OVERWORKING HUSBANDS DRIVE WORKING WIVES BACK INTO THE HOME

Daily chitchat.

Moderators: Moderators, Junior Moderators

Forum rules
This General Forum is for general discussions from daily chitchat to more serious discussions among Somalinet Forums members. Please do not use it as your Personal Message center (PM). If you want to contact a particular person or a group of people, please use the PM feature. If you want to contact the moderators, pls PM them. If you insist leaving a public message for the mods or other members, it will be deleted.
Daanyeer
SomaliNet Super
SomaliNet Super
Posts: 15780
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 7:00 pm
Location: Beer moos ku yaallo .biyuhuna u muuqdaan

OVERWORKING HUSBANDS DRIVE WORKING WIVES BACK INTO THE HOME

Post by Daanyeer »

Source: http://blogwonks.com/2008/08/05/overwor ... udy-finds/

Overworking husbands drive working wives back into the home, study findsPosted by artfldgr On August - 5 - 2008


Oh no? Not that!!! Not a “a resurgence of the traditional homemaker/breadwinner family structure in dual-earner households”.

Shows where our elite in universities and feminists have been leading us, just as they said, to the destruction of family and the creation of a communist state in the US.

Now they are finding out that when it comes to being maximally productive and meeting the goals of individuals, we abandon and fall to a capitalist structure of the family. That in the absence of great pressure, manipulation, and huge financial success, we revert to the system that grants us our ability to maximize what we have and what those we love have. Given that socialism breeds subsistence, it eventually creates economic problems that force the constituencies to adopt the nuclear family as the best option at maximizing comparative advantage between complimentary individuals.

The more socialism predators take from the successful, the more the family dynasty structure will take hold. The more they let these structures be successful, the less needed the family dynasty structure is needed. They are in opposition to the forces they need to establish their system, and their system deflates and self destructs by its nature every time.

How people do will ultimately depend on which side of the oscillating polity they end up on. They are either on the wealthy side sliding down into socialist poverty, or they are on the subsistence side attempting to create capitalism and dynasty to rise up out of poverty.

Given that these systems are in opposition, one destructive and harmful (socialism) recreating the feudal state, the other destructive to the feudal state and in opposition granting freedom to the average person, they will oscillate till one wins out. If socialism wins out, we get a modern feudal state where the wealthy of today become the lords and ladies of a new dark age that preserves their families status for a long time, with starvation, disease, and little in the way of mobility. If we get the other, we get progress, wealth, ability, and a better life, but the wealthy can guarantee no position for their progeny.

What a quandary…
With the average person caught in the middle of freedom to fail, or seemingly safe servitude at the whims of the feudal state lords.

Below we are finding that they have tapped the system enough that once the poor have enough money on one side, rather than both having to toil to support the state, the system then reverts to the old way of traditional families, customs, and wisdoms.

This implies that our ancestors were more personally wealthy than we are, since we naturally will work to support ourselves in a subsistence described as a wealth of things.

Ultimately they are fretting as to the truth that Simone De Bouvier made all to clear:
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

In this way they frame the problem as overworked husbands. For if the husbands work less, they earn less and the mothers and family core will be forced to enter the workforce and have their labors tapped for the state to use. Otherwise, the husbands might be seen as “good providers” with the wives maximizing those earnings by not sharing her labors with the state, but instead sharing it with her family and friends without taxation.

Ultimately given the choice it seems that women want the old ways we had, rather than the new ways they are attempting to force on us. They like the idea of being surrouded by family in the later years and of holidays and being able to work for the benefit of their children, rather than the state.

Is it any wonder that given any stay in the crack of the whip, or any gap in the wall, we run through it attempting to have what we lost?

**Note that this commentary dovetails another commentary on the same subject. however it seems that the subject is rewrapped and being pushed through again and again in various incarnations and angles redeploying the information. Each rehashing gives an opportunity to discuss the issue again in another light.



Overworking husbands drive working wives back into the home, study finds
Americans work longer hours than ever. That not only hurts women’s careers but also widens the gender gap and threatens to trigger a resurgence of the traditional homemaker/breadwinner family structure in dual-earner households, says a new Cornell study.
Presented Aug. 1 at the American Sociological Association’s annual meeting in Boston, the study found that "Women whose husbands work long hours are more likely to quit their jobs," said Youngjoo Cha, a Cornell doctoral candidate in sociology who expects her Ph.D. in 2010. "Yet men’s careers are not impacted when their wives put in long hours."

Cha found the phenomenon occurs among women across occupations, but the link is strongest among women with children and professional women.

Working long hours has increasingly become expected in the work culture, she noted, and her research shows how "seemingly gender-neutral workplace norms can result in discriminatory outcomes and perpetuate gender inequality."

To determine the impact of longer work hours on dual-earner households, Cha analyzed data from the 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation, a longitudinal survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Cha found that women whose husbands worked more than 60 hours per week were 44 percent more likely to quit their jobs, compared with similar women whose husbands did not overwork. Professional wives with overworking husbands were 52 percent more likely to quit than similar women whose husbands did not overwork. Professional women with children were 90 percent more likely to quit their jobs than childless women whose husbands did not overwork.

In 2002 more than 12 percent — up from less than 9 percent in 1983 — of employees in the United States worked more than 50 hours a week. Cha found that 30 percent of professional husbands in dual-income households worked more than 50 hours per week, compared with only 12 percent of their professional wives. This suggests, said Cha, women in professional jobs are less likely to expect spousal support than men.

"Many workplaces use ‘face time’ as an important proxy/signal for workers’ commitment or professional competence," said Cha. "However, it should be noted that increased work hours do not assure increased productivity, and more importantly, it can seriously disadvantage many female workers who put in fewer hours at work than men."

The research was supported by a grant from the Bronfenbrenner Life Course Center and the Center for the Study of Inequality at Cornell.

Provided by Cornell University
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General - General Discussions”