ridiculousness of your position (juxtaposed on my arguments against homosexual marriage), to weaken my argument that admitting homosexual unions under traditional marriage laws was not logical.
I do sometimes read people wrong. My apologies.
Alexa, if it is logical that society constructs marriage law in such a way as to recognize the inherent difference between the sexes, as it seems you have been arguing and citing, is it not, therefore, logical to extend this to the work place?
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:the references that show women tend to get custody because they gave birth to the children.
I don't dispute that this us the way the system is. Because the system is sexist. I dispute that this is automatically the way the system should be, or that we have anything like consensus on the issue.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I see the commotion
quote: We also have determined that since mothers give birth to their children (usually), then mothers should be able to keep the children, regardless of who makes the most money.
is causing.
I stand by it is true. I don't stand by it is right or that there is a memo, but mothers traditionally have had an easier time of getting custody then fathers. And it makes sense to me that it is easier for mothers to get custody then fathers due to the fact that they give birth and society tends to honor mother-rights over father-rights.
Does anyone think it is as easy in America for fathers to retain custody of children as it is for mothers?
This ties back into my original argument. There are heated debates and changes happening in family-law. Mothers’ tendency to get custody is one of those debates. Fathers do spend more to keep the children, unless the mom is grossly incompetent. Now we are seeing an evolution where fathers are getting more custody rights, this evolution of family law is based on male-female unions and perceived inequalities that have either existed or do exist.
The issues of heterosexual unions are qualitatively different then those faced by homosexual unions, and so it makes sense we can not apply heterosexual laws to homosexual unions.
If gay people want heterosexuals to not just accept/tolerate their lifestyle, but embrace homosexuality, they can have a campaign for heterosexuals to abandon traditional marriage and opt for civil unions.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This is what I'm trying to talk about, Icarus. Is the system sexist because the sexes themselves are different, and the law reflects this, or is it sexist because of 'artificial' reasons?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Okay, y'all need to be less sneaky in disguising gay marriage threads as gender role threads.
Did I say, yet? I am in favor of allowing gay marriage. I don't think there's any danger of it perverting anyone's children or that it damages other marriages or society in any conceivable way. People who love each other and want to marry should marry. I believe one day the revelation will come to the LDS church, as well, to embrace gay couples in our wards and to marry them in the temple. I pray for that day.
My sister made me laugh when she pointed out how touching it is that many gays feel so strongly about marriage. All her straight professional married friends, she said, seem to feel much less respect and honor toward the institution of marriage than that. So she was touched. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
So... because there are inequalities in our current system we shouldn't let homosexuals marry because those inequalities won't be present and the system can't handle that?
I really don't understand where you're coming from on this one.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
StormSaxon
quote: is it not, therefore, logical to extend this to the work place
It is completely logical to level the playing field in the work place. Remember, the laws in marriage are *trying* to make the inequalities more fair.
The laws in marriage are not delegating roles based on gender, but rather, if there are distinct roles individuals have assumed that have caused inequalities The laws are in place to level the playing field.
I go back to the mom who sacrificed her career and education for her family. If the husband leaves, we have made arbitrary laws to compensate for her family support and sacrifices.
In the workplace we have laws in place to keep the playing field more equal with regard to gender. The laws at work are different then marriage laws because the issues at work at qualitatively different then marriage issues.
Just like work laws are different then marriage laws (because of the difference in issues being faced), homosexual laws will need to be different then heterosexual laws.
I have no where supported that laws delegate what role you can assume.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: It is completely logical to level the playing field in the work place. Remember, the laws in marriage are *trying* to make the inequalities more fair.
This is the first that I"ve heard you use the word 'fair' as to what the marriage laws are trying to accomplish. Perhaps I haven't been paying attention. I thought your contention was that
quote: Just like work laws are different then marriage laws (because of the difference in issues being faced), homosexual laws will need to be different then heterosexual laws.
Are the issues faced not different because you have two people of the same sex in a relationship rather than two people of the opposite sex? That is, isn't the law, your belief of what the law should be, ignoring the individuals involved in the relationship in favor of the sex of the individuals and, therefore, making an assumption about differences?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
My argument against homosexual marriage is founded on two contentions.
1. The family laws in place have developed to accommodate male-female unions. Homosexual unions OR traditional marriages will need a new set of laws to apply to a new type of union.
**Yes we can add new laws to traditional marriage or we can add new laws to. I am just saying that allowing homosexuals to marry will not give the legal support they are looking for any more then civil unions.
2. The other reason to marry is for the social status. If the majority of Americans feel uneasy with homosexual marriages, then it should not be legislated that homosexual unions are embraced.
If homosexuals have such a problem with traditional marriage (and the bias within), then I encourage homosexuals to have homosexual-unions or civil unions, and then they can have a campaign to get heterosexual couples to forgo the outdated traditional marriage and get civil unions themselves.
Why force a change in traditional marriage if it will not offer any legal incentive?
Is there anyone who supports my position here on Hatrack? I am feeling a little lonely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, there are few marriage laws remaining that continue to distinguish on the basis of gender. The few I can think of (such as the presumption of the husband's paternity for children born of a married woman while the couple reside together. It's residual from the days when paternity could not be established medically.
Property laws in most states have been explicitly changed to remove gender-specific classifications (dower right, etc.). In those states they haven't been changed, they have generally been reinterpreted to have that effect. Any states where this is not true need to change their laws to keep up with the times.
Dagonee
Edit: What aspect of the family laws in place would have to be redesigned to accommodate homosexual unions?
[ April 05, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Homosexuals already have the right to marry the opposite sex. I am not sure it would affect divorce rate. Heterosexuals have already done a dandy job of taking out the sanctity of marriage.
Allow me to clarify what I meant when I was asking this:
quote:Wouldn't supporting the rights of homosexuals to marry people of the opposite sex be supporting reproductively dysfunctional marriages?
To be slightly less oblique, is there no logical flaw or hypocrisy in using both the statement "Same sex marriages are reproductively dysfunctional" and the statement "Homosexuals are already allowed to marry people of the opposite sex" as arguments against same sex marriages? I posit that since marriages between a woman and a homosexual man or a man and a homosexual woman are arguably reproductively dysfunctional in the general case, using both statements as arguments for the same ideal constitutes a logical flaw.
As for my second question, while I have no data to substantiate my opinion, I believe that should opposite-sex marriages involving one or more homosexuals become more common, divorce will become more common. This, arguably, further erodes the traditional family/marriage that so many people are trying to protect by preventing same-sex marriage. It's also not a huge leap to say that this would cause more single-parent households.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Storm,
I have always contended that the laws are trying to level the playing field of inequalities. Isn't that the nature of fairness?
Anyways,
I am not saying what I think the laws should be, I am just pointing out that the laws have been built around male-female unions. Same gender unions will face different issues. Do you disagree that the laws have been developing to work out issues not of just individuals, but also of gender inequalities? I am not saying what is morally right, I am saying what has legally developed and why.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Dagonee
to quote Spock from the best ST movie ever made,
quote: Perhaps you are right
I will see. I started this arguement to explore a new angle to look at the marriage debate. I will do some research.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
ak - I think you paid your teenage worker more than we would. If we have a kid mow our lawn, he gets about 10 dollars. Once he wacked the weeds too for a spare computer part. The computer part might be worth more, but this typically isn't a desirable thing for the girls, and it was no real expense for us since it was a leftover from upgrades.
It does take less time, but we are paying him for the job, not the time.
We pay our babysitter, when we have one, about 1.50 an hour per child. That is 4.50 an hour. She typically makes 15-20 dollars. We are paying her for the time, rather than the job.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Is there a relation between StormSaxon and Saxon75? I just noticed the similarities in the name.
note: Does that smiley face look like the Japanese guy in "Breakfast at Tiffanys?" What a horribly racist movie. Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Girls don't need computer parts? Wow, that's an odd thought.
I'm paying market rates, maybe plus 10%. I like to find good people and pay them a little more than they could get elsewhere so they are motivated to stay with me and make me a priority.
So the job of managing small children, caring for them and interacting with them, is not as big a job as whacking weeds and grass, even though it takes more time? I don't get that either.
All I know is that traditionally male jobs pay a lot more per hour than traditionally female jobs. My theory is it has nothing to do with the job at all, (from all I can see it does not) but rather with the testosterone or lack thereof of those who traditionally did it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Alexa, I can't answer your stuff the way it should be answered right now. Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
quote: Heck, you still choose not to do it yourself, by hiring the high schooler.
-Ayelar
Just to make it clear, I don't hire out my yardwork because I'm a girl. I do it because it's not a job I enjoy, and I can work an extra hour at my engineering job which I DO enjoy and more than pay for the yardwork. I also hire out housework for the same reason. I'd rather work a little longer at my real job, and then be able to play and be off when I'm off.
Sometimes I do my own housework and yardwork too. It's according to how I feel, how broke I am, and if I've currently got someone good to do either.
[ April 05, 2004, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Is there a relation between StormSaxon and Saxon75? I just noticed the similarities in the name.
You know, I was going to make a crack about Storm and I being gay lovers, but I didn't know if you'd realize it was a joke or not. No, there is no relation.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Stormy, corollary to the above (I was headed out the door when I posted), sometimes it is worth imposing general restrictions based on general truths, that may unfairly restrict specific people who do not fit those general truths. Why? For the good of society in general. Standardized testing might be an excellent example of this -- we apply a general exam to rate the general competency of a group of children. The test, however, is applied individually, and for some it may be grossly unfair.
I think it is reasonable to apply greater weight to a mother when deciding on custody, especially when the child is very young. It is reasonable, because in those early years the mother generally plays a much larger role in the child's life than the father. That's not to say the father has NO role, or that the father's role is unnecessary -- I believe small children *need* fathers in a huge way. But if we must choose one or the other, generally, I believe the child is better off with the mother. But what a sucky choice. I'd prefer to see them figure out how to stay together instead.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Standardized testing might be an excellent example of this -- we apply a general exam to rate the general competency of a group of children.
Given the extreme controversy of standardized testing in both the education community and at large, I'm not sure if that's really the best example to be using.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:in those early years the mother generally plays a much larger role in the child's life than the father
Would you say that this is because fathers have an inherently different role in parenting than mothers, or is it more due to cultural influences and inertia?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I think Dan_raven in the on fairness thread has gotten me to re-examine my potential voting stance on gay marriage.
I have always maintained that civil unions are good and perfectly capable of deeling with same-sex unions, but he is right, if all states don't honor the union, it really is inferior.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Is there anyone who supports my position here on Hatrack? I am feeling a little lonely.
No, but the others with your position grew tired of being slandered and flamed, and so quit the threads from which there was no point. *hug*
[ April 05, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
ak - when my girls were very young, we only had family or very close friends watch them, and we traded. At this point, a babysitter is almost more like a playmate. She is only two years older than my oldest. My youngest is six. They play games and watch movies. Often the babysitter gets a meal as well.
You are paying teenagers what is usually paid a business that does need to recoup the costs of gas and machinery maintenance, plus pay workers comp insurance, taxes, and pay their workers enough to live on, plus ten percent. This money may very well be luxury money for the kid (or not, they might need to be helping their family). If that is what the teenagers are charging in your area, then they've got quite a thing going.
I pay the kid what he would get, probably more since it doesn't take two hours to do our lawn, if he were working for such a business.
I understand it isn't because you're a girl. I can fix our car and change the oil in it, but we pay others to do it because I don't like to. But if this were a luxury we couldn't afford, it would be me doing the car work. I installed our garbage disposal. In general, I'm the handywoman of the house.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Kat, no one is being slandered or flamed in either of the two threads. So, I don't know why you aren't participating now.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
As to the traditionally male jobs and female jobs, I think it has something more to do with the fact that traditionally males have needed to support a family and that traditionally females were either supporting only themselves or supplementing the income the male earned.
In modern times when things are not always so, it is difficult to have businesses raise market pay rates. It will take a few generations.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Saxy, it's actually hard to find examples unless you want to get down to policy. I hate standardized testing. But I agree with the premise they stand for -- we have to have SOME way to measure the effectiveness public education.
As for fathers, I think it's inherently different, which is not to say that there aren't fathers who break that mold. There are darned few societies in history where the father was the primary nurturer in a child's early years. I think that points pretty clearly to a general tendency for parental roles. I don't think tradition alone can cover it...it's too pervasive. I love that we live in a country where those gender roles can be reversed with minimal hubbub. I don't like, however, the idea that because we have that freedom, it means that the whole idea of gender roles is purely social pressure. Mothers bring gifts to the parenting table. Fathers bring different gifts. Neither is better than the other...they're just different. Generally speaking, of course. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So, I don't know why you aren't participating now.
Experience.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*farts in Kat's general direction*
Happy?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Just want to point this out, for what it's worth:
I charge more for babysitting than for yardword.
I have nothing else to say on this topic, if only because I can't figure out what is actually being debated here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Don't mess with me today.
[ April 05, 2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Thanks Kat
I am a little amused that I have now been involved to a great extent in three gay marraige threads, and in my personal life, it really isn't an issue. I tend to favor Religious Threads.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Yeah, Storm. Don't mess with the best cuz the best don't mess. Don't fool with the cool cuz the cool don't fool. Go, Kat. Go. Go. Go. Go, Kat.
Sadly, that's is all I learned in my one woeful year on the swim team.
Except there wasn't anyone named Kat.
And "go gay. Go. Go. Go. Go, gay" just has a totally different meaning.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:Just to make it clear, I don't hire out my yardwork because I'm a girl. I do it because it's not a job I enjoy...
That's my point. I'm saying that NO teenager likes yard work, but that of the two genders, it's almost entirely boys who are pushed into it. So it's not that girls are being denied equal opportunity to pull weeds and mow the lawn (for equal pay, in most areas, as babysitting), it's that girls have the choice between the two, and boys usually don't. How often are teenage boys hired for babysitting? How many parents would choose a 16 year old guy to watch their children over a 16 year old girl?
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote: I think it is reasonable to apply greater weight to a mother when deciding on custody, especially when the child is very young. It is reasonable, because in those early years the mother generally plays a much larger role in the child's life than the father. That's not to say the father has NO role, or that the father's role is unnecessary -- I believe small children *need* fathers in a huge way. But if we must choose one or the other, generally, I believe the child is better off with the mother.
Why not decide on the merits of the individual case? Why are generalizations necessary or useful at all? Just decide each case and let the chips fall where they may. As a father who left work to care for my babies, and as a father who still does most of the day to day child-rearing, I very much resent the thought that the system should automatically consider me inferior at the job because of my gender.
As you said:
quote:The trouble comes, however, when someone tries to apply ideas that are true in general, but may not be true in relation to a specific person. Imposing specific consequences on general truths strikes me as a bad idea.
-o-
I didn't read this as a gay marriage thread at first, since storm has started many threads on gender roles in the past. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this was another discussion on gender roles.
I regret that this has turned into a gay marriage thread . . .the gender roles discussion is more interesting to me. As can be seen in gay marriage threads, the side opposed to gay marriages sometimes likes to make posts which make no arguments, but instead condemn the other side for theoretically flaming them, when no actual flaming has taken place. Sorry Kat, but the only flaming I see in this thread is by you. And if you were truly afraid of being flamed, then what good does it do to still come in here and identify which side you are on, but not give arguments?
I certainly haven't seen anything rude in the posts to this thread specifically favoring gay marriage, by saxon75, Dan_raven, ak, Bob the Lawyer, and Storm Saxon. Certainly not slander and flaming. And so it seems to me rude to suggest that it's going on here.
I love you dearly, and I think you take much more crap than you deserve. But I'm not with you on this one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ick, I didn't say it was going on here.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
If we move to gender roles, here is a question...
Are there ideal roles that parents/spouses should assume? My mom, as a single mother, had to be both the bread winner and nurturer. She was very competent in assimilating the "male" role, but I don't think she would have done it by choice.
Icarus, where you thrust into the nurturing role or did you choose it? Do you think gender roles are biological or created by society? Can a child have the same type of relationship with its' dad as its' mom?
I am tending to think there are gender roles. If nothing else, breastfeeding has got to change the dynamics of early relationships in a way a man could never achieve. But I could go either way..as I have seen plenty of successful mixed-role parents of both genders.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Breastfeeding does create a different dynamic in the early years, but after the age of weaning equal consideration should be paid to both parents in custody decisions. And btw we pay our sitter $8/hour (for three kids). Yes, we do use a male sitter sometimes.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Ic, let's play "let's pretend". Pretend you're a judge sitting a bitter divorce case. It appears to you that each parent has equal amounts of concern for their children. They both appear to be competent in the care of those children. In fact, it's clear they both love their children so much they're willing to fight to make sure they get to take care of them. (Nevermind that they don't love their children enough to figure out how to work out their marriage... Back to pretending...)
You don't know these people. You only get a surface impression of them based on paperwork and "the facts". You don't get to see them in parenting action.
How do you decide who gets the kids and who doesn't?
It really does come down to cases.
For me, if the children are very young, I'd weigh toward Mommy. If the children are a bit older, but not old enough to decide who they will go with, I'd side with boys going with Daddy, and girls going with Mommy. Age 14 and older, it should be up to the child if they're willing to decide.
I really hate divorce. The whole idea of making a child decide which parent they want to be with makes me sick. The idea of taking a child away from his daddy just because he's only 3 years old makes me sick. The idea that a 9 year old boy has to live apart from his Mom because he's a boy makes me SICK.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Of Course there are biologically defined gender roles. Duh. How could millions of years of evolution not take advantage of sexual dimorphism? We know via a number of studies that females and males have different ways of visualizing the world, orienting themselves spatially etc. One would expect these differences to be more pronounced in areas that males and females evolved to do differently eg child rearing, protecting the familty etc.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Hey, I once had a situation where I needed a babysitter, and my coworker found out about it. I had not asked her for help, nor any of my other coworkers, but I had mentioned to someone in a random conversation, and she overheard us. She said to me, very cheerfully, that her boyfriend could watch my kids if I ever needed a sitter.
I told her thank you, but that my husband and I didn't feel comfortable letting a man watch our kids, unless it was one we knew pretty well.
She was EXTREMELY offended, and said that I was cruel because I had insulted the man she loved (keep in mind I had never even met the guy before). She said it would have been better for me to say "thanks", but make up a better excuse that wouldn't hurt her feelings.
I was surprised that anyone would prefer I lie to them to spare their feelings, especially over something like that. And what kind of lie was I supposed to make up?
I told her that I thought she was being too sensitive, and used her vegetarianism to make an example. I said that I wouldn't feel offended if I offered her a burger, and she turned it down saying that she didn't believe in eating meat. I wouldn't consider it a personal offense to the burger. I would understand that she had made a choice to exclude meat from her diet, just as we had made a choice to use female babysitters.
Do you guys think that I was being cruel? Or was she being over-sensitive?
I think if I had known she was going to take it so personally, I may have tried a different tactic. But it certainly seemed to be out-of-the-blue to me.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Two things: She's volunteering the services of someone else without consulting them first? And whew, that's creepy that she would take offense. Please say she doesn't have children.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Not at the time, she didn't. I haven't seen her in a while.
Added: She wasn't weird or anything, and that's why I was so surprised. She was generally a very kind and smart person. That's why I thought I might have been out of line. You may be surprised to learn that I occasionally do offend people by accident.
[ April 05, 2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I would tend towards female babysitters, but I think part of that is because I don't know any guys who have ever offered.
I would want to know the person, or their family, well whether they were male or female, though.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote: Icarus, where you thrust into the nurturing role or did you choose it?
We both chose it, because we both agreed that, of the two of us, I was the more nurturing, particularly in the kind of nurturing that little kids need.
(Why? If I had not chosen it, would that lessen the fact that I do it, and that I do it reasonably well?)
quote:Do you think gender roles are biological or created by society?
I think they are largely created by society. Which does not mean that there were not at some point good reasons for the roles we are familiar with, but does mean that, to me, there is no intrinsic reason why the roles familiar to us are the right ones.
I have always found the evidence that traditional gender roles are programmed into is guilty of begging the question.
quote:Can a child have the same type of relationship with its' dad as its' mom?
I'm not quite sure what this means. I think each relationship is unique. Not only do I not agree that a mother is necessarily around for nurturing while a father is necessarily around for . . . gosh, I'm not sure what a father is around for . . . I also don't agree that any sort of duality is necessary at all. In other words, I don't see the need for one parent to be like one thing while the other is like something else.
-o- Jeniwren,
quote: You don't know these people. You only get a surface impression of them based on paperwork and "the facts". You don't get to see them in parenting action.
I would say that such crucial decisions should not be based on such flimsy evidence.
Why not have some sort of appealable independent psychological evaluation/observation? Or why not make it the responsibility of a parent seeking primary custody to provide evidence that he or she is the one best equipped for this role? If all things are equal, why not some sort of shared custody? If the parents seem equal, how about focusing on other aspects of the child's life . . . like if one parent is going to move the child, while the child would be better off staying where he or she has already learned to fit in?
I've never been through anything like this process, thank goodness, and so I'll freely admit that my "answers" might not be terribly valid ones. But I do know that the thought that I could be automatically considered to be less well equipped to parent based on my gender seems very wrong to me.
I would also not be comfortable automatically sending a ten-year-old boy to live with his father, FWIW. I think each decision should be based on specific evidence that it is the right decision, not a general guideline based on gender.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I think women are better at nurturing infants because they have less body and facial hair which grabby-handed little boys like to grab and yank.
<looks at bare patches on chest and cringes>
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
My opinion about mom roles versus dad roles are that they both offer nurturing and growing in different ways. It depends on the family, but most often you have the early love and self-confidence best instilled by the mother, whereas the later shaping and growing tends to be best facilitated by the father. I have nothing to back this up, this has just been my experience. YMMV.
Zan.......... . . . .......Jes might disagree with you.
[ April 05, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Speaking of grabby, it's always interesting to see how long it takes new mothers to stop wearing dangly earings.
Dagonee
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Paula,
To me, cruelty implies deliberateness. Since you didn't set out to offend, I don't think you were cruel. Depending on your priorities (honesty vs. diplomacy), I think you might want to phrase things a bit more circumspectly in the future, just to avoid the hassle of potentially offending someone.
As to whether or not that sort of comment is offensive, I would think it depends on how close a relationship you have with the person. If a good friend who didn't know my wife turned down my unsolicited offer for her to watch the kids on such grounds, it would probably bother me that this friend didn't trust me a little more not to be married to a psycho. If a total stranger did the same thing, I wouldn't care at all.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:If a good friend who didn't know my wife turned down my unsolicited offer for her to watch the kids on such grounds, it would probably bother me that this friend didn't trust me a little more not to be married to a psycho.
No matter how well I know somebody, the trust that I have for that person does not extend to somebody they recommend, no matter how highly, and regardless of how closely related they are--at least not when it comes to taking care of my kids. If I were in Maureen's place, I would have turned down the offer regardless of gender. My kids' safety requires a higher level of trust than my trust in someone not to marry a psycho.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Icarus, in an ideal world, decisions like that wouldn't even be necessary. I know a lot of divorced families -- I have one myself. Most people I talk to now have joint custody, which can mean a bazillion different things.
Crucial decisions, where the parents themselves cannot unbend enough to make the decisions themselves, of necessity have to be made with too little information. No matter how much you get, it's still too little. As I understand it, the courts can't afford to spend the time required to do a full, in depth analysis of the parenting skills of both -- and even if they could, who is to judge which is better than the other? Some people are death on spanking, while others say it's a necessary discipline tool. Even scientific studies are unclear.
Basically, it's trying to pick the best of the bad situation, and it seems to me that a judge, clearly expert in law, may not be the best judge of what is best for children. He needs guidelines. It's not a great solution, but it's something.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Ic,
That is a completely justified and reasonable way to feel about it. However, I would hope that this hypothetical good friend of mine would find a slightly more diplomatic way of telling me this.
I think that your caution in such a situation makes a lot of sense and is indicative of you being a good parent. I would imagine, though, that rather a lot of parents entrust the care of their kids to babysitters with whom they are not completely familiar, and it seems unlikely that all of them are bad parents. I know that I've babysat (though the term in this case may be a bit misleading as I was never actually caring for an infant or even a toddler) for friends and co-workers of my parents with whom I was not previously acquainted. What, to your mind, constitutes a reasonable minimum level of familiarity and trust at which a parent should trust a potential sitter?
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I don't know how to quantify level of trust. I'm lucky in that I know a lot of teenagers, including some who are very trustworthy. Two of my neighbors have teenagers whom I trust, and I have also hired students and ex-students of mine to babysit. I guess if you don't personally know anybody you can trust to babysit (not just teenagers--I often use my father for this) then the next best thing is to hire people who are trusted by people you, in turn, trust.
But unsolicited offers make me uncomfortable, because I'm more likely to say no than yes. So I try to avoid bringing up my babysitting needs around people who are likely to offer that I would not say yes to. Still, sometimes the offers come up and I have to struggle to tactfully decline or put off. Usually, saying that I already have babysitters does the trick.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
My wife and I struggled with this very question. A very sweet guy in our neighbhorhood has offered to babysit our now 4 year old daughter. We have refused and did so in tactful ways but we felt bad doing it. This is a guy who bends over backwards to help out all the neighborhood folks in doing yard work, helps with home repair, takes care of an elderly neighbor, has 4 step kids and watches their children and pets and yet...he is a dude and our baby is a girl. I wish I had more because for the most part, my wife and I are extremely open and cool with all sorts of gender roles and think our neighbor is the nicest guy.
As for teenage boys, I would never let them watch my young daughter. Why? Because, having been one, I can sincerely say that teenage boys are dumb. I know, generalization, but of the many teens I have seen as a teacher or in my neighborhood or in my church, while I think most are really neat, smart and clever people, they are at some fundamental level not as quick in the uptake as equivalent aged young women. It evens out as folks get older, but teenage boys are just...well, boys.
This brings up a point in gender roles. Maybe I am wrong, but I have noticed that young ladies "mature" (subjective word, I know) at an earlier age than boys. We went in with another couple to pay a 14 year old girl to watch our daughter and their daughter. She was great! Very smart, fun to talk to, up on a lot of things going on in the city, great with our kids (we spent an hour with her and the kids just hanging before going out) and had a lot of folks vouching for her. A great find.
At 14, though, I find boys to be at their loosest ends whether it be hormones, middle school or just the Y chromosome. I don't see these lads reaching the same level of "maturity" until middle to later teens.
Just a thought. I know there are plenty of exceptions. We had a 10 year old neighbor boy where we lived when we moved up here and if he offered to babysit, I wouldn't hesitate and his sister I would find a way to put off...but this seems to be more the exception, not the rule.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
A bigger question is where does gender roles begin? Our 4 year old is a hoot with gender identity. We are very strict with the amount of tv she watches, so she doesn't get much from that point of view. We have a lot of gay and lesbian friends and has no problem talking about folks with two mommies or two daddies. We buy her toys that she seems interested in be it trucks or princess dolls. We read a ton to her and really leave it open to her to find her way. We answer questions honestly (especially her new desire to...sorry to say this...grow a penis...she saw a boy's while changing in swim lessons and she is obsessed...eek) but appropriately for age and yet...she is still a little princess.
Which is cool. It wasn't like we were trying to create this little tom boy or anything...we just didn't want to emphasize anything and wanted her to find her place in the world.
The funny thing is, she totally gets the gender stereotypes. My mother took my family to Disney a month ago. Great time and four is perfect. It was still heavenly for her and she completely bought into all of it. Anyway, when we got back we asked her what she was going to share with her pre-kindergarten classmates.
"I will tell the girls about the princesses and the boys about the dinosaurs." What is up with that? Aaaaagh! I think it is cool that she is so into her world and picked these concepts and ran with them, but I have no idea where she gets it. Most books and even most movies are pretty gender neutral. We love recent Disney movies (Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Mulan, etc.) and these tend to have strong women protagonist who make decisions on their own, are adventurous, smart and decisive. Yet, she will still talk about the day the prince comes and saves her and carries her away. Too fun. We love it and she is so cool to talk to about it but it is amazing that with so much out there to bust the stereotype out there, she not only bucks it but seeks out the old-school knight in shining armor routine!
That said, she is a sassy adventurer, sleuth and avid reader so the good stuff is there but it is funny how easily she "falls" into the stereotypes set for generations.
fil
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I'm weird about picking babysitters. With my 2 year old daughter I *really* have to trust the person. My girlfriends (with daughters babysitting age, usually) think I'm way overprotective. The way I grow in trust is to hire them to 'sit while I'm home but need a break. I stay out of eyeshot, but can hear everything. Usually this means I'm working in my office while they play in the family room.
I discovered this method by accident, but it has really worked for me for finding out which 'sitters I'll call again, and which I won't.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
If a job is really better suited for men or for women, then it is most likely that they'll do better at whatever test they're given. But if someone of the other sex performs better, by all means, hire that person !![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)