Force men to work less to improve gender equality

[JonA]

Every literate participant in this thread understands the OP to be discussing free choices as they relate to participation in the labor market.

The irony of that response given the bold-faced content is truly overwhelming. Come on, at least look like you have something remotely intelligent and relevant to say.

You must mean the bold-faced nonsense. The OP never argued that "free choices - whether about work or anything else - should be the sine qua non of public policy".

It is perfectly clear that this thread is about labor markets and that the OP's comment on free choice specifically relates to choices regarding participation in those markets.

Metaphor's position is, of course, a joke. But your reply to that position by trying to link his arguments to pedophilia and child abuse is even more ridiculous.

And don't forget: Obama's a terrorist.

 

[laughing dog]

You must mean the bold-faced nonsense. The OP never argued that "free choices - whether about work or anything else - should be the sine qua non of public policy".

Every literate person in this thread would have read the last part of "It'll never become law of course, but it's just another sad chapter in the neverending quest to right the moral wrong of men and women making free choices." People endowed with viable critical thinking skills could easily draw the conclusion that the author means that free choices in general (or free choices about how much to work) should also be left to the men and women making those choices. Which implies a public policy of laissez faire on those free choices. I observed that as a rule that is not a good idea. I did not give a labor market example in that post, but in a later one I did (post #9) - which all literate participants in this thread would have read and understood. As a matter of fact, there was another poster who seemed to understand it very well.

It is perfectly clear that this thread is about labor markets and that the OP's comment on free choice specifically relates to choices regarding participation in those markets.

Sometimes, people do generalize. I am familiar with Metaphor’s posting and he is usually very lucid and clear about his meanings. But since I did clarify my point in post #9 with a labor market example, one wonders why you felt the need to persist in your rants.

Metaphor's position is, of course, a joke.

Any literate person would see Metaphor was not joking but criticizing the proposed policy.

But your reply to that position by trying to link his arguments to pedophilia and child abuse is even more ridiculous.

It would have been ridiculous if I had tried to link his argument to it, but I did not. I used some examples to show the fallacy of that general rule. There was no direct linkage to specific argument – the use of “For example” would make that clear to any literate participant in the thread.

And don't forget: Obama's a terrorist.

Thank you for at least trying to address the actual content. After reading your response, I see why you avoid trying to deal with content and resort to lame ad homs and kneejerk ravings.

 

[Metaphor]

The examples you cite are not voluntary/consensual relationships.

True, but they are free choices. There are other free choices that are restricted in some societies. For example, the age at which one can be employed is restricted in many societies. My point is that free choice while a guide to public policy is not the overriding principle.

I ought to have been more specific.

Interfering with decisions that adults make for themselves that are uncoerced and harm nobody, based on a narrowly-constructed heterosexist vision of society's 'wrongs' that need to be 'righted', is bad public policy.

 

[Toni]

True, but they are free choices. There are other free choices that are restricted in some societies. For example, the age at which one can be employed is restricted in many societies. My point is that free choice while a guide to public policy is not the overriding principle.

I ought to have been more specific.

Interfering with decisions that adults make for themselves that are uncoerced and harm nobody, based on a narrowly-constructed heterosexist vision of society's 'wrongs' that need to be 'righted', is bad public policy.

So, you are under the impression that you have, as an individual adult, determined what your work hours will be? Perhaps you are among the very few working adults in western society who do so, but it's highly doubtful.

In fact, work hours are cultural norms, codified in labor laws, and further established, maintained and enforced within various industries and within various companies and even within individual work units.

When you (I think it was you) mentioned that your supervisor officially worked 37.5 hrs but actually put in far more hours, then I thought: wow. I have yet to hear of a workplace in the US (aside from fast food and perhaps various retail) where full time was not defined as 40 hrs/week, with salaried individuals often expected to put in more hours (as needed---and they are always needed). In fact, it is one of the gambits utilized by say: McDonalds to 'promote' someone to a salaried position in 'management' where they are given more job duties, expected to work longer hours--but not at higher pay. It pretty often turns out to be a pay cut, rather than a raise.

As far as being 'heterosexualist,' that's nonsense unless Australia is so backward that gay and lesbians do not become parents, do not raise children or look after elderly, ill or disabled family members. It's pretty common here for gay or lesbian couples to adopt or to have biological children.

While this may not be a choice you are interested in, it is in your best interests that there are those people of any sexual preference, who choose to be parents, and for society to do its best to see to it that conditions exist that children can be raised to be healthy, happy, productive individuals who will provide the services and goods you will require in your dotage.

 

[Metaphor]

So, you are under the impression that you have, as an individual adult, determined what your work hours will be? Perhaps you are among the very few working adults in western society who do so, but it's highly doubtful.

I did not 'determine' that my role would be 37.5 hours a week, but if I wanted to reduce those hours, I could.

In fact, work hours are cultural norms, codified in labor laws, and further established, maintained and enforced within various industries and within various companies and even within individual work units.

When you (I think it was you) mentioned that your supervisor officially worked 37.5 hrs but actually put in far more hours, then I thought: wow. I have yet to hear of a workplace in the US (aside from fast food and perhaps various retail) where full time was not defined as 40 hrs/week, with salaried individuals often expected to put in more hours (as needed---and they are always needed). In fact, it is one of the gambits utilized by say: McDonalds to 'promote' someone to a salaried position in 'management' where they are given more job duties, expected to work longer hours--but not at higher pay. It pretty often turns out to be a pay cut, rather than a raise.

Well, I was referring to the 'big boss', the head of my organisation, who gets paid 8 times what I do. But my entire point was indeed that salaried individuals often must work far more than that, and so the official, 'on the books' number of hours is largely irrelevant.

As far as being 'heterosexualist,' that's nonsense unless Australia is so backward that gay and lesbians do not become parents, do not raise children or look after elderly, ill or disabled family members. It's pretty common here for gay or lesbian couples to adopt or to have biological children.

You missed the point. This policy is explicitly built around 'correcting' a situation specific to opposite-sex couples: women tend to do less paid work and men tend to do more paid work when these couples have children. This free choice bristles the academics of the roundtable, because it leads to gender inequality in income.

Their proposed solution is built on a false premise: that if they had the choice, men would work fewer hours. What they mean is: if they had the choice of getting the same pay as before, men would work fewer hours (who fucking wouldn't?!). You can tell that men don't want to work fewer hours by one of the statistics they cite: the number of hours men work when they become fathers increases. How bizarre! Did the employers find out that the men became new fathers and suddenly decided they needed to work forced overtime? Why wasn't this overtime forced on them before they became fathers?

I know a lesbian couple who is having a baby. I don't know how they intend to manage the paid and unpaid work when the baby arrives, but one of them may choose to be the stay-at-home mom and the other may choose to be the earn-some-income mom. Note that whatever decision they make they can't have any gendered differences in their incomes, because they're both women. But if they do choose to align one parent with paid work and the other with unpaid work, why should public policy tell them they must share it more equally?

And why should child-free men and women, whether single or coupled, have a government-imposed 'cap' on their working hours (which as we've already discussed, can't possibly work anyway)?

While this may not be a choice you are interested in, it is in your best interests that there are those people of any sexual preference, who choose to be parents, and for society to do its best to see to it that conditions exist that children can be raised to be healthy, happy, productive individuals who will provide the services and goods you will require in your dotage.

The article, as written, barely mentions the welfare of children, just how the choices of couples with children need to be 'corrected'.

 

[JonA]

Every literate person in this thread would have read the last part of "It'll never become law of course, but it's just another sad chapter in the neverending quest to right the moral wrong of men and women making free choices." People endowed with viable critical thinking skills could easily draw the conclusion that the author means that free choices in general (or free choices about how much to work) should also be left to the men and women making those choices. Which implies a public policy of laissez faire on those free choices. I observed that as a rule that is not a good idea. I did not give a labor market example in that post, but in a later one I did (post #9) - which all literate participants in this thread would have read and understood. As a matter of fact, there was another poster who seemed to understand it very well.

It is perfectly clear that this thread is about labor markets and that the OP's comment on free choice specifically relates to choices regarding participation in those markets.

Sometimes, people do generalize. I am familiar with Metaphor’s posting and he is usually very lucid and clear about his meanings. But since I did clarify my point in post #9 with a labor market example, one wonders why you felt the need to persist in your rants.

Metaphor's position is, of course, a joke.

Any literate person would see Metaphor was not joking but criticizing the proposed policy.

But your reply to that position by trying to link his arguments to pedophilia and child abuse is even more ridiculous.

It would have been ridiculous if I had tried to link his argument to it, but I did not. I used some examples to show the fallacy of that general rule. There was no direct linkage to specific argument – the use of “For example” would make that clear to any literate participant in the thread.

And don't forget: Obama's a terrorist.

Thank you for at least trying to address the actual content. After reading your response, I see why you avoid trying to deal with content and resort to lame ad homs and kneejerk ravings.

Looks like Metaphor just cleared this up.

Turns out you were wrong.

 

[JonA]

You can tell that men don't want to work fewer hours by one of the statistics they cite: the number of hours men work when they become fathers increases. How bizarre! Did the employers find out that the men became new fathers and suddenly decided they needed to work forced overtime? Why wasn't this overtime forced on them before they became fathers?

Do fathers have a choice? In the U.S., the typical parental leave system pretty much guarantees a discrepancy between men and women re labor-force participation.

 

[Metaphor]

You can tell that men don't want to work fewer hours by one of the statistics they cite: the number of hours men work when they become fathers increases. How bizarre! Did the employers find out that the men became new fathers and suddenly decided they needed to work forced overtime? Why wasn't this overtime forced on them before they became fathers?

Do fathers have a choice? In the U.S., the typical parental leave system pretty much guarantees a discrepancy between men and women re labor-force participation.

I think it's safe to assume that fathers, whatever their level of choice, certainly have at least as much choice as they did the day before they became fathers.

The fact that men with children work more hours than men without children seems to indicate to me that the men with children are choosing to work longer hours compared to when they didn't have children, unless there's some vast and bizarre conspiracy by employers to make fathers more work hours just because.

 

[laughing dog]

Looks like Metaphor just cleared this up.

Yes, he did.

Turns out you were wrong.

Yes, I was misled. Turns out you were a bit wrong yourself as well.

 

[JonA]

Do fathers have a choice? In the U.S., the typical parental leave system pretty much guarantees a discrepancy between men and women re labor-force participation.

I think it's safe to assume that fathers, whatever their level of choice, certainly have at least as much choice as they did the day before they became fathers.

Yes. But women have more choices after they become mothers.

When men can only earn money by working - before or after the kid's born - but women can choose to stay home for a spell and still get paid, then it should be no surprise that mothers are the ones staying home. But this inequality in extended absence perpetuates a trend of men working more because they are better experienced and women working less because they are not until eventually falling out of the labor pool - or at least under full-time status.

The fact that men with children work more hours than men without children seems to indicate to me that the men with children are choosing to work longer hours compared to when they didn't have children, unless there's some vast and bizarre conspiracy by employers to make fathers more work hours just because.

See above. I agree that general capping is stupid if the goal is to equalize the family burdens of fathers and mothers.

Paternity leave is the way to go.