It would be no different from insisting that minorities should work to make sure that white people are never discriminated against before those minorities can be permitted to have rights. Or to insist that poor people should volunteer their unpaid labor to help out rich people.
Merit pay is a straw man, just another excuse to find a reason to pay women less for doing the same work.
I encourage women taking charge and letting their significant other know that if they are having children then they (women) are not automatically responsible for raising them/sacrificing their careers. Also, what about childless women/men? Is it fair for them to lose out so others can take time out of the workplace to raise children without penalty to advancement etc?
somehow I manage to leave my intelligence and decorum at the door wherever I go. I doubt your journal will be an exception to that - not on the rug
What the F&#* is a decorum? - Mr. Anthony
Various research seems to be showing that more families are more 50-50 in terms of outside-home work/family-life work. So, there's some equity within households there.
And, i know a lot of stay at home dads. there aren't as many as there are stay at home moms, but there are a lot of them (i would say more here in NZ than in the US in my experience -- but it could be that i'm just on the lookout for them).
Also, there's a difference between "equal" and "equity." People get confused around the issue of "equal" vs "equity." Equal means that everyone, no matter their height, has the same box to look over the fence. The tall person doesn't need it, but takes the box anyway and stands on it. The medium sized person could use the box, even though s/he only needs to be lifted a few inches to see over the fence. A little person can barely see over the fence with the same sized box -- but that person shouldn't complain because it's "equal."
The problem is that it isn't "equitable." If the first step to success is that each person can see over the fence (and then their success is dependent on what they do once they can see over the fence), then it makes sense that each person will be given an equitable share to see over the fence.
The little person gets a big box; the medium person gets a little box; the tall person doesn't need a box, so they don't get a box. Everyone how has equal opportunity to see over the fence, but what created that equal opportunity was equity policy.
My sister in law is working for her career while my brother sacrifices his to raise the kids. Sounds like someone gave her a choice. She had 3 choices: keep working as is, reduce her hours, quit working. My brother had the same 3 choices. My sister in law makes more than he does despite having less education.The idea that women should be held responsible for rearing children and then should lose their careers for having done so hardly sounds like equal opportunity to me
Women have choices. Now in some cases, due to the economy, both parents must work OR single moms obviously must work. But that isn't about gender equality, it's about economics.
Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!
I think we can look at a comparison with equity policy.
In Denmark, for example, women and men both get maternal and paternal leave. Both leave their jobs, receive stipends (which are usually managed through their work environments) so that there's no loss in income/quality of life, and both return to their jobs. Child care and education is 100% provided for their children.
Once they return, they are get their annual raises as if they had worked, and any promotions that they would have gotten should they have stayed.
This is family-focused equity policy.
UK women in their twenties now earn more than UK men in their twenties. As a result the birth rate is dropping because those women don't want to give up their careers. I don't blame them. Why don't women combine nurseries with workplaces?. It should be law that any workplace can accommodate children. Why not do this? Thats how we lived for thousands of years!
Women are now earning more than men in the growing communication-based economy that we find ourselves in. The agricultural and industrial eras played to male strengths, the communication era is the domain of the female. I am delighted to leave them to it and to go play golf, fish, learn to hunt, and develop woodsmanship skills that are badly paid but highly rewarding. Women are next to useless in outdoor pursuits - have you ever seen one try to use a slingshot? Ridiculous :-)
On the subject of online dating - I've seen some dating sites that advertise themselves by saying '1 in 4 of our members meet the right person'. If I was in a bar, and I knew I had a 1 in 4 chance of getting a beer, I'd go and find another bar.
Healthy is the new wealthy.