An interesting take on the wage "gap"

[Loren Pechtel]

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pallais/files/acting_wife.pdf

Being too successful is perceived as being a detriment in the marriage market.

 

[RVonse]

Seems totally obvious to me. It should be noted though, the effect is only relevant until a women gets married (assuming she wants to get married). After marriage there is no difference between aspirations of either sex.

To me this also goes hand to hand with the men who are purposely taking under employment and working fewer hours, only because they don't want to pay their ex spouse alimony. I have never seen a study on this, but I know from observation that this happens all the time.

The reason we work in the first place is to make money it takes to have a great life. If having a better life depends on making less money or working less hours, then that is what is logical.

 

[Toni]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-families-and-society/?utm_term=.d70a288fab6d


FWIW, I've known a couple of men who took jobs that resulted in them having a very significantly reduced monetary income in order to avoid paying child support for children they knew were theirs and were born in a long established marriage.

I actually know only one woman who received any spousal support after a divorce and that was because her husband divorced her after she became 100% disabled.

 

[ronburgundy]

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pallais/files/acting_wife.pdf

Being too successful is perceived as being a detriment in the marriage market.

Note that this isn't an alternative explanation to sexism by employers, but rather just one additional paths via which cultural sexist attitudes impact the wage gap. Single women are not insane and just manufacturing fears about how they are negatively viewed if too ambitious and successful. They have rational fears, because the pervasive sexists assumption do in fact lead many people (including work supervisors and employers) to view ambitious women negatively.
Those attitudes have direct impact that lead to sexist actions by employers and co-workers that contribute to the wage gap, and also lead women to avoid things that make them appear ambitious, which is an indirect path from sexist attitudes to the wage gap. It is a Catch 22. If women react to these attitudes by avoiding appearing ambitious, then they don't get promoted for not being ambitious. If they ignore these attitudes and act ambitious anyway, then they don't get promoted for being viewed as "bossy", "a bitch" and not well liked by their coworkers and supervisors.

 

[fromderinside]

From the conclusion of an entirely student investigtating study:

Our results have implications for understanding gender gaps in labor market outcomes.

Really? Ranking students on participation and aggressiveness in classroom causes gender gaps in labor markets? I think not.

I understand why the sentence. It's the man bites dog bit intended for notice.

It's just that the study has nothing to do with on job professional performance, nor is it particularly relevant. They might have been able to squeak in 'might have' yada yada if they had actually drawn AND DEMONSTRATED parallels with student and professional performance. But no, this is an over analyzed student study with so much interpretation of limited statistics as to make even a grown social scientist puke.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU[/youtube]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-families-and-society/?utm_term=.d70a288fab6d


FWIW, I've known a couple of men who took jobs that resulted in them having a very significantly reduced monetary income in order to avoid paying child support for children they knew were theirs and were born in a long established marriage.

I actually know only one woman who received any spousal support after a divorce and that was because her husband divorced her after she became 100% disabled.

Off the top of my head I can think of three, none of which involved any disability. One also involved welfare fraud on the part of the woman.

The only guy I'm aware of with child support issues involved a miscarriage of justice. She demanded to move to where her family was--but what she really wanted was a divorce in front of a friendly judge. He imputed income based on what he could earn where they had been living, not on where they were living. This in effect killed any visitation. The judge also awarded all marital assets to her--leaving him no way to afford an appeal. Last I knew he was working only 1099 so his wages couldn't be garnished.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pallais/files/acting_wife.pdf

Being too successful is perceived as being a detriment in the marriage market.

Note that this isn't an alternative explanation to sexism by employers, but rather just one additional paths via which cultural sexist attitudes impact the wage gap. Single women are not insane and just manufacturing fears about how they are negatively viewed if too ambitious and successful. They have rational fears, because the pervasive sexists assumption do in fact lead many people (including work supervisors and employers) to view ambitious women negatively.
Those attitudes have direct impact that lead to sexist actions by employers and co-workers that contribute to the wage gap, and also lead women to avoid things that make them appear ambitious, which is an indirect path from sexist attitudes to the wage gap. It is a Catch 22. If women react to these attitudes by avoiding appearing ambitious, then they don't get promoted for not being ambitious. If they ignore these attitudes and act ambitious anyway, then they don't get promoted for being viewed as "bossy", "a bitch" and not well liked by their coworkers and supervisors.

Did you not read it?

This isn't about not getting promotions, this is about getting a husband.

 

[Toni]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-families-and-society/?utm_term=.d70a288fab6d


FWIW, I've known a couple of men who took jobs that resulted in them having a very significantly reduced monetary income in order to avoid paying child support for children they knew were theirs and were born in a long established marriage.

I actually know only one woman who received any spousal support after a divorce and that was because her husband divorced her after she became 100% disabled.

Off the top of my head I can think of three, none of which involved any disability. One also involved welfare fraud on the part of the woman.

The only guy I'm aware of with child support issues involved a miscarriage of justice. She demanded to move to where her family was--but what she really wanted was a divorce in front of a friendly judge. He imputed income based on what he could earn where they had been living, not on where they were living. This in effect killed any visitation. The judge also awarded all marital assets to her--leaving him no way to afford an appeal. Last I knew he was working only 1099 so his wages couldn't be garnished.

Or she wanted to live where she would presumably have more support/help with the kids. It's pretty important if you are a single parent to have support you can count on.

We know different people. As it happens, most of my friends and family have not gone through divorces but those who have, mostly have been relatively amicable. The ones where things got ugly re: kids/support--it was the guy who was generally out of line. Some of it was just not being realistic. A friend and his new wife were outraged at the rate the kids outgrew their clothes and how much they cost. He just was unrealistic because his ex had always been the one in charge of buying kids' clothes. I didn't know the ex but I had kids about the same age and yep, it was pretty shocking to see my kid's ankles sticking out of the bottom of the jeans I had just bought 2 months ago but what you gonna do? Make 'em walk around with bricks on their heads? And yeah, it could be shocking to have to replenish a wardrobe very quickly but kids grow. Fast. Even at discount store prices, it can be a bundle. Fast.

 

[ronburgundy]

Note that this isn't an alternative explanation to sexism by employers, but rather just one additional paths via which cultural sexist attitudes impact the wage gap. Single women are not insane and just manufacturing fears about how they are negatively viewed if too ambitious and successful. They have rational fears, because the pervasive sexists assumption do in fact lead many people (including work supervisors and employers) to view ambitious women negatively.
Those attitudes have direct impact that lead to sexist actions by employers and co-workers that contribute to the wage gap, and also lead women to avoid things that make them appear ambitious, which is an indirect path from sexist attitudes to the wage gap. It is a Catch 22. If women react to these attitudes by avoiding appearing ambitious, then they don't get promoted for not being ambitious. If they ignore these attitudes and act ambitious anyway, then they don't get promoted for being viewed as "bossy", "a bitch" and not well liked by their coworkers and supervisors.

Did you not read it?

This isn't about not getting promotions, this is about getting a husband.

So, then you are now arguing against your own thread title and now claiming that it has zero relevance to the wage gap and does nothing to account for any differences in the workplace?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Off the top of my head I can think of three, none of which involved any disability. One also involved welfare fraud on the part of the woman.

The only guy I'm aware of with child support issues involved a miscarriage of justice. She demanded to move to where her family was--but what she really wanted was a divorce in front of a friendly judge. He imputed income based on what he could earn where they had been living, not on where they were living. This in effect killed any visitation. The judge also awarded all marital assets to her--leaving him no way to afford an appeal. Last I knew he was working only 1099 so his wages couldn't be garnished.

Or she wanted to live where she would presumably have more support/help with the kids. It's pretty important if you are a single parent to have support you can count on.

Obviously a possibility but given what happened in the courtroom I strongly suspect that was her intent. Whichever scenario is true it was a dirty deed on her part to start it--demanding to move knowing she was going to divorce once the move was done.

We know different people. As it happens, most of my friends and family have not gone through divorces but those who have, mostly have been relatively amicable. The ones where things got ugly re: kids/support--it was the guy who was generally out of line. Some of it was just not being realistic. A friend and his new wife were outraged at the rate the kids outgrew their clothes and how much they cost. He just was unrealistic because his ex had always been the one in charge of buying kids' clothes. I didn't know the ex but I had kids about the same age and yep, it was pretty shocking to see my kid's ankles sticking out of the bottom of the jeans I had just bought 2 months ago but what you gonna do? Make 'em walk around with bricks on their heads? And yeah, it could be shocking to have to replenish a wardrobe very quickly but kids grow. Fast. Even at discount store prices, it can be a bundle. Fast.

When it's amicable the system works. When it's not the custodial parent has far more ability to do damage and the custodial parent is usually the woman.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you not read it?

This isn't about not getting promotions, this is about getting a husband.

So, then you are now arguing against your own thread title and now claiming that it has zero relevance to the wage gap and does nothing to account for any differences in the workplace?

Choices made in that husband-hunting period can have lasting consequences.

I still think most of the issue is mommy track but I found this one interesting so I posted it here.

 

[Toni]

Or she wanted to live where she would presumably have more support/help with the kids. It's pretty important if you are a single parent to have support you can count on.

Obviously a possibility but given what happened in the courtroom I strongly suspect that was her intent. Whichever scenario is true it was a dirty deed on her part to start it--demanding to move knowing she was going to divorce once the move was done.

You were in the courtroom?

I know that divorces can get very ugly but it is completely rational to want to locate near where you will have a good support system if you are raising children and doubly so--at least--if your relationship is failing. She may have done him dirty or she may have been doing her very best to do the right thing by her kids. Or may have known she couldn't manage if she were away from her family and their support and the couple split. I have one sibling whose marriage failed when the kid was a baby and she relied heavily on family support--not for money but for help with the kid because lord knows the ex wouldn't dream of actually....spending time with his kid. Ever. Not when the kid was an infant, not when the kid was in school, not when the kid was in high school and not now that the kid is an adult. He's just not..interested in anything other than himself.

Not all non-custodial parents are like that. I know a number of ex-wives who have said they thought the marriage would never have broken up if the ex had been half as good and attentive a father before the break up as he was after. Thing is, you just don't know if the ex, who you can't get along with during the marriage for whatever reason (usually money, kids or some kind of substance abuse unless it's cheating. Or combos of any of those) will step up and be a decent partner when you are apart. It's wonderful when it works that way, truly. But a lot of time, it's not that way and each looks at ways the other is somehow failing to live up to whatever court ordered arrangements were made.

When it's amicable the system works. When it's not the custodial parent has far more ability o do damage and the custodial parent is usually the woman.

We do know different people. I've been there to see the kid who has to be told that daddy isn't coming to pick them up after all, maybe the times were just mixed up or the car broke down or daddy had to work late or whatever the excuse that week was. Eventually, kids do figure out who wants to spend time with them and who doesn't, even when the other tries hard to hide it.

I've seen a few non-custodial fathers be pretty shitty to their kids because they were mad at the mom. And a few who ignored their first kids when they had a kid or two with the new wife. Or even if she just had her own kids. It's just easier for some guys to avoid dealing with the problems created by a divorce so they just are absent.

And some do their best to not spend a dime on their own kids, period.

I still think most of the issue is mommy track but I found this one interesting so I posted it here.

Go back and read the article that I linked. You'll find that there is still a lot of assumptions being made by some men, often those with some power, about what women want and need. Regardless of what women actually want and need.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know that divorces can get very ugly but it is completely rational to want to locate near where you will have a good support system if you are raising children and doubly so--at least--if your relationship is failing. She may have done him dirty or she may have been doing her very best to do the right thing by her kids. Or may have known she couldn't manage if she were away from her family and their support and the couple split. I have one sibling whose marriage failed when the kid was a baby and she relied heavily on family support--not for money but for help with the kid because lord knows the ex wouldn't dream of actually....spending time with his kid. Ever. Not when the kid was an infant, not when the kid was in school, not when the kid was in high school and not now that the kid is an adult. He's just not..interested in anything other than himself.

You're so obsessed with the notion that the woman is right that you fail to see her certain evil here. If she wanted a divorce she should simply have divorced. The way she did it she ensured he would be out of her life.

Not all non-custodial parents are like that. I know a number of ex-wives who have said they thought the marriage would never have broken up if the ex had been half as good and attentive a father before the break up as he was after. Thing is, you just don't know if the ex, who you can't get along with during the marriage for whatever reason (usually money, kids or some kind of substance abuse unless it's cheating. Or combos of any of those) will step up and be a decent partner when you are apart. It's wonderful when it works that way, truly. But a lot of time, it's not that way and each looks at ways the other is somehow failing to live up to whatever court ordered arrangements were made.

You misunderstand. The way she did it ensured he couldn't be involved. The child support award was based on imputed income that was impossible for him to make there. To stay involved in their lives would mean being homeless. Thus he did the only thing he reasonably could--left. Unfortunately for her he also didn't pay any child support. I'm sorry for the kids, I'm not sorry for her.

When it's amicable the system works. When it's not the custodial parent has far more ability o do damage and the custodial parent is usually the woman.

We do know different people. I've been there to see the kid who has to be told that daddy isn't coming to pick them up after all, maybe the times were just mixed up or the car broke down or daddy had to work late or whatever the excuse that week was. Eventually, kids do figure out who wants to spend time with them and who doesn't, even when the other tries hard to hide it.

I've seen a few non-custodial fathers be pretty shitty to their kids because they were mad at the mom. And a few who ignored their first kids when they had a kid or two with the new wife. Or even if she just had her own kids. It's just easier for some guys to avoid dealing with the problems created by a divorce so they just are absent.

And some do their best to not spend a dime on their own kids, period.

It is obvious that the situation I described is sufficiently beyond your faith that you can't even comprehend it.