Women's Equality Means Accepting Stay at Home Dads
In yesterday's Washington Post Book Review, Rachel Hartigan Shea reviewed Leslie Bennett's The Feminine Mistake, which adds to the chorus of feminist authors saying that it is a mistake for women to stay at home with the kids if they wish to go back to a real job.
She is likely right, although she ignores half the equation. Men returning to work have the same problems. Of course, I would have rather not returned to work at all, or at least until my daughter is in high school. Women will not be free to return to work until men are free to be the stay at home parent. In fact, women won't get equality in the workplace until they give us Dad's equality in the home place, including the right to play golf when the kids are at school rather than going back to work.
So, when we men have the freedom to become full time care givers without social approbation, especially from our wives, women will not be entirely free to return to work at their professional salaries. Whoever has the better job should stay at work, while the lesser employed partner should stay at home. When men are as likely to be stay at home parents, you will get sexual equality in the workplace, since the mommy track and the daddy track will be as common and women will as likely be the hiring manager, having not left the executive track.
Now, to the central question, is it inappropriate to discriminate against those who would take the parent track? It depends on the competition. If the competition is driven and that's what management wants, it is likely that that will be what management gets. However, managers who prefer driven subordinates would be advised to watch their backs (since those driven subordinates will be after their jobs as well).
The other part of this equation is the lack of a living wage. If the working party were paid enough for lodging, etc. both parents would not need to work. If this justice problem were solved, the others would solve themselves. Frequent readers of this blog know our solution to it, a tax credit paid to each family (to the highest salary employee) for each dependent large enough to provide for the family - at least $500 per month federal with a matching state credit, depending on the cost of living in the state. This should be paid as part of the salary, not at the end of the year, and ideally would be part of a tax reform that shifted filing responsibilities to the employer (who collects and reports anyway).
She is likely right, although she ignores half the equation. Men returning to work have the same problems. Of course, I would have rather not returned to work at all, or at least until my daughter is in high school. Women will not be free to return to work until men are free to be the stay at home parent. In fact, women won't get equality in the workplace until they give us Dad's equality in the home place, including the right to play golf when the kids are at school rather than going back to work.
So, when we men have the freedom to become full time care givers without social approbation, especially from our wives, women will not be entirely free to return to work at their professional salaries. Whoever has the better job should stay at work, while the lesser employed partner should stay at home. When men are as likely to be stay at home parents, you will get sexual equality in the workplace, since the mommy track and the daddy track will be as common and women will as likely be the hiring manager, having not left the executive track.
Now, to the central question, is it inappropriate to discriminate against those who would take the parent track? It depends on the competition. If the competition is driven and that's what management wants, it is likely that that will be what management gets. However, managers who prefer driven subordinates would be advised to watch their backs (since those driven subordinates will be after their jobs as well).
The other part of this equation is the lack of a living wage. If the working party were paid enough for lodging, etc. both parents would not need to work. If this justice problem were solved, the others would solve themselves. Frequent readers of this blog know our solution to it, a tax credit paid to each family (to the highest salary employee) for each dependent large enough to provide for the family - at least $500 per month federal with a matching state credit, depending on the cost of living in the state. This should be paid as part of the salary, not at the end of the year, and ideally would be part of a tax reform that shifted filing responsibilities to the employer (who collects and reports anyway).
posted by Michael Bindner at 12:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home