Showing posts with label dual income family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dual income family. Show all posts

Monday, April 3, 2017

Allocating Chores in a Multi-person Household.


 In our household once the 2 boys were old enough to participate we bid for chores in 1/4 hours. Lowest bid got the chore. Wash, vac, and dust went cheap. Bathrooms and catbox went high. Evening meals including cleanup stabilized at about an hour. Breakfast was high as only one wanted it. Weekend dinners were higher. Bidding ended when everybody had about the same bid hours for chores.

Was this a money transaction?

 Nope hours. Catbox 2hrs. Each dinner 1hr. etc bid until every chore was covered and everybody had same bid hours of chores, which may or may not have had any relationship to hours to do the chore. The catbox was 5 min per day and 10 minutes once a week to change litter, but only one of us wanted to do it. A chore had no time associated with it until bid on.

 Allowances, tuition, lunch money, etc. were basically need based, adults and kids alike.   Unadjusted for incomes which went into the common fund.  

Saturday, February 27, 2016

Why I Am Not a Feminist. Part 2: Professional Success While Parenting


The underlying premise of feminism is a fundamental refusal to recognize the fact that men and women are differently abled in a fundamental evolutionary necessary function.  Females of all sexual species including women produce and generally care for the fertilized ovum until it becomes an independently viable organism.  Generally in mammals independent viability is defined as being able to feed themselves. Males besides providing the necessary gamete also provide the necessary safe space for the female to get the zygote to viability.  Both functions can be shared but there are significant costs to doing so. 

Privileged feminists of both genders deny this fundamental difference and attempt to turn women into male surrogates. (There are few feminists in the underprivileged groups, they have different problems to deal with.)  The problem with male surrogacy is that the male function is to provide a safe space for children. This generally involves competition for resources to provide that safe space excluding most other values.  Even social activities and recreation are devoted to networking to increase access to those resources. 

It is not impossible for women to succeed in prick dominated professions, but they either need to be childless prick surrogates, even pricks aspiring to high levels are expected to be childless, or delay children until they achieve either success or failure.  Feminists of both genders seem to be advocating one of these career paths for women. 

The only alternative for a professional mom is to have a partner at home to share the child raising and housekeeping.  A lot can be contracted; even discriminatory pay in a prick job is generous if not equal.  But the quality time with partner and children can not be delegated, so some compromises on the job are necessary. Note that in many cases the partner is employed in some cases in a well-paid prick job, but even parent males in prick jobs face discrimination that limits both their income and opportunity for "success."  Being unable to spend the off-work networking time fucking around with the guys is a serious professional handicap for any parent. Even at conventions fucking around time is limited as a responsible parent still must read bedtime stories and deal with relationship issues for their children. Not to mention providing loving support for their parenting partner who for the time being is mom regardless of gender.  A sick kid can even cut into booth time at a convention.  Or in one case board meeting time in the home office.  

Once reliable contraception became common, and it became possible for women with the cooperation of their partners to choose not to accept the traditional role of barefoot and pregnant homemakers without giving up either sex or children.  "Family planning" with 2 to 4 well-spaced children became a desirable life style among the non-religious and some religious families which gave women time to be active in their communities and freed men from the rat race of having to provide a desired life style and opportunity for too many children.  For the first time a middle class family could afford to have all their children aspire to higher education and for the woman to seek opportunities outside the home after the youngest was in school.  

A few women were able to plan their lives around professional careers with or without children.  Those that planned professional careers with children knew that their partner would have to provide significant support mainly at home and that both would have to take the career hit that homemaking with children entailed.  

HOW ONE WOMAN DID THE JOB 

The following is a story of one such woman. It is not atypical, it is just one I know well.  By the time she entered high school in the 50's she knew that she was going to be a professional biologist.  She took all the STEM courses, one of the few women in the classes in high school and took her transcript to one of the most respected biology departments in the area and was admitted instantly.  

She dated normally, sex was not normally part of the dating scene at the time, but people were pairing off with the women seeking the Mrs. asap with a man with good potential as a provider with sex as the hook. 

The biologist was different, her date relatively early in the usual courtship rituals knew that sex was a distant dream.  This selected out most of the traditional menfolk, but did attract a certain group who were attracted to her mind and aspirations rather than her vagina.   

One such man met her after freeing himself of all female obligations in order to attend a prestigious distant University, and they bonded quickly but loosely.  The intellectual/aspirational bond was maintained by mail and phone, and occasional vacation partying, but was still non-exclusive.  Both dated normally for their peer group but the sex hook was dodged by both. Neither found a partner that shared their aspirations for a high achieving couple with children.  

She graduated college a year after he had started his desired career path in chemistry, and could support her in her master's degree at a local State college.  Plans evolved and both found themselves at the door of the financial aid officer at a prestigious university that advertised that admissions were need independent and that support would be provided for all admitted. The FAO explained that the way it was done was that the woman worked while the man got the MBA, then he supported her on her PhD program to which she was admitted.  This put the first kid 6 or 8 years off and the horny man lit into the FAO and said we are both starting in the fall, how are you going to get it paid for.  He delivered and the couple spent two years in abject poverty, to fit into the meager resources found.  The shared goals kept them going, and the newly minted MBA left for a prestigious job on the other coast, while she finished the residence requirements for the PhD.  She finished the masters and the PhD at a local university, while he finished his management rotation training assignments.  

He requested a transfer to a major metropolitan area with a rich source of opportunity for her as his first real assignment.  His first mistake as the company had other plans. He was told it was a stupid move as manufacturing was much more prestigious in the company than marketing. But privilege has its privilege and the transfer was arranged.  The first mistake of many.  She took a position far below her qualifications both in pay and prestige in a notoriously misogynistic occupation, but kept her head above water simply by being better than her male colleagues.  As she frequently quoted being better than the average man is not difficult.  

As time went on he was wrapping up a time consuming but extremely successful project and her first grant was on the books and the time was right for the next phase of their project: reproduction.  The feminists and the powers at her work were aghast as the implied bargain was no children. She didn't notice and started her next grant that was due about the same time as the child.  As her office was near the O.B. department she went in to work as usual prior to the planned induction at 2 in the afternoon.  She took the next 10 days off to work out the details of newborn care with her partner.  The grant went in on time, was approved in her name, and a long overdue promotion to her proper academic status followed quickly.

The next major event was an executive BBQ to vet the man for a major promotion earned by the successful project and not incidentally to see if his wife would fit into the paternalistic company's executive wife support group.  She was at a conference that weekend present her results.  When this was made known to the responsible exec, the man was told that his wife should just cancel the presentation and come to the BBQ, it was that important.  It had been obvious for some time that she would never fit in the paternalistic social milieu created by the company at the headquarters city, so the conference went on, the man was disinvited from the BBQ and all talk of promotions ceased.  It is probably significant to note that two of his superiors and their wives rode the project to the presidency of the company.  He began to look for other opportunities.            

A new job for him, a promotion and a bit more money for her, a new kid on the floor, and life went on.  Promotions for both, an injured kid dragged him out of a board meeting, but mom out of town raised no eyebrows, he neglected to mention it was a major scientific conference so there was no pushback.  The company was failing anyway so it was back to the job market for him.  The only opportunities in grade and in industry were out of town so another career change was indicated.  It is always interesting backing a successful career mom.  
There are many more interesting similar stories of interest only to the participants. 

The takeaway is that neither achieved the success that a married prick would have in the same job with or without children.  The only reason she could do as well as she did with children was that the career hit was unequally shared by the privileged male.  Maybe she would have done better as a childless prick, but the cultural handicaps remain for all women regardless of the noise feminists make about irrelevant issues. The possibility of pregnancy cannot be ignored by employers in spite of denialism by feminists.  


Friday, November 6, 2015

Confessions of an Eugenicist

As a staunch evolutionist I am becoming a bit concerned that the human race is breeding itself into mediocrity and that it may not survive the coming human caused changes to the planet that we live on.  The challenges we face will take all of the brain power of the most creative, intelligent and savvy of our children and grandchildren, and it may be that as humans we have given up on breeding them.

I admit to being dismayed that a large portion of the best and brightest in the US have bought into the false dichotomy promoted by the religious right and some feminists that women must either choose the stay at home mom track or a life style without children.  

This observation does not preclude that the stay at home mom may not have valuable genetics, many "successful" men chose accomplished women as their "homemaker" but their accomplishments outside the home are expected to end with the first child. Nonetheless early marriages for women seem to indicate selection criteria other than creativity, intelligence and savvy.  Or perhaps I should say that creativity, intelligence and savvy are incidental to the main selection criteria and society encourages keeping these traits in the closet for the main breeding population.  

The excluded middle is a life style with one or more partners sharing the parenting either as a shared parenting partner or as a stay at home dad. I have seen many scenarios where women have figured out the problem of support for the children that will pass on her superior genes to the race.  From Heinlein: You don't own your genes, they belong to the race.  At one extreme was a talented dedicated woman who said to her husband "If you want kids that is fine, I will have them if you will stay home and take care of them."  Another I know of was a lesbian couple who chose gay men for fathers, and shared parenting among the four of them. The "traditionalists" are women dedicated to their careers and their children, who upfront select men who agree that shared parenting is the way to select superior genes from both and get the kids off to a good start.    

In the shared parenting scenario some of the mom tasks can be contracted, the housework, day care, etc. although in many cases traditional homemaker standards fall by the wayside.  A glance into the bedroom of a shared parenting household will appall traditionalists.  The clean laundry may or may not be folded, but is on a table not in a closet or armoire, the bed is unmade, and if the floor is relatively clean it is because the contracted housekeeper has been there recently.  

Shared parenting is not a lifestyle conducive to material excess, advancement to management in either career, as parenting is a full time second job for both parents.  A recent article suggests that the dearth of women in management positions is that they refuse advancement to keep balance in their lives. Accepting management positions for either men or women frequently means sacrificing both achievement in their chosen field of excellence, and balance outside of the office.  A hidden cost of shared parenting for men is that management is not an option both for social reasons in the paternalistic culture of many businesses and the time constraints of parenting even for older children.  

I know a lot about shared parenting from personal experience and the fact that support comes from other shared parenting couples who seek each other out.  Three times I had to use white male MBA privilege to change careers. Once because I lacked a "Corporate wife" at an important promotional social function, once because management meant a change of locale to corporate HQ and moving was not an option for the family, and once for trying to achieve balance between personal and business life.  I find I am not unique even on the male side.  Most men who co-parent jump off the corporate hamster wheel early to find more rewarding use of their skills and abilities.  

There is some evidence that in some parts of the world, Northern Europe in particular that later parenting and spouse choice based on good genetics is encouraged, but in the US and much of the rest of the world intentional breeding for mediocracy is the social standard.  I know little about the big population centers in South Asia, but anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that women are in charge of breeding, which is a good sign.  So maybe there is hope after all for the eugenicists.  Women are naturally eugenicists when given some choice, and contraception gives them that choice.  

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Humanists With Children

beliefnet
Your thesis then, is "the very existence of religion is an affront to womens' progress", correct? IronLDS

Talk about misinterpreting a post and fighting a strawman! But to respond to the strawman, religious influence in Western society is an affront to women's progress, as it is the source of the property status of women and the concept that women should STFU and stay home.  All the talk of separate but equal roles is just more religious BS to justify keeping women barefoot, uneducated and pregnant. 

As noted earlier humanist men support women in all roles totally ignoring their haughty status as made in the image of God.  I even know of humanist men who assume the role of househusband to provide their children with proper nurturing while their wives work full+ time at their economic comparative advantage role in society.  She may well be a better mom than he is but her overall worth to society is higher as a medical professional e.g. than his as contract laborer.  More commonly they share both roles usually to the detriment of their careers, more so for the woman, due to the fact that she is working above her station, but both chose children and careers, rather than not having children.  Which by the way is a common choice for humanists as their service to their society as full+ time professionals may be more important to them than raising cannon fodder.  Their legacy is their social service rather than another mouth for the world to feed.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Men that are Supportive of Women

beliefnet
It might be helpful to some of us if you could illustrate what you mean by 'really supporting women'.....JewOne

Christine probably has met only one, as such men are extremely rare in any society and practically non-existent in Western Religions.  First and most important such a man will view all women as potential partners in making society better for all people.  This means using his male privilege to help them achieve whatever goals they choose to aspire to. 

If he is better at STEM e.g. he will spend his educational years helping women who aspire to STEM success learn his skills rather than merely honing his own skills for a better chance at success for himself.  (This is not entirely selfless as mentoring is one of the best skill honing techniques known.)

At work he will use his male privilege to mentor and promote women and other minorities to their Peter Principle level in the organization, even at the expense of his own advancement.  (It will affect his advancement as most organizations are paternalistic and "Privilege hath its Rank.")

He will choose a wife based on her potential to make a better society rather than her ability to improve his own position in society, and will sacrifice his career goals if necessary to give her the opportunity to achieve hers.  This means changing diapers, doing housework, cooking more than his share of the meals, taking the kids to piano lessons, doctors, and emergency rooms even if it means leaving a board meeting, even managing the middle of the night feeding, (when the kid cries he gets up, brings the kid to mom, hangs herm on the teat (mom won't really wake up), changes the diaper and sings herm back to sleep.) 

NB this does not necessarily mean choosing a business career woman.  Many of the opportunities especially for women to make a better society are volunteer activities, but done properly take as much time as a full time job.

Just the tip of the iceberg for a man really supporting women. Some will guess the rest. 
Most won't give a damn.

Monday, May 4, 2015

16 Hours a Day to Support a Family

 Mormon wrote:
It's entirely common for my dad and I to work 12 - 16 hours in a day. ...

We've been awake for days at a time juggling work, family, and other duties. Ever been so sleep-deprived you hallucinated? Been there, done that.

I think people can see how having someone back home helping with the family duties would be quite helpful.

The mother of my children and I both worked 12-16 hours in a day, juggling schedules and sleep to take care of two boys growing up in Manhattan.  Due to rampant sexism in her chosen career field I probably juggled more than she did, properly so, as I was the person of privilege and could get away with leaving a board meeting to attend to an injured child.  (My part was over, but since mom was out of town presenting at a major conference, it wouldn't have mattered.)  True, we paid for high quality help with the children, and frequently argued about who should quit and stay home to save money, but all four of us ended up all right.  I probably took the biggest hit career wise, changing careers a few times to stay with the family, but changing careers was common enough among my MBA peers that it raised no eyebrows.

If it sounds like I don't find the slave you had at home helpful you are right.  Nor do I find working 12-16 hours a day depriving your children of a proper father, who could referee/coach games, teach Sunday school, read stories, and sing along with them in the evenings admirable.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Here is a question, what would a gender equal society look like?

beliefnet 

Almost any Heinlien novel including the Juveniles.  The women characters are almost always more equal in brains and competence than the men.  The only problem feminists have with Heinlein is that the women generally are interested in contributing their more than equal genes to the gene pool.  Nothing unusual, most of the women I know about who are in the feminist trenches being more competent than the average man in their chosen work are interested in contributing their more than equal genes to the gene pool as well.  They generally choose men who have been brought up to be partners rather than "husbands" and who use their male privilege to support their partner. 

Case in point: A well educated, extremely intelligent and broadly competent man (brought up by a dual career couple) did odd jobs throughout his partner's US military supported medical training, required service in a base ER, and residency; fathering and parenting 2 children in the process.  The doctor took over a small metropolitan area family practice, which needed a practice manager as well so that odd job fell to the partner.  Those of you from the yellow boards on this forum will appreciate knowing what gooddogma-sit and Tarakyan have been doing since they got too busy to post here.  Yep.  True story.

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Men and Women are Different

beliefnet
Feb 2, 2015 -- 11:28PM, A Creationist wrote:
Your male-nurse-counterpart, would recognize some other differences, though.  [Women] have body parts which complement [which have different functions from him,] and [women] were designed for reproducing offspring. [Along with most other human activities.] Your body produces eggs, monthly, and you menstruate, monthly, and his produces sperm, continually.  Your breasts were designed to suckle a baby [and women have] in a womb which he doesn't have.

The two brains differ; the types of thought processes differ; the body structures differ; the emotional reactions differ; the topics of conversation differ....

If the designs differ, why fight the roles and functions, associated with them?

[Minor edits in red].

In the ERSSG with which I identify women are generally smarter and more competent at anything they choose to do than the men.  The men are smart and competent as well, the SSG selects for intelligence and competence, but the women seem to be slightly higher on both curves than the men.   Evolution selects for smart, competent women because smart, competent women produce smart, competent children of both genders which are valuable assets in the reproduction of the species. 

It is true that the women gestate the children.  It doesn't seem to slow them down much, as their men pick up the slack.  One scientist I knew was in the lab at 10am went to a scheduled medically indicated induction for her second child at 2, and was back in the lab the next day. Something about a grant application that was inconveniently due about the due date of the child.  Dad picked up the slack at home with the first child, he took a week vacation (before paternity leaves) in anticipation of extra work at home due to the grant and anticipated birth.  He also handled the middle of the night feeding: get up when the baby cried, hang the baby on the teat of the sleeping mom, change the diaper when indicated, and tuck the baby in the crib.

Home chores are usually more equally divided with men taking the more equal half.  The men take the more equal hit on accommodating their careers to the needs of the women as well.  Only proper as they are the privileged ones.  A white male MBA changes jobs and careers like underwear anyway, doing so to stay near the woman's workplace is no problem.  The only racism in that statement is in the larger society, the non-white males have more difficulty changing jobs and careers for any reason.  

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Dual Careers and Sex

Excerpt from Amanda Hess in Slate
Gottlieb’s story relies heavily on a 2012 study (PDF) published in the American Sociological Review that found that when men in heterosexual marriages performed chores that are traditionally coded as feminine—like “folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming”—the couple had sex less frequently. But if the husband performed traditionally masculine chores, like mowing the lawn or taking out the trash, the couples “reported a 17.5 percent higher frequency of sexual intercourse”—and the wives were more sexually satisfied, too. The data on which the study is based was collected 20 years ago, when the husband who cooks dinner or does the dishes was still an anomaly, but Gottlieb cites one contemporary couple she’s treated in her psychotherapy practice as further evidence of the trend. The couple came to her looking for help distributing their career and household duties but found that once their responsibilities were balanced, their sex life suffered. The wife claimed that she was highly sexually attracted to her husband ”when you’re just back from the gym and you’re all sweaty and you take off your clothes to get in the shower and I see your muscles,” but that desire turns to irritation when the husband tossed his dirty clothes onto the floor, sparking an argument about his failure to vacuum the house. “So if I got out the vacuum, then you’d be turned on?” the husband asked. “Actually, probably not,” she replied. “The vacuuming would have killed the weight-lifting vibe.”

J'C rant here:

To the lady for whom the weight lifting vibe was turned off by vacuuming: Get out of that business suit, buy a Victoria Secret's maid uniform, do the vacuuming yourself and be ready when he comes home from the gym after a hard days work sucking up to the boss to pay for the secret.

As one who has been there, and done that with two high powered jobs and two high maintenance kids in the household, sex frequently was a cuddle in bed before sleep.  If we both had any energy left the cuddle might get more active, but the sexual attraction in either case was two multifaceted jobs at work and at home well done for the benefit of the family. 

Having to be turned on by some socially mandated "vibe" misses the point of sexual equality in the first place.  If one is a sex object on either side of the bed.  Forget the equality, you will never understand.  Go buy the maid outfit and find a partner that can afford it in exchange for sex.