Woman to Woman

By Ann-nn

January 13, 2008 12:26 AM | Link to this

http://index5.dumaki.com >loemans http://index8.dumaki.com >may 8th wall street journel http://index1.dumaki.com >the pragmatist august 1988 http://index4.dumaki.com >life is good t-shirts http://index3.dumaki.com >fresh news http://index2.dumaki.com >krikorian buena park metroplex jobs http://index10.dumaki.com >hurriyet http://index9.dumaki.com >nashville elders books scandal http://index7.dumaki.com >shotguns model 410 pump for sale http://index6.dumaki.com >wedding on vedio

By Shannon, M.Div.

January 13, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

What amazes me is how Feldhahn fails to respond to Sarvady’s issue and example, preferring instead to talk about a tangential issue. Maternal “preference” is not that to which Sarvady referred. Not all women choose to give up their careers when they become parents, just as not all men choose to give up their careers when they become parents. That should be the option of the women, not the option of the employer, bottom line.

By GeezGuys

January 14, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this

Not all women, but a darned lot of women. You can say that yeah, there are men who stay home with the kids, etc, but the honest truth is that it’s usually the women who are responsible. It’s not a pretty fact. I think the problem arises from idiot employers who just want to see a warm body in a chair. Working longer hours does not equal more work produced—-unless you’re a factory worker. Half the time those “dependable” employees who are in the office are surfing the net or otherwise goofing off.

Bosses just like to see little worker drones there when they arrive, and still at the desk when they leave, or they get resentful. The office model is built around the 1950’s era when men worked and women stayed home, there’s no reason to cling to such nonsense.

Off topic—can anyone explain why this is the only AJC blog which constantly displays spam?

By chuck

January 14, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

Shannon, I think you missed the point of Shaunti’s response. She did specifically address the greivous example cited by Sarvady AND she agreed with her assessment. Shaunti spoke to the bigger issue of CHOICE. Parents make sacrifices for their children…Dads AND Moms. I have a good friend who left administration as an assistant principal of a high school because he wanted to spend more time with his kids. He was on track to becoming a principal in a couple of years but he decided his family was more important. My wife postponed her teaching career until both of our kids were teens. It made more sense for us that she was the one to do so because I was already teaching and had advanced degrees which meant that I made more money.

Sorry, but the truth is YOU CAN’T have it all. I see the result of this attempt all the time. These kids get everything they want from their parents EXCEPT TIME. It’s really a shame. While it cost our family considerably in the way of income, I’m glad for our children that they were raised by their parents and NOT some daycare.

By gale

January 14, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

I agree with chuck. You cannot have it all. Having children is a choice. The company does not make that choice for you. The company should not treat singles any different from people with children. However, likewise, the company should not make the choice about how much time you spend with your family. And, the company should not assume your work will suffer because you have children. It is an idividual matter. Reasonable accomodations have been legislated. If your company wants too many hours and your family suffers, you have a choice to make. There are other jobs.

By Jose Arcadio

January 14, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

It puts extra work on the people that do not have children. They have to take up the slack because you had to leave early because little Johnny has a check-up, or because Little Johnny got suspended from school.

By Omega

January 14, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

Hi! omega replica watch http://forums.heywatch.com/users/137 omega replica watch

By chuck

January 14, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

Gale, the statement you made is very true:

the company should not assume your work will suffer because you have children.

I agree with that completely. I do think, however, that companies should be able to use HISTORICAL evidence concerning your performance and propensity to do less or miss more time because of your responsibilities to your children. If the company has observed that your own history shows how your work is affected and therefore believe that it will prevent you from the kind of job performance that they will need in terms of a new position or promotion that you have applied for, then I think it would be fair for them to deny a promotion or new position in that case. That would apply to men as well as women.

If I had an employee who missed too much time from work (for whatever reason and regardless of gender) I certainly should be able to use that as a determination in both hiring and promotion decisions. I should not be denied that right as an employer just because the REASON the employee missed was related to raising a child.

By Sali

January 14, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

I really have mixed feelings about this topic. I want women to have all the same benefits and money and chance to advance at work that men have. But I’m handling double work today because my “cell mate” is out with a sick kid. There’s a meeting of her group and she’s not here to do the preparation, so guess who! She’s a single mom with three kids under 10 and this happens pretty often. It does put a burden on the people who work with mothers and on the employer who depends on them to be there. Even when the father is around, it’s always the mom who is leaving work to pick up the sick kid, take them to their dental appt. or doctor appt, meet with teachers about problems, etc. because dad can’t take off from work!

By Debora

January 14, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

I have to agree with Salie and Jose. As a person who is childless, I always have to pick up the slack. And it gets old.

I worked for one company about 15 years ago, when I was in my mid-twenties, that chose families first when giving out holiday benefits. The company was a testing lab for doctors and had to remain open 365/24/7. All the people who wanted off (everybody) that had children were allowed all the holidays - Christmas, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Labor Day, etc. Those of us without children were expected to work. They were honest and upfront about their views. The job was second shift, which allowed me to go to school during the day so I had to make the best of it for several years. After finishing my education and finding a good job, I resigned by post-card. I vowed to never spend another Christmas without my Mom and Dad, and never had in the last 15 years.

By JokesOn

January 14, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

chuck,

I agree with your posts 100%.

A business cannot expect someone with children to be out performed by co-workers, but if there is history of it taking place the employer should be able to weight that in when handing out raises/promotions.

Sali, I agree that the numbers are still skewed with women caring for the children more than their husbands. That seems like a relationship decision to me, is out of the employers hands, and can only be solved (if the couple even thinks that there is something to solve) in the relationship.

By Jack

January 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

I’m crying a bucket of taers for those who must back up fellow employees because they are out with a sick child or having one. I don’t think employers should fire females who get pregnant while working at their jobs. In this 2 income society we have created, what do they expect? Family comes first. Period. If you have to cover for someone who is out, suck it up and do it. They would for you.

By Jack

January 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

I’m crying a bucket of tears for those who must back up fellow employees because they are out with a sick child or having one. I don’t think employers should fire females who get pregnant while working at their jobs. In this 2 income society we have created, what do they expect? Family comes first. Period. If you have to cover for someone who is out, suck it up and do it. They would for you.

By Gandalf, the Grey

January 14, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

The employer owns the jobs, not the employee. Want to make millions and raise a family? Become self employed.

By Jeff

January 14, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

OK, realize as i say this that I am a 25 yr old male who is actively working with his wife to create some babies… (well, not ACTIVELY actively, DUH!)

I’m going to side with the companies on this one. I have seen it with my own eyes: a woman with kids is FAR more likely to be absent than a woman with no kids.

Absences hurt the bottom line. If an action hurts the bottom line, it is generally not good for business.

If an action is not good for business, EVERYONE could soon be out of a job.

Better to cut the weak link than have it destroy the entire company.

Oh, and something I didn’t mention above: I’m actually looking for a job closer to home so that I can spend more time with the family I’m working on adding some kids to. I LOVE my job and switching will probably mean FAR more headaches for me at the office, and POSSIBLY a pay cut as well. But as has been said: You do what is best for your family first.

By Debora

January 14, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

Jack

Actually no, they wouldn’t and don’t. Frankly, I am sick of picking up their slack. I was out for two weeks helping my Mom when my Father had a CA and quad bypass in May. I came back to stacks. One coworker even came into my office and questioned why I had to be out for two weeks..”can’t your Mother take care of your Dad?”

By historian

January 14, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this

Of course, we only see the care mothers give their children as a PROBLEM for their employers now. We don’t value family. We don’t value taking care of each other. The only value in the corporate world (our true governing body) is the bottom line. Greed is our new state religion. The U.S. is plummeting economically! We, the citizens of America, watch our tax money being spent on a war started on lies and deception (while Halliburton and other companies are making billions!)and there’s no end in sight. We follow in the footsteps of Rome.

By Debora

January 14, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

It is not just the sick days. Not just leaving early or coming in late. It is the whole ball of wax. I am sick of this, “I have children, I am entitled” dogma and that they get out of everything. “I deserve the holidays more than you because I have kids” “I can’t give to the company charity events, I have kids to feed” “I can’t donate the baby shower, wedding shower, blah blah, I have kids to cloth” and yet the single folk are expected to whip out their wallets with pleasure.

By historian

January 14, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this

It’s a PERSONAL relationship issue if mothers are forced to take off from work to take care of their kids. That is NOT the employer’s problem. It’s a BUSINESS issue if employees are taking off from work to take care of family matters. Business has no social responsibility. Business is not required or expected to care about people! Business is expected to use people until they are no longer of use and then kick them down the stairs! Heil Business! Heil Bottom Line! Screw people.

By Jack

January 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this

Debora. Should have torn that person a new one. I guess they would let their parent die. An employer should not offer holiday time off to parents with children over single folks. That’s disparity of treatment. I don’t agree with that. The Mrs. and I worked many holidays over the years when we had young children. Those who feel entitled should be entitled to work.

By Jose Arcadio

January 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this

Preach Debora! Single people are given a dirty look if they don’t want to buy candy for Little Johnny, or donate to Little Johnny’s little league, etc.

I can’t leave early, but it is okay for parents to leave early to go and pick up their children from school, day care, etc.

And I get penalized if I show up late to work, but it is okay if Little Johnny or Susie couldn’t get out of bed.

Simple answer to the problem: If there is a two income household, do like Chuck’s family did and one of you quit. People should stop trying to keep up with the Joneses, and live according to their means and budgets.

By Jack

January 14, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately, Historian is right. :(

By Markie

January 14, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

Historian,

Expecting people to work the number of hours they agreed to when they took the job, do the actual work while they are there, is not screwing people. If you don’t want to work, don’t work but it is not the job of an employer to pay someone a salary and not get anything in return.

By socialscientist

January 14, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

Here we go again people. Angry singles who feel they’re taken advantage of by the people with children. Are people with families truly the ones who are taking advantage of you? It’s not the company/business is it? Angry people with children put in a double bind by having to work to live and having to raise kids with no help, no support and no empathy. Is it really single people causing your problems? It’s so much easier to feel angry toward a person, even when it’s the wrong person than that nebulous entity called “business.” Angry working mothers against angry stay-at-home mothers, each thinking the others are getting something they’re not getting. Us against us….again. It’s so easy to manipulate human beings and turn us against each other so we never, ever look at the real cause of our problems!

By Over Y'all.

January 14, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

I’ve also heard moms who don’t work outside the home lament that all the PTA stuff, school volunteering, carpooling, practices, etc. fall on their shoulders, while selfish moms are at work. This too is valid, because they work just as hard as anyone, but without checks or promotions. Either way, whatever we do, we can’t win. Somebody’s b*** and whining: wah wah wah, and calling us the problem.

I was divorced when the conception occured. Had I aborted, I would have been labeled a murderer by my bible-thumping boss; but I was branded a sl-t and FIRED from my job when I chose to keep and raise it (having already earned a degree and begun a career) because clearly that made me incompetent and bad for business. I’ve been dealing with this crap ever since. Stay home with the child and I’m a deadbeat living off your hard-earned taxes. Work and provide and I’m an absentee parent not involved enough. No one gives me little gold stars when I take work home over the weekend to keep up, but leave half an hour early to get across town to the kid’s game, I’m the problem again. On behalf of unappreciated over-extended mothers everywhere: BITE US!

By Jen

January 14, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

If they’re taking one of their entitled sick or vacation or PTO days then why is it a problem? Use it or lose it. You’re entitled to those 5-30 days (depending on job and tenure). Using it for a sick kid, whatever. Anyone who resents it is having a personal problem.

By chuck

January 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

Uh…historian (aka Kimmie), while I wouldn’t agree that the economy of the U.S. is plummeting, because it just ISN’T, let’s look at the reasons the economy is not as strong as it could be.

1) American workers want more money for LESS WORK. 2) Unions 3) Out of control spending by ALL gov’t. State, Local, Feds. 4) Too much absenteeism at work 5) Lowest Productivity from American workers EVER. 6) Highest personal debt level in American History 7) Democrats going around telling the foolish people who listen to them how bad everything is.

By Jen

January 14, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

I think everyone is forgetting that the topic Andrea addressed is women pre-emptively being fired, demoted, not promoted, etc, based on their status as a parent. And it’s bogus.

I work full time. I supported my husband and son while my husband was in school and now he works full time.

Next week is an Early Release Day for our son’s school. I am currently low on PTO so my husband is going to care for him.

If our son got sick and I didn’t have PTO then either my husband would cover it or I would work from home or work extra hours. My performance has never suffered because of my family. There’s no one to take up the slack for me at work. I am the only person on my team who can do my job because it’s a highly technical skill. So, if I don’t do it then it doesn’t get done. And I have yet to turn anything in late or in subpar condition.

If your supervisor let’s Mom or Dad leave an hour early because the principal called then he should let Single Gal or Single Guy leave early to pick up the dog from the vet. In other words, if your boss is going to be human about stuff it needs to be fair.

But there does need to be more humanity in the office place.

By historian

January 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Markie, expecting your company to have some understanding that employees have a LIFE, (have heart attacks, prostate cancer, national guard service to fulfill, pregnancies, marriages, sick kids, sick parents) is not screwing the company. If you want your employees to do their best, you need to value your employees! But if you want to try to run a business by hiring only people with no life, no family, no children, no parents, no illnesses, good luck.

By chuck

January 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Markie, you don’t understand. According to the left, EVERYBODY should be able to do what they want to do and those HORRIBLE CORPORATIONS HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. There is no discussion about this. It is a matter of fairness. After all, the CORPORATION forces us to have children. They can’t turn around and complain about it when we have to spend time with those little brats.

By Debora

January 14, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

Jen to a degree you are correct. People should be able to use their PTO time for whatever they want and whenever they want.

However, people who use up all of their PTO time for thier spouses and children (whether it be family vacation, illness, etc.) are seen as taking care of and supporting their family. The disparity for single people is always there. Taking two weeks to be with my Mom and Dad during his cardiac arrest and surgery was viewed as “excessive” by some of my coworkers. Taking off my birthday in the past, has been viewed by coworkers as narcissistic. Rude comments have always been made behind my back when I use my PTO for my animals and their care.

By Jen

January 14, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

Sorry, I didn’t mean to say that the topic Andrea brought up is bogus. I meant that if it’s happening then it’s wrong. In other words, it bogus to pre-emptively fire, demote, not promote someone based on their status as a parent.

By Monica

January 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

In other words, if your boss is going to be human about stuff it needs to be fair. But there does need to be more humanity in the office place.

More humanity… what a concept…

Whether or not you are a parent, life happens, and sometimes you have to miss work or leave early. I wish that employers would realize that, though 9 times out of 10 the people we work for have to answer to someone else, who have to answer to someone else, and the humanity disappears the further up the chain. We all know what rolls downhill.

By Don't call me Kimmie

January 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you’re a doofus. “Historian” is not me, and don’t call me Kimmie. Further, I couldn’t possibly be less interested in your numbered lists, but if I had to speculate as to contributing factors to lowered productivity, I’d number them thusly: 1) An increasingly under-educated workforce, 2) Middle-class jobs going overseas, and 3) Internet access.

Now you may continue your whining about how the mean ol’ Democrats have ruined EVERYTHING! Wah wah wah wah wah.

By historian

January 14, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

…let’s look at the reasons the economy is not as strong as it could be.

1) American workers want more money for LESS WORK. Especially those at McDonald’s, Burger King, Walmart) 2) Unions (there are still unions? 3) Out of control spending by ALL gov’t. State, Local, Feds. (can’t argue with that and esp. in Iraq!) 4) Too much absenteeism at work (?) 5) Lowest Productivity from American workers EVER. (How can American workers be productive in jobs that are now in other countries?) 6) Highest personal debt level in American History 7) (perhaps some effect there) Democrats going around telling the foolish people who listen to them how bad everything is. (Republicans who have made everything really bad who were elected by foolish people!)

By GeezGuys

January 14, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

But notice in the examples men aren’t generally discriminated against if they have children; employers accurately perceive that women who are parents will be absent more than men who are parents. W

hy blame business when the Babydaddies of America (minus Jen’s husband) aren’t taking care of the kids? The male boss/co-worker slamming women for taking too much time off more than likely has benefited from a woman’s investment in childcare.

By impartial

January 14, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this

“According to the left, EVERYBODY should be able to do what they want to do and those HORRIBLE CORPORATIONS HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.” There goes Chuckie again having hysterics because anyone dares to question his religion - capitalism and greed. You are so silly….

By Jen

January 14, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

Debora,

I have a problem when people judge others on how they take their PTO. It’s PTO! Paid Time Off! Most jobs it’s use it or lose it, too. No matter what, you’re entitled to take those days. Granted, if you have a huge project that needs to be submitted to a conference and the deadline is Feb 1 then you probably should take PTO, unless it’s a real emergency, until you have your part done!

But, I don’t care if you take your PTO to go to a hair appointment or to take care of your sick mom or because your kid brought a Tylenol to school and is being suspended…as long as you take your PTO.

Also, if someone has to leave early and can’t take PTO then as long as they make up the hours, and most importantly, get their work done then why not?

It’s always obvious when someone isn’t doing their job, no matter if they’re at their desk 50 hours a week or only 25….

By Jen

January 14, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

I also recognize that I don’t have a husband who has old fashioned expectations when it comes to marriage. He was raised solely by women (mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother) so he came to the table thinking we would be equal in all things married and parental.

It also helps that until this year I was making more then him….now we’re equal!

Wow, lots of equality going on…

;)

By chuck

January 14, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

Hey Kimmie, if calling you kimmie makes you mad I will definitely not call you kimmie. I know if I didn’t want to be called kimmie, I sure would be mad if people called me kimmie. Of course the name kimmie is not such a bad name as names go, but never the less, I will no longer type the name kimmie…at least until the next time.

By The Other Jack

January 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

It’s the same as smokers. Why do they get to take more breaks just because they smoke? I get 15 minutes in the morning and 15 in the afternoon, they get 15 minutes every hour!?

By Al Bumen

January 14, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

I think it’s great that we live in a country where we are free to have our kids raised by teenagers making minimum wage.

By Jack

January 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

Hi Kim. Hope all is well with you. Haven’t harassed you in a while cause I didn’t want to start an avalanche. SMOOCH.

By Chilao

January 14, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

That’s right Al, and when our kids get in trouble because we were too busy chasing the almighty dollar and not loving them enough, we can always just blame the government, then when they are old enough we can just let the government take care of them. Win-win don’t ya think?

By chuck

January 14, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

Actually it’s a sign of weakness for a man to make his wife work. A real man would be able to take care of his family on his own.

By kimmie

January 14, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this

A woman’s job at home is priceless. To be able to take care of a household is something to be admired, not looked down upon like a 2nd class citizen. Hold your head high home-makers, don’t let the liberal-dem-commies tell you you are anything less than the greatest.

By Jen

January 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

Actually it’s a sign of weakness for a man to make his wife work. A real man would be able to take care of his family on his own.

That sounds like someone wants to start a flaming contest….very transparent…

By GeezGuys

January 14, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I don’t know whether to cheer or say you’re sexist. At least you seem to acknowledge the point that if men want their wives to handle the house and kids, they should get out there and support the family. We have a generation of lazy males—not men—who are accustomed to spending their wives’ paychecks on SUV’s and other toys while laying about all weekend on the sofa. If this wasn’t true, Shaunti and Andrea would have nothing to write about.

By Jack

January 14, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

A man shouldn’t have to make his wife work but if she wants to why not? As the saying goes, if Mama ain’t happy, nobody is happy.

By Chilao

January 14, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this

I’d complain about some scumbag hijacking my moniker, but I have to go take a smoke. LOL

By Jose Arcadio

January 14, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

A lazy male? So the women’s movement was to benefit women only? Men are not allowed the option of staying home with the kids and raising them?

I know two different fathers that stay home with their sons, and teach them how to be men. The boys love it, and they actually have the benefit of their father being around all the time.

Does that make them less of a man? Ask their sons.

By chuck

January 14, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

Jen, it sounds like the women in his life have trained him well. To a point I agree with you about PTO, but where does it end? Yes, EVERYBODY needs a vacation. Those days should be taken guilt free. What gets on my nerves is coworkers who take time off for the least little thing “just because they have the days”. That’s not what those days are for. I can guarantee you that if EVERYBODY took the days just because they have them, a lot of companies would not be able to survive.

By Lee

January 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

To be honest with you, I find that sometimes single people with no children can be very selfish and lack understanding of the responsibilities that parents have. I would like to challenge each single person without children on this forum to walk in the shoes of a parent for just one day and come back at a later date to post your comments.

By Lee

January 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

To be honest with you, I find that sometimes single people with no children can be very selfish and lack understanding of the responsibilities that parents have. I would like to challenge each single person without children on this forum to walk in the shoes of a parent for just one day and come back at a later date to post your comments.

By chuck

January 14, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

The 2:07 was not mine and I would guess that the 2:11 is not Kimberly either.

GeezGuys, my wife is a teacher. While it is true that she did not work until our kids were practically grown, she does have a job and works very hard at it.

By Jack

January 14, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this

Parenting children is like sex. If you haven’t “been there and done that” you don’t have a clue. Single Moms who raise their children with no help from “Daddy” deserve big time kudos.

By Jen

January 14, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I have to disagree. You’re entitled to your PTO. You earn them! Heck, MOST people work more than 40 hours a week. To expect them to NOT take all their PTO is a culture of absurdity.

I know that I work a 45-50 hour week. I don’t get overtime for it and I don’t get to take extra time off for it, either. But nobody better complain about taking my PTO!!!

By Jack

January 14, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

Chuck, didn’t she home school your children?

By JokesOn

January 14, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

Lee,

I would like to challenge each single person without children on this forum to walk in the shoes of a parent for just one day and come back at a later date to post your comments.

I understand where you are coming from, but seeing as having children is a choice, why does it matter how hard it is? I could choose to have 3 mortgages requiring me to be busy as he!!, but still have to do my job.

I had just started my career when my father died and I (ignorantly) mentioned at my performance evaluation that I would have to support/assist my mother during this adjustment period. My manager was polite, but she was also very clear that it was a personal issue and could not interfere with my work or influence my raise. I do not understand why others cannot comprehend this.

Would it be great IF companies paid their CEOs less, their employees more, and etc? Yes, but, short of a cultural change , that does not look probable.

By GeezGuys

January 14, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

Ah, I see. So in addition to the spam, this forum has ID thieves. The dangers of modern-day blogs…

My point wasn’t that men shouldn’t stay home and raise kids, more power to ‘em if that’s what they want to do. Men are equally capable of taking care of the kids and house while a wife works. If she’s making more money or has a better career, that makes more sense. Or that women shouldn’t work, I’m sure Chuck is quite proud of his wife for both her career and raising the kids.

However, to expect your mate…wife, husband, whoever, to be responsible for most of the childcare and housework, plus work outside the home, is lazy. Men are the primary offenders in this area, that’s why the title of this blog refers to maternal profiling. Face it, do we really think employers are ducking around in interviews trying to figure out if a man plans on having kids?

By chuck

January 14, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

Hey Jack, yes she did.

By Debora

January 14, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

Lee, you had them, you raise them. I am not responsible for raising your kids, feeding them, housing them, clothing them or educating them. If you didn’t have the financial, emotional or time capabilities to raise children, then you should have been responsible and not brought children into the world. This is 2008, we have birth control, not to mention personal restraint. But to feel other people should have to shoulder part or all of the responsibility for your family is absurd.

By chuck

January 14, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

Jack, She also did pretty much everything else too while I was working on graduate degrees to make more money so it would be easier for her to stay home…WHICH BTW she wanted to do. We made those decisions BEFORE we got married. That’s really something in which you need to be on the same page. It really is best to make these decisions BEFORE you get married and especially before you have kids on the way. It probably would have been a dealbreaker for both of us if we hadn’t felt the same way about it.

I always counsel young people who are considering marriage to talk about these kinds of things before they get hitched. My wife and I will hit 29 years in August and we are still going strong.

By Jen

January 14, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

Yes, I think the burden of homelife often falls more heavily on the wife/mom’s shoulders. I just got lucky in that department. My brothers and sister are all in more traditional marriages. All of my brothers (I have 3) wives stay at home with the kids. My sister is a physician and isn’t about to dump all those years of education and certification to stay at home full time and lose her chops but…she works part time. My brother-in-law is also a physician and takes the role of primary bread winner. In all those cases the Dad/husband works long hours and brings home the bacon and Mom/wife takes care of domestic needs.

My sister used to work full time and when she did it was the same…she handled most of the domestic duties. She didn’t like it and would complain. But my brother in law would say he was so tired when he got home and how is field of medicine (emergency/trauma) was more exhausting than hers (general/family) and that she should be more understanding….didn’t matter that her job was farther away and she worked the same hours or that the kids belonged to BOTH of them…

I don’t think I would stand for that…not if I had a full-time job…

By chuck

January 14, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

You are right GG, she did a great job as a homemaker and got a lot of practical experience teaching as well. She’s a really good math teacher and I am very proud of what she has accomplished. There aren’t many people who can go back to school as a 40 something year-old and make straight A’s to finish a degree that she had abandoned in about 1981. She has her Masters degree now and is about to start on her Specialist in Ed degree.

By Jen

January 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

I also think this sort of disparity in the work place between parents and the child-free is more apparent in a work place where people share duties. I work on a research team. Each member of the team has a unique skillset for accomplishing the research (everyone has a graduate degree and/or a professional degree). No one else on the team can really do anyone else’s job. So, when one person has to take time off their work doesn’t get shifted to someone else, who would resent it, potentially. It just sits and waits.

So, the result is that when people KNOW they’re going to be off they make sure and clear most things off their “inbox”, or at least send enough stuff back to team members that they won’t be waiting. In an emergency, it’s just a tough deal and everyone has to wait for that person to get back.

If someone was truly abusing the system and not doing their work, or lowering productivity, it would show up quick and only one person would be fingered for it.

But, I realize there are a lot of work environments NOT like mine…places where you have a group of people who do the same thing and share the workload…slackers will abound whether they are parents or not!

How about that single guy who parties all the time and gets a lot of hangovers and comes in late or not at all, taking a last-minute PTO, and putting everyone in a bind???

By Jack

January 14, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this

30years for us. Rookie. LOL

By Monica

January 14, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

Hi Chuck! I thought that I would be okay with me working and having children, so we made financial decisions based on two incomes. After my first was born, I really wanted to stay home, but we couldn’t afford it. I had a hard year that first year adjusting. Now that both boys are older, and my husband is only coaching one sport, it’s easier. It also helps having time off in the summer. I get the best of both worlds!

I have the utmost respect for single moms. Not only do you juggle all roles by yourself, you also deal with unsympathetic people at work who don’t understand that most moms don’t ask to be single mothers. I have a friend of mine whose husband died at age 38, leaving her with two small children to raise solo. She didn’t have any other family, so if one of the kids got sick, she had to take time off of work.

By chuck

January 14, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

I like being called a rookie Jack. It really does seem like just yesterday.

By GeezGuys

January 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

Chuck, you and your wife figuring things out ahead of time surely helped. I’d wager she’s happier with how things have worked out with the kids/home balance than say, Jen’s sister. Let’s not forget all the coworkers/bosses in this equation too, who didn’t have to pull up the slack.

I’m quite tired of the accusation that coworkers, bosses, random strangers, and the like should be sucking it up because you didn’t figure out how to have kids and take care of them. Kids require lots of attention—-at random times—-and making it up as you go along isn’t fair to the rest of us or your family.

By chuck

January 14, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

Hey Monica. We try as much as we can to live just off of my income Monica. It doesn’t always work out the way we want it too on that though. We use my wife’s income for “extra” stuff and emergencies and try to invest the rest but as I said, It doesn’t always work out that way. I know when mine were born, it was very difficult for me to leave them every morning. Especially those first few years. I got a little jealous of the bond that my wife developed with them as well. Teaching really did give me the opportunity to be around them more than a lot of fathers get to.

I’ll tell you this though Monica. Enjoy them while they are young because when you blink, all of a sudden they are 19 and 16 and actually have their own lives now. Cherish it while you can.

By Jen

January 14, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

Monica, I like hearing your story because it’s not 1-D.

When my husband and I got married we were 23. At the time we thought we’d both get graduate degrees and THEN have children. I thought I’d work part-time. I never wanted to be a full time SAHM because I just didn’t think I ‘d be a happy momma that way.

But, then we found out that I was preggers during our Masters degree programs. It was time to make a choice.

If I still wanted to work part-time then that would mean my husband would have to stop at the Masters degree and get a job. Only, he wouldn’t actually make a good salary with HIS Masters where as I could make a REALLY good salary with mine (because it involves programming and math).

So, we revised our plan. I would terminate at the Masters level and he would go on to the PhD level so he could get a decent wage. I went to work full time and he went to school full time and our son went to daycare.

Fast-forward 3 years and my husband finished school. However, I am now well-entrenched into my career. There aren’t a lot of good job prospects in Atlanta for my husband and I don’t want to move because my career is doing well. So he enters into a post-doctoral fellowship - still not a great wage though at least a wage.

At this point our son started public school.

Currently, my husband has a GREAT job in the Atlanta area, I have a GREAT job here, too. Our son is in school. We share the burden of domestic duties when the arise. We look at each other and say, “Can you take off work on this day? Which one of us took off last time?”

I consider myself LUCKY to have my life. My husband’s mother was a single mother and whenever I feel like I’m tired, or that things are rough, I just think what it must be like for HER. We have one single mom on our team. When her daughter is sick I have sympathy and extend good-will.

If single people, as well as married people, would understand that everyones lives are COMPLICATED and journeys WIND around your plans and everyone would extend their good will then everyone would be a lot happier!

Somebody slap me. I sound like Pollyanna….

By Sali

January 14, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this

Hold your head high home-makers, don’t let the liberal-dem-commies tell you you are anything less than the greatest. Another silly, silly, silly person…. This is a non-issue in the tiny mind of an idiot. And you’re probably a man who knows absolutely nothing about being a homemaker anyway.

By lozen

January 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

No Jen, you sound like a really decent human being!

By Jack

January 14, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

Nothing wrong with Pollyanna.

By Jen

January 14, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

Cue the Gingerbread Man from Shrek: Can’t we all just get along?

By GeezGuys

January 14, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

No.

Bah, humbug. :P

By lozen

January 14, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

No Jen I’m afraid we can’t. You see if I disagree with some of these stupid yokels on this blog about anything they are going to immediately call me a commie. Or whatever makes them feel better about their 90 I.Q They have run off the good people who used to be on this blog with their stupidity. And you are too smart to be on here for long! It is impossible to have a conversation with idiots.

By Dufus

January 15, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us! All your base are belong to us!

By lozen

January 15, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

A few thoughts from a friend on the military action in Iraq: About a million people are dead in Iraq. Entire cities have been destroyed. There’s depleted uranium all over Iraq that will affect humanity for eternity. Would this war have happened if we were asked to actually pay for it (and not ask the Fed to print $600 billion that it has printed so far for this war). If the Fed wasn’t printing money out of thin air and giving it to our government to fund this war, then every resident (man, woman and child) would have had to pay about $500/year. Thats $2000/person since the war began. For a typical family of 4, this cost would be $8000 per family so far. (And there is no end in sight). Would we be paying for it, if we had honest money? The fact is that we are in this war, because it benefits some people. The mercenaries of BlackWater. The contractors of Halliburton But, most importantly, the Bankers at Fed who created this money out of thin air, and loaned it to the government at an interest.

By Erica Jong

January 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

Who’s Tired of Pink?

I am so tired of pink men bombing brown children and rationalizing it as fighting terrorism. I am so tired of pink men telling women (of all colors) what to do with their wombs—which connect with their brains—in case you forgot. I am so tired of pink men telling us we should stay in Iraq for generations. I am so tired of pink men buying bombs and cheating schools. I am so tired of pink men having wives who stand behind them and nod sagely on television. I am so tired of pink men expecting that someone—a brown, black, yellow or white woman—will trail behind them changing light bulbs, taking out garbage, washing laundry, keeping food in the house, taking care of kids of all ages, of parents of all ages. I am so tired of pink men whose wives double or triple the family income thinking they can spend it without doing a damn thing at home. I am so tired of pink men spouting nonsense on TV. I am so tired of pink men arguing, blathering, bloviating, predicting the future—usually wrongly—and telling women to shut up. I am so sick of hearing that another pink man has dropped his children out a window, off a bridge or killed his pregnant wife or killed his unpregnant wife because he was infatuated with another pregnant woman. I am so sick of pink men making war and talking about peace. I am so sick of pink men appointing their mediocre cronies to judgeships, to political advisors, to cushy jobs, to columns in the paper, to multimillion-dollar posts as CEOS or actors (while the actresses make less) or producers or writers or newsreaders or talk show bloviators or supposedly sage counselors at law. I am so tired of pink men.

And by the way some brown men and tan men and wheaten men do these things too.

Don’t tell me about women who kill. I know there are some—but fewer. So let’s just remember our mothers—who bore us, protected us against our fathers and grandfathers and all the pink or brown men who wanted to rape us or kill us or starve us because we were girls.

I am not stupid. I know all generalizations are false. I know there are bad mothers, bad women, bad sisters, bad aunts, and bad females of every stripe. But I have seen enough men in high office to last a lifetime. Let’s give women a chance!

By Scalia

January 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Wow! That was sexist and racist, and I am not even a pink man.

By JokesOn

January 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

protected us against our fathers and grandfathers and all the pink or brown men who wanted to rape us or kill us or starve us because we were girls.

Someone is off their medication.

By Lee

January 15, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

To Debora and the Rest of the inconsiderate folks out here. First and foremost, I have never asked anyone of you personal for any support for my children. I was making a simple statement of how selfish single people without children could be and your ignorant comments solidified my belief. I am a very successful and financially stable woman who does not have to ask anyone for anything other than God. I am able to balance family and my career, but it can become challenging at times. With your simple man, it’s no wonder that you are single. By the way, you would probably have a physical and mental meltdown if you had to balance your career and raise a family at the same time. I’m my own boss by the way. Are you Debra?

By Lee

January 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

Debora, I work for myself bringing in big money. You are single with no children and have a job working for someone else.

By Jack

January 15, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

“wheaten” men????

By Copyleft

January 15, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

Sounds like someone’s had an Amway epiphany….

By chuck

January 15, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

I had a HUH? moment on that one too Jack. Looks like Whiley is back.

Hi Whiley. Did you break into the infirmary office again sweety? Listen to the people in white. They will get you back to your room.

By JokesOn

January 15, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

To Debora and the Rest of the inconsiderate folks out here. First and foremost, I have never asked anyone of you personal for any support for my children.

Lee, You did ask us to walk in your shoes though. If certain people chose not to have those shoes in the first place in order to keep their life un-encombered, how do you think they feel when a parent’s workload effects them?

My wife and I waited until we were in a comfortable position to have kids. Why is it absurd for us to be annoyed when other peoples lack of planning regularly effects us? To expect everyone else to make room for these parents situation sounds pretty selfish to me. It is not much different than the guy speeding down the road because he is late and expecting everyone to make room for his more important agenda.

I do not mind, and actually enjoy helping others. But when it is needed on a regular basis, it is slack.

By GeezGuys

January 15, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

Ten to one odds…Lee is the one who pitches a fit when you tell his/her brat to stop running wild with the shopping cart in Krogers. Because it “isn’t YOUR child”.

By Newzwyre

January 15, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/HuckabeeAmendConstitutiontomeetGods0115.html

The United States Constitution never uses the word “God” or makes mention of any religion, drawing its sole authority from “We the People.” However, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee thinks it’s time to put an end to that.

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution,” Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. “But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”

a vote for Huckabee = a vote against freedom

By Bruce

January 15, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

“I am not stupid. I know all generalizations are false.”

By this statement then everything you said prior to it was false too, right?

“They have run off the good people who used to be on this blog with their stupidity.”

Now we know why YOU”RE still here…You’re not smart enough to leave. Which puts you in the stupid class with the rest of us. Thanks for helping us run them off.

By Ellen

January 15, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this

As a purposefully childless woman, I resent having worked dumped on me when a team member who is a parent has to take off for parental responsibilities. Why do I have to stay late because your kid is sick or is in the second-grade play? If employers are going to accommodate parents then they need to start accommodating childless workers, too. T** for tat.

By ButClintonDidIt

January 15, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

to paraphrase the 4:44 post:

But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it, But Clinton did it.

By No kids at home

January 15, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this

I do not have kids and put in 40 hours a week, am there and ready to work. Most of my team do not have kids, so we don’t have the “gotta go get the kid” thing going on. Work is work and when we are there, we are to work. If you have family, work part time or put in your fair share. Your co-workers are interested in their work and success, not your family business. I do give a big kudos to full time working moms, as a family is the most important thing. If you can do both, my hat is off to you. It’s just that the rest of us at work want to do our work and not yours or hear about you family life. People need to learn the difference between personal and professional and find the balance.

By Testosteroni

January 16, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

Had two women working for me - at least ONCE A WEEK they called in at the last minute because “one of the kids may be getting sick”, they “didn’t sleep enough last night”, “forgot about parents lunch day at school”, “have to leave early to pick up rugrat”, “husband’s stepsisters kids had no place to stay today”, etc., etc., etc. When these women left my employ I replaced them with two men and have had 100% on-time attendance for almost two years. In a small business with few extra employees to pull the weight, it is a welcome relief. For this businessman - the decision to hire men over women was a no-brainer and I’ll do it again in a heartbeat.

By kiki

January 16, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

Having to pick up the slack for someone at work sucks, but it’s not just the mothers. What about the coworker who is always sick? Or the smoker who is gone 15 minutes out of every hour? Or the guy who lives in the McMansion in Gainesville who is late every morning and leaves early every day? Or Chatty Cathy who spends half her day yacking in the breakroom?

By kiki

January 16, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

Having to pick up the slack for someone at work sucks, but it’s not just the mothers. What about the coworker who is always sick? Or the smoker who is gone 15 minutes out of every hour? Or the guy who lives in the McMansion in Gainesville who is late every morning and leaves early every day because of traffic (gee, who knew your 60 mile roundtrip would be so awful)? Or Chatty Cathy who spends half her day yacking in the breakroom?

By lovelyliz

January 16, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this

It’s not materal profiling that I’ve been the victim of so much as it is the paternal issues that I have problems with. Ask the singletons at your office and they will have plenty of stories where they got to hold down the fort while Mom and Dad were doing the family thing. I’ve been asked to stay late, come in early, cover for a parent, even give up holidays because well they do have a family.

I think that families can be great, but in the workforce they should not make a difference in how all employees are treated.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 10:02 AM | Link to this

Families do make a difference in the work place. My wife and I always tried to divide the duties. We were both in positions that no one could take up the slack. When we were gone, the work just stopped getting done. When we got back to work there was the same amount of work to do.

I know this will probably make a lot of people mad, but this is yet another reason why it takes two people to raise a family, especially in modern society.

It is also another reason why single women should think very hard about having a baby without another person to help raise the child.

By Jack

January 16, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

What do you folks think of the dreaded FMLA?

By Monica

January 16, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

So, what’s the solution? A motherless workforce? Single parents are out of luck, I suppose. Or, just go on welfare so your former office co-workers can support you instead of cover for you occasionally.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

lozen

No Jen I’m afraid we can’t. You see if I disagree with some of these stupid yokels on this blog about anything they are going to immediately call me a commie. Or whatever makes them feel better about their 90 I.Q They have run off the good people who used to be on this blog with their stupidity. And you are too smart to be on here for long! It is impossible to have a conversation with idiots.

I read your whining two weeks ago about how I had ran everyone off from the forum. So I have stayed away, just reading the blog and not posting.

But you are still complaining about yokels and IQs of 90.

What would you like? You are obviously a far left progressive who has yet to post a positive post about anything or anyone.

I left, but you are still complaining. Do you want everyone that dares to disagree with you to leave? That would leave no one here.

Here’s a suggestion: instead of coming to a forum where other carbon based personalities are going to post and (dare I say it) disagree with you, perhaps you should just open up a word document, write your own topic and give your own responses. That way you would only need to deal with your extremely stellar IQ and your unapproachable education.

That will solve 90% of your problems.

Would that work for you?

By Testosteroni

January 16, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

I didn’t know we were actually looking for solutions - I just thought this was a place to b’tch about stuff and make stupid comments. Now I don’t know what to do. I don’t have any solutions, just cute little snippets of buzz words to rile people up. In other words, I thought it was like a Democratic debate.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

Monica

What a great question. If a person has no family, the money they make means less to them. But the person with the family is responsible for several open mouths around the dinner table. But those are the people that are at the highest risk of being discriminated against for the reasons everyone has discussed.

Companies hire people to work a set number of hours and the company should not suffer because an employee has a family. But the family person needs the money to feed the family.

This has to be a problem in other industrialized countries. Does anyone have any idea how they handle it?

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

kiki

Smokers drive me nuts. Most of them believe that the world should stop while they feed their addiction.

The thing that kills me is when I go into any local pub that allows smoking and the vast majority of smokers are young women. And stats show that women are suffering from smoker’s ailments as much or more than men.

The saddest thing is when you pass them and get a whif of that smoker’s body oder mixed with some expensive perfume. Why bother?

$500 outfit, $200 hair style, another 3 or 4 hundred bucks worth of jewelry and make up and perfume and it is all negated because of a horrible body odor that would knock a buzzard off a sh*t wagon.

How did the tobacco companies manage that? After all the warnings and all the deaths that we have all seen in our own families, young women and men are smoking more than ever.

Is the human race just getting dumber?

By Mara

January 16, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

TOJ - it isn’t the differing opinions that made ME leave. I like to debate. It was the deliberate misquoting, blatant over-statements, mischaracterization of argument, the blog-name thieves, the personal attacks, and the general hatefulness that have become the rule instead of the exception.

not to mention the problems we’ve seen with spam and lame-o topics.

hey lozen.

By Bruce

January 16, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

For all you folks that are sick and tired of picking up the slack for the employees with families.

Do you realise that what you are asking for is to remove women from the work force. You know, “a woman’s place is in the home”. Shame on you, you sexist pigs…….

Most of the time when a parent has to take off for their kids they use THEIR leave for this, not yours. Do they, the parents, ever complain about how you use YOUR leave? Probably not!

Geez in this day and time be glad you have a job.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

I’m going to throw this out there and run and hide.

Didn’t Ms. Clinton write a book called “”It Takes A Village?”

Wasn’t she saying that it takes more than a loving couple to raise children, it takes the sacrifice of the entire village.

So if she is elected to be President, will she be wanting to pass laws that will obligate non-parents to take up the slack for raising a family? or is she going to pull a Tipper Gore and pretend she never wrote that book?

I’ll be hiding if anyone needs me.

By Jack

January 16, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

In some countries companies have “on prem” daycare. it would never be a standard in this country as companies don’t want the liability.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

Mara

It isn’t the differing opinions that made ME leave. I like to debate. It was the deliberate misquoting, blatant over-statements, mischaracterization of argument, the blog-name thieves, the personal attacks, and the general hatefulness that have become the rule instead of the exception.

I saw that the first day I visited this forum. Chuck was the only non-progressive at the time, even though I learned that there were actually several other conservatives posting here, just not that day.

All the things you mentioned were in full effect against Chuck and those canons were quickly turned on me. An example is how I dared to mention that in some ancient civilizations, religion and government were very close as the leaders were using religion to frighten their subjects into obeying laws. For this benign observation, I was called a fundie and a long list of despicable names.

The stones were always flying at the conservatives. Apparently what bothered you was the fact that I dared throw the stones back. And perish the thought, sometime my stones were bigger than the one’s thrown.

I regret that you were caught up in that and I have learned my lesson: no matter how vile I am attacked, it is unacceptable for a conservative to ever respond in kind.

I am trying my best to be “good.”

Is that OK? If that is not good enough, I need to go ahead and hit the road again. I certainly wouldn’t want to spoil the sanctity of an AJC blog.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

Jack

In some countries companies have “on prem” daycare. it would never be a standard in this country as companies don’t want the liability.

Actually, those are used here, but just not enough. That’s why so many children died in the Oklahoma City bombing. They were in the “on prem” daycare center.

That’s definitely a start, but our big problems came when the kids were in regular school. High school was brutal and we lived in a relatively affluent area where most families had one worker and one stay at home. Every few days, we were required to pick up the kids, take the kids somewhere, etc.

When our oldest started driving, it fixed a lot of problems.

By JokesOn

January 16, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

In some countries companies have “on prem” daycare. it would never be a standard in this country as companies don’t want the liability.

Most of the countries I have visited have more of a lower-middle-class that act as live in nannies and 24h drivers.

So if she is elected to be President, will she be wanting to pass laws that will obligate non-parents to take up the slack for raising a family? or is she going to pull a Tipper Gore and pretend she never wrote that book?

Not to worry, I am quite certain that the notion is a social idea and not one of policy.

Do you realise that what you are asking for is to remove women from the work force.

Naw. Although not in the majority, I have two male coworkers that miss one day a week because of being a single parent. They also tend to bring the kids in when they are sick which I find extremely selfish.

I do find these topics that refer to a genderless person (the notion that all people should pull their weight at work) difficult since they effect one half of the population much more than the other. I would like there to be more flexibility in the workplace, but the current “flexibility” applied by companies is using others to do the extra work.

By Monica

January 16, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

It sounds like the problem isn’t as much the parents who have to stay out with sick kids as it is employers who expect others to pick up the workload. If I constantly had to do someone else’s work, regardless of the reason, I would get angry. I think parents are a scapegoat; the real problem lies with unrealistic and inhuman bosses who work for corporations with greedy, unrealistic, and inhuman CEO’s.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

jokesOn

Wow. We actually agree. We should both go buy powerball tickets or something.

I was a little bothered by the mention of only women having to leave work because of kids. I had to fly back from Pittsburgh to take care of my youngest at one point.

People bringing sick kids to work? No. At that I draw the line. our kids never got sick when they were out of school, but as soon as school started, it was runny noses and lots of Perell hand cleaner.

A sick kid is never going to be careful about not spreading germs and that could wipe out a lot of productivity.

By JokesOn

January 16, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

Monica,

Your 11:32 is exactly where I was going.

But the problem I see is that if the companies did not make someone else do the work, revenue/productivity would drop meaning they would have to fire/rehire for the position. That would lead to legal issues because it makes it a personal attack on mothers in the work force again.

By JokesOn

January 16, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Wow. We actually agree. We should both go buy powerball tickets or something.

Yeah. We agreed on a couple other issues too. We just have not gotten chummy about it;)

Nice that we might one day find a middle ground to disagree in;)

People bringing sick kids to work? We also have a dog rescue person that has brought strays in to work and dogs that had a vet appointment that day. She has even asked me and a few others to watch the dogs while in a 2hour meeting.

I understand we are all human and need to help each other, but we also should minimize the negative impact on others around us. Finding that grey area is what most of us wrestle with and it is usually somewhere between the polar views presented.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

I am watching a news report where two police officers were ambushed and killed last night. Both officers had small children.

My God …

If you pray, if you believe in the power of positive thought, whatever your belief, please say whatever you consider a prayer for the families.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

JokesOn

Dogs in the workplace. I work out of my home and I just adopted a kitten. He finds it a lot of fun to wait until I have typed something and then run, full speed across the keyboard.

Anyone know a good recipe for fried kitten?

By Mary-zz

January 16, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

By Mary-zz

January 16, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

By The Bottom Line

January 16, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

What disturbed me most about the media frenzy over the Spears bimbo was the lack of any discussion regarding the child-to-be’s welfare. It was all about the bimbo.

Have we reached a point in society in which children are just one more nuisance to deal with?

By Scalia

January 16, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

*Smokers drive me nuts. Most of them believe that the world should stop while they feed their addiction.

The thing that kills me is when I go into any local pub that allows smoking and the vast majority of smokers are young women. And stats show that women are suffering from smoker’s ailments as much or more than men.

The saddest thing is when you pass them and get a whif of that smoker’s body oder mixed with some expensive perfume. Why bother?

$500 outfit, $200 hair style, another 3 or 4 hundred bucks worth of jewelry and make up and perfume and it is all negated because of a horrible body odor that would knock a buzzard off a sht wagon.

TOJ, I couldn’t agree more. I absolutely hate coming home and smelling like an ashtray, and my car smelling like smoke the next day. My clothes reek of smoke for days. I have to hang them up, and wait for the smoke to get out of them. And sometimes, it is so strong that my eyes are burning.

I just commented to my friend that there needs to be a smoke-free bar.

By Jack

January 16, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

Gosh Scalia, I’m glad I already had lunch!

By The Bottom Line

January 16, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this

The bottom line is that every child deserves the benefit of two parents who are involved in their lives. Currently, around 80% of black children are born out-of-wedlock, with hispanic women and white women closing the gap quickly. Where are we going wrong as a society?

By Jack

January 16, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

What? You don’t know that it is perfectly acceptable to have children out of wedlock these days?

By The Bottom Line

January 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

A few weeks ago, a poster here on W2W claimed we shouldn’t waste time talking about out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy because, in the poster’s opinion, the War in Iraq and the rising “national” debt would have more of a long-term impact on future generations than single parenthood ever could. I respectfully disagree with that opinion.

By Jack

January 16, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

Ditto

By The Bottom Line

January 16, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

the real problem is unrealistic and inhuman bosses

Is that the real problem, Monica? Or perhaps, have our values as a people eroded due the wave of unabashed materialism which has washed over our land? Even the churches are preaching materialism now.

Maybe the real problem is narcissism. Just a theory…

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

Scalia

I worked as a surgical videographer for a while and learned a tremendous amount about the insides of our bodies.

I once had a doctor tell me that he could easily tell if a person was a smoker as soon as their body was opened up. I said that if it was a lung, I could understand. He said that he could tell if he cut open a foot or anywhere else in the body.

He showed me how to do it, that day in surgery. Muscle tissue is much darker in a smoker. In a non-smoker, the tissue is bright pink. In a smoker, it is a dull burgundy. Fat tissue is white or whitish yellow in a non smoker, but in a smoker, it is a gross looking dark yellow to brown. He was right. It is very obvious when you know what to look for.

I have always thought that a great field trip for high school students to take a trip to a surgical observation room to see the difference in the two.

By JokesOn

January 16, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

Maybe the real problem is narcissism. Just a theory…

I have trouble believing that we are a more narcissistic society that in the past. I could understand there being fluctuations in the short term (5-10yrs). If you compare 50,100,300,500 and etc years ago to today, I think we are now much less self-centered.

See though, I can argue that the more systemic narcissism of the past has been replaced by entitlement. And, if I consider it further, although I detest it, entitlement seems a natural growing pain for a society that grapples individual rights/freedoms.

Input?

By The Bottom Line

January 16, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

entitlement seems a natural growing pain for a society that grapples individual rights/freedoms.

I’ll have to think about that one, JokesOn. It would seem to me that the root of entitlement is still narcissism, though perhaps manifested in a different way. What ever happened to the pride a person feels by supporting themselves? Why should lack of planning and self-control by others create an obligation in me?

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

The Bottom Line

Why should lack of planning and self-control by others create an obligation in me?

You just described the very same question I ask almost every day of my life.

By JokesOn

January 16, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this

Why should lack of planning and self-control by others create an obligation in me?

I am not saying it should. I am merely trying to understand how it comes about. What I try to consider is that it might be a completely natural progression.

What ever happened to the pride a person feels by supporting themselves? The ability to be self-supportive is actually pretty new. If I consider the past honestly, we were owned by the government that we were born into in most cases. After those years, we were in essence owned by the corporation we worked in. The ability to be this self centered did not exist. And when humans have a new freedom (think turning 21), we tend to do it in excess for a while until we see it does not serve our interests. At which point we find equilibrium.

Just thoughts….not necessarily points I firmly believe in - though they seem to fit.

By The Bottom Line

January 16, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

Of course, TOJ, the Godly thing to do is to keep being generous to all we meet without question. Let God sort it out later, I guess.

It’s tough being Godly sometimes… ; > } (just kidding).

By Monica

January 16, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this

Why should lack of planning and self-control by others create an obligation in me?

Why is it that you think that most single mothers are created through lack of planning and self-control? My friend whose husband died is not a result of either of the above. I don’t know many women who plan to have children and then plan for their husbands to leave them. While I agree that too many children are born to single women, the majority of single moms in the workplace are so because of circumstance, not because of lack of planning and self-control.

By The Bottom Line

January 16, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

What I try to consider is that it might be a natural progression

Thanks for sharing a kind thought, JokesOn. Your soul appears to be ready for “retirement” from the kharmic cycle we are stuck in. That is if you believe in Hinduistic reincarnation.

By The Bottom Line

January 16, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

What I try to consider is that it might be a natural progression.

Thanks for sharing a kind, enlightened thought, JokesOn.

By The Bottom Line

January 16, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this

I don’t know many women who plan for their husbands to leave them

If the statistics are true, an unacceptably high percentage of women today aren’t married when they conceive and deliver.

Obviously, no one plans for the worst, Monica. And maybe that’s the biggest part of the problem. Somehow, all the “comprehensive” sex ed programs at school aren’t working. Having a child is a lifelong commitment.

By GeezGuys

January 16, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

I was a little bothered by the mention of only women having to leave work because of kids. I had to fly back from Pittsburgh to take care of my youngest at one point.

Awesome for you, Other Jack, but again, kid “moments” are primarily the job for the woman, which is why nobody asks men about their reproduction.

Y’all are jabbering on and on about self-absorbed singles, inhumane bosses, etc, without coming to the logical conclusion children arrive only after a genetic contribution from two people. There are cases when one parent disappears, or dies, as in the tragic case of those cops—God bless their families. Those cases are far outweighed by instances where there’s a father in the picture, divorced or not, who has never logged one day doing child maintenance.

How about they pick up some slack, not co-workers or other genetically uninvolved bystanders? People might be more understanding of a working mother if she wasn’t called away every time her kids needed attention.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

The Bottom Line

Actually I was talking about modern business in general.

It’s the vendor’s song that we are always called at the last minute and I am a vendor. It has nothing to do with Godliness, it has everything to do with keeping a client.

I’m the guy that they know can make them look good no matter how poorly they have planned. That is why I am still sleeping indoors.

By Oksana-cq

January 16, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

By Oksana-cq

January 16, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

By Oksana-cq

January 16, 2008 2:59 PM | Link to this

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

By The Bottom Line

January 16, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

GeezGuys—It’s true that many men shirk their familial duties. Is such a character flaw predictable? Seems to me that “modern” women are picking guys primarily for the “excitement factor”, and aren’t putting much thought into deciding if a particular guy is a suitable, long-term partner. Sorry to put the burden of choosing a quality mate onto the woman, but the bottom line biological fact remains that women choose men, not the other way around.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

GeezGuys

How about they pick up some slack, not co-workers or other genetically uninvolved bystanders? People might be more understanding of a working mother if she wasn’t called away every time her kids needed attention.

Interesting point. I made the trip from Pittsburg because my wife’s obligations of that day was less flexible than mine. I missed a meeting that I had tried to avoid and she would have missed a good opportunity to make some impressive commissions. That was an easy decision.

So maybe that is the case when it is often the majority of women that take care of the kids. Between an administrative assistant and an auto mechanic, the admin would probably have a more flexible schedule. (Man, am I going to get killed for that one)

Yes, I know that there are many, many women executives, but the idea of glass ceilings is a very real concept. I don’t know what the stats are, but I would imagine that men fill most of the more prestigious and inflexible jobs. I also wonder if men would have a harder time obtaining an excused absence to take care of the kids?

This is an observation. I’m certainly not saying it is right or fair, but this could possibly a reason for at least part of the problem.

By JokesOn

January 16, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

Those cases are far outweighed by instances where there’s a father in the picture, divorced or not, who has never logged one day doing child maintenance.

How about they pick up some slack, not co-workers or other genetically uninvolved bystanders?

Absolutely. How do you propose we accomplish that?

Seems that you will run into the same topic, only broader because it includes men as a equal part. So we will be left with the same questions, no?

By The Bottom Line

January 16, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

So we will be left with the same questions

To me, JokesOn, it’s primarily a question of values. Parenting is a two-person job, period. A such, at least one of the two people who conceived the child must be physically available while the child is growing. How the two people accomplish that, I don’t care. Our current system isn’t working, and the kids are suffering.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

The Bottom Line

GeezGuys—It’s true that … …choose men, not the other way around.

INCOMING!!! HIT THE DIRT!!!

Or in the words of the Russian weapons officer to his captain that had fired a missile at the Red October, only to have Sean Connery turn the table snd put the Russian attack sub in front of it’s own torpedo:

You arrogant b*******, you’ve killed us all!!

By Bottom Linr

January 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

I enjoyed the visit today. Hope everyone is well. I still miss you, DCMK.

By GeezGuys

January 16, 2008 3:54 PM | Link to this

Between an administrative assistant and an auto mechanic, the admin would probably have a more flexible schedule. (Man, am I going to get killed for that one)

Let me be first in line to smack you up side the head—not too hard, but somebody’s gotta do it. Just why is the admin assistant’s job more flexible? Either someone else has to do his/her work, or it has to be completed later. Same with the auto mechanic.

JokesOn, if parenting is spread around, one worker isn’t doing all the mommy stuff. A worker who has no backup, and is solely responsible for the kids is guaranteed to be a pain in the a$$. Men should either share the parenting responsibilities or make enough money (and have a cooperative woman) to support the family alone. As I said, expecting a woman to work a full time job and raise your children is freeloading on another adult.

Most workers are going to have personal issues like kids, elderly parents, vet appointments for the sick goldfish, whatever. But all those kids and parents and goldfish belong to men too. Women just end up doing most of that work.

Besides, if a problem affects men, you betcha it’ll be a problem of business and government. If men’s productivity is dropping, if they’re having the problem, they’ll demand a solution. If it’s a problem for mostly women, it’s relegated to the back burner, or it’s “her problem”. So the questions would indeed be different if we expected men to participate in less pleasant parts of raising kids.

By The Other Jack

January 16, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

Mara

Hope you had a good day. I also hope that you were busy and didn’t have time to reply instead of being mad and taking your football and going home, which you did the last time we talked.

Just in case: I’ll stay away, you come on back. I really enjoy this, but I don’t feel right that you run away every time I return.

I’m not sure what you want, but I am sure that any disagreement of ANY kind is just too much for you to deal with.

If you have iozen’s phone number, please give them a call and explain that it will be perfectly alright for them to come back and call people yokels with IQs of 90. After all, you are both progressives and as we all know only progressives have the option of using that kind of language.

See ya

By JokesOn

January 16, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

So the questions would indeed be different if we expected men to participate in less pleasant parts of raising kids.

I like your position, but am not entirely convinced that it is accurate. If the total number of days affected by kids is the same, only spread out over more males, it seems that it is still an issue (I admit that maybe not: I can see that the situation could be diluted by that route.).

If men’s productivity is dropping, if they’re having the problem, they’ll demand a solution.

I do not see males (the normal work force guys) having that much power. The 1% at the top have the power and would have no trouble firing a male in that position.

By Albina-zl

January 16, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

By Albina-zl

January 16, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

By Archie

January 16, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this

My answer to the topic question is that I don’t know because I am not a mother. I think maternal profiling probably is a problem somewhere and I agree with Andrea on this one as I think we should continue to work toward solutions for both the company and employee. As for the bottom line comment by Shanti I can say for a fact that there are single moms that more productive than men and women without children. The bottom line is the more productive folk need to get the promotions and the projects that lead to promotions. People that don’t know what they’re doing on a job can be mothers or non-mothers but I think like Andrea that it’s only right that we understand life situations aren’t perfect and we need solutions. I didn’t understand some things until I got older and married but I am still productive. I side with Andrea in this debate.

By GeezGuys

January 16, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this

The 1% at the top have the power and would have no trouble firing a male in that position.

But I think making it a worker problem rather than a women’s problem would motivate businesses as a whole to deal with the problem, aside from firing employees or shoving it back on other workers. Smart businesses address the problems affecting employee productivity.

And I wasn’t talking about the one guy making his lonely little stand to pick up Johnny at 5:30. You miss my point on how problems that affect men = “things that should be dealt with because we want to be productive” vs. problems that affect women = “damn women employees”. I saw this in the military…at the time, male soldiers missed more time statistically than women due to legal and behavioral problems, yet nobody ever complained about men dragging down readiness. They did complain incessantly about women, because if they became pregnant they were unavailable.

By kistov

January 16, 2008 5:36 PM | Link to this

http://index1.lkewat.com >westies movie

By Albina-qy

January 16, 2008 6:14 PM | Link to this

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

By hipnoj

January 16, 2008 9:16 PM | Link to this

http://www-teeny-p***-com.lkewat.com >oc teen gang rape victum http://wwwcarzone-ie.lkewat.com >symptoms of male breast cancer http://www-arabisch-hot-sex-com.lkewat.com >gamestop; video game store http://www-sexybabes-com-internet-tab.lkewat.com >ct.state assistance qmb http://www-truchs-auto-ru.lkewat.com >monmouth radio http://www-pass-out-com.lkewat.com >worldappetiteentertainmnet.tk2 http://htt-p-www-blog--eroti.lkewat.com >totally free sex vidoes http://pol-parker-com-2-3.lkewat.com >occupational therapy class in omaha nebraska http://info-reisburoprishtina-com-l.lkewat.com >movies burlington http://www-group-usa.lkewat.com >gay love

By Lyrazel

January 17, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

Whining has long been typical in the workforce and workers and bosses are the biggest complainers I know of. So, what is left in the pot people?

I have hired many single parents and have found many to be ethical and involved in their jobs while they were at work. I have hired dual parent workers and found VERY little difference. I have always found parents make excellent workers and tend to stay at jobs longer if they can. I would say responsibility is one of the key factors to a good employee and granted there are many who will never understand responsibility no matter how many rugrats and anklebiters they produce or never produce. Granted, as an employer I have learned to compensate for absences because life throws boomerangs thus I had a plan of how to get work done during an employee’s absence. It does mean other people, including myself, pick up slack to make sure jobs are done. The absent employee also understands there is someone filling in their place. Unless they are government workers the fear of being replaced at work is a very real worry! Its a bigger worry for parents than singles, I have noticed.

I have fired many who just could not be a needed employee. Compulsive tardiness or slackers that trickled in late and took an hour or more to settle in, take a break, do some work, take a long lunch, then when three hits, fold up work and settle in on-line to wait out the clock, are just as hard on business as a parent scrambling to leave early to meet a school bus. It was a work-ethic that kept a person employed in my shop.

To the women who complained the cubicle parent was always gone and she was doing presentations alone, giving up holidays, questioned for family leave: do you think your employer does not notice? Whenever someone picks up slack and is positive, word gets out, so use it to your advantage. Instead of complaining about the someone else (who likes a whining complainer?) realize that filling in is showing potential that is paramount to advancing your career. Record everything, both the holidays surrendered & the presentations made assuming another person’s work. At a year end review these journals can score a promotion—or help you realize your work is going unrecognized. Single people have an easier time finding jobs than married with children do, use the advantage.

By JokesOn

January 17, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

yet nobody ever complained about men dragging down readiness. They did complain incessantly about women, because if they became pregnant they were unavailable.

That exact point undercuts your statement: “things that should be dealt with because we want to be productive” vs. problems that affect women = “damn women employees”.

You are saying both that if men were in the situation it would be taken more seriously, and that they would not take heat for it but women still would.

By your statements it should be considered a womans issue because they will always be the ones who take the heat no matter if it is disproportionate or not.

By Debora

January 17, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, you advice is all fine and dandy but I am a SECRETARY. It is not as though they are going to promote me to an executive. Besides, I am happy with my job. I don’t want a big promotion and more work. I want a reasonable home life balance. I want to spend time with my spouse, our pets, our friends and our family. I am tired of being made to feel that my family is less important, since we do not have children or plan to breed.

I will never forgive the persons who have made comments when I was out helping my Mother with my Father during his bypass recovery. After all the slack I pick up for others to be told to my FACE that #1) I had put others out because of my absence and #2) that my Mother should have taken this on by herself and she didn’t understand why I had to be gone for so long #3) did you get rested on your vacation. It is not the company; the company is great. It is some of the workers. I did not put anyone out. No one does my job while I am out. It sits on my desk and I come back to it. I had to work 65+ hours a week for a month when I got back to work from being out with my Parents.

It seems when you pick up the slack, they get used to it and then you are everyone’s personal dumping grounds. Lee, you other comments are ridiculous. I have always found that people who brag about what they have, have nothing. If you have to tell others about it, then it is non-existent.

By Debora

January 17, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, you advice is all fine and dandy but I am a SECRETARY. It is not as though they are going to promote me to an executive. Besides, I am happy with my job. I don’t want a big promotion and more work. I want a reasonable home life balance. I want to spend time with my spouse, our pets, our friends and our family. I am tired of being made to feel that my family is less important, since we do not have children or plan to breed.

I will never forgive the persons who have made comments when I was out helping my Mother with my Father during his bypass recovery. After all the slack I pick up for others to be told to my FACE that I had put others out because of my absence and that my Mother should have taken this on by herself. It is not the company; the company is great. It is some of the workers. I did not put anyone out. No one does my job while I am out. It sits on my desk and I come back to it. I had to work 65+ hours a week for a month when I got back to work from being out with my Parents.

It seems when you pick up the slack, they get used to it and then you are everyone’s personal dumping grounds. Lee, you other comments are ridiculous. I have always found that people who brag about what they have, have nothing. If you have to tell others about it, then it is non-existent.

By lozen

January 17, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

By The Bottom Line GeezGuys—It’s true that many men shirk their familial duties. Is such a character flaw predictable? Seems to me that “modern” women are picking guys primarily for the “excitement factor”, and aren’t putting much thought into deciding if a particular guy is a suitable, long-term partner. Sorry to put the burden of choosing a quality mate onto the woman, but the bottom line biological fact remains that women choose men, not the other way around.

It is a cultural expectation that women and men get married and have children. The world has changed. However, our expectations about family and children have not. In the past, there was a large group to take care of children: parents, aunts and uncles, siblings, grandparents, neighbors our family had known for generations. That does not exist any longer. Women now work outside the home along with men. Our society has made no accommodation for life as we live it in 2008. Therefore, we have these problems we’ve been discussing on this blog. The personal is political. To blame women because they make choices about a mate when they’re very young and don’t think ahead to have a contract about what she will do and what he will do when their child is sick is ridiculous. Our society, our expectations, our businesses, our government, needs to change as our lives have changed over the past 50 years. Men aren’t taught anywhere by anyone that they will need to be responsible for a family. They are not expected to be responsible because we have not adjusted our expectations to keep up with reality in many cases. Women aren’t taught by anyone that men are to be just as responsible for a home and children as they are. Our expectations, in many instances, are based on the family life we saw our parents live when mothers stayed at home and took care of everything in the home and everything that had to do with raising children. It is slowly changing. My son’s generation is much better at accepting the reality of life in 2008 and he takes that responsibility willingly. And for every modern woman who picks a mate for “excitement” there is a modern man who does the same!

By HsvsRsvsesv

January 17, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

watch

By Lee

January 17, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this

By JokeOn, You are missing the whole point. I simply challenged singles to take on the experience of parents just for a few hours, day, or whatever. I DID NOT ask anyone to SUPPORT MY CHILDREN. After all, most of you single folks probably could not afford the lifestyle that my children and I have. My advice to you is to try to think with an open mind.

By Lee

January 17, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

Lee, What is ridiculous is you being someone else’s secretary. I have no reason to lie to please people like you.

By GeezGuys

January 17, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this

*You are saying both that if men were in the situation it would be taken more seriously, and that they would not take heat for it but women still would.

By your statements it should be considered a womans issue because they will always be the ones who take the heat no matter if it is disproportionate or not.*

No, my point was more that instead of trying to weed out women (the maternal profiling Shaunti and Andrea are talking about) employers would realize dealing with kids is like anything else that reduces productivity. I used my example to point out that men weren’t “profiled” for being more susceptible to disciplinary problems. It was just accepted that a certain percentage of soldiers would be lost to such problems. No one tried to avoid recruiting men in favor of women to avoid the problem.

As it is now, children with two working parents is a problem, since kids don’t schedule themselves around their parents work. Yet, it’s percieved as a womens problem, because nobody wants to deal with the current reality…lozen’s post points that out.

By And It Stoned Me

January 17, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

lozen—Thank you for a well-written, reasoned response. I see where you’re coming from, but have some counter-thoughts.

It is a cultural expectation that men and women get married and have children. The world has changed, but expectations have not

With the overall OOW birthrate nearing 40%, I agree that the world has changed. However, is the best solution to continue to give tacit approval to this trend and to create more and more accomodations by employers, et.al. which support this trend?? I really don’t know why folks aren’t happy with the traditional arrangement of two parents, one of whom stays home at least part-time. I suspect materialism is part of the reason. Any thoughts?

Men aren’t taught that they will need to be responsible for a family

I was raised with the traditional value system by which the man is financially responsible for his family. I still have no respect for men who don’t work harder and longer than their wives.

And for every modern woman who picks a mate for excitement, there is a modern man who does the same

Good point! Hopefully, you understand that I’m not so much of a “blamer” in life as I am a “solution-seeker”, lozen. I’m not any kind of a child-rearing expert, but my gut instinct remains that the best environment to raise children is one in which the biological parents—both of them—are physically present as the child grows. I’m speaking from experience as well as theory here. Due to financial circumstances, my mom was able to come to exactly one Little League game in which I played. There was no carpooling where I grew up, I had to hitchhike to school when I missed the bus. Though I had no regrets at the time, I wonder now if my life would have turned out differently if I had had at least a minimum of guidance and parental involvement.

By And It Stoned Me

January 17, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

Oh, the water, Oh the water, let it run all over me…..

By JokesOn

January 17, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

I simply challenged singles to take on the experience of parents just for a few hours, day, or whatever.

If that is your only point, I have already done that. I have two kids myself, but my wife and I are very like minded in thinking that people should minimize the affect their baggage has on others.

I do not see how it is really relevant though. It is not as if kids are the only difficulties in life. And I stand by my point that you are missing: Many of us have sacrificed “wants and desires” in order to remain unencumbered. To have that impacted is frustrating.

By Hara

January 17, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

Where does lozen get off saying things like “That does not exist any longer”. It’s pretty self centered to make a bold statement like that. Where is your proof? Are we to believe this just because lozen said so? Some of you take yourselves way too seriously.

By Al Bumen

January 17, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

I know what you mean, most women want me just for my excitement value. I have a brain you know! I’m not just your boy-toy!

By And It Stoned Me

January 17, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this

Well, guys, I’m thinking about doing the unthinkable and getting a small SUV. I’m getting too old to get in and out of a small car anymore. The paint is shot on my old Toyota and it’s drinking lots of oil now, so it’s definitely past time to get a new one. I looked at the Lexus SUV, but my friends didn’t think it was all that due to road noise, poor gas mileage, and a wimpy stereo system—not to mention the $40K price tag. I think I’ve settled on the Nissan Rogue, which is new for 2008. It gets 27 mpg and costs about 23K loaded.

By And It Stoned Me

January 17, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

Gotta run, but hope everyone enjoyed the snow shower last night. My bunny rabbit was in heaven.

By Debora

January 17, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

Lee, why are you so insecure that you feel that you have to prove some type of self importance to a blog on a newspaper?

Yep I am a secetary and darn proud of the job I do and the life I have.

By lozen

January 18, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

My favorite quote of the week: “There’s one party in Washington. It’s the party of money. It has different wings and factions. But Washington is the party of money. And the wealthiest people in America, the large corporations in America, are busy milking the government for everything they can get.”

By chuck

January 18, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

For those of you who are new to the blog, we have in the past reserved Fridays for less rankerous communication. This communication is generally in the form of jokes or quips. We call it Joke Friday. Let’s play nice today. I’ll start it off with these.

I got a new recipe for Alabama Cookies. You take them and put them in AN IRON BOWL and beat ‘em for about 3 hours.

No worries… (January 18, 2008)

Fresh out of business school, the young man answered a want ad for an accountant. Now, he was being interviewed by a very nervous man who ran a small business that he had started himself.

“I need someone with an accounting degree,” the man said. “But mainly, I’m looking for someone to do my worrying for me.”

“Excuse me?” the accountant said.

“I worry about a lot of things,” the man said. “But I don’t want to have to worry about money. Your job will be to take all the money worries off my back.”

“I see,” the accountant said. “And how much does the job pay?”

“I’ll start you at eighty thousand.”

“Eighty thousand dollars!” the accountant exclaimed. “How can such a small business afford a sum like that?”

“That,” the owner said, “is your first worry.”

By chuck

January 18, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

Why parents go grey…

The boss of a big company needed to call one of his employees about an urgent problem with one of the main computers. He dialed the employees home phone number and was greeted with a child’s whispered, “Hello?”

Feeling put out at the inconvenience of having to talk to a youngster the boss asked, “Is your Daddy home?”

“Yes”, whispered the small voice.

“May I talk with him?” the man asked. To the surprise of the boss, the small voice whispered, “No.”

Wanting to talk with an adult, the boss asked, “Is your Mommy there?”

“Yes”, came the answer.

“May I talk with her?” Again the small voice whispered, “no”.

Knowing that it was not likely that a young child would be left home alone, the boss decided he would just leave a message with the person who should be there watching over the child. “Is there any one there besides you?” the boss asked the child.

“Yes” whispered the child, “A policeman”.

Wondering what a cop would be doing at his employee’s home, the boss asked, “May I speak with the policeman”?

“No, he’s busy”, whispered the child.

“Busy doing what?, asked the boss.

“Talking to Daddy and Mommy and the Fireman”, came the whispered answer.

Growing concerned and even worried as he heard what sounded like a helicopter through the ear piece on the phone the boss asked, “What is that noise?”

“A hello-copper”, answered the whispering voice. “What is going on there?”, asked the boss, now alarmed. In an awed whispering voice the child answered, “The search team just landed the hello-copper”

Alarmed, concerned and more than just a little frustrated the boss asked, “Why are they there”?

Still whispering, the young voice replied along with a muffled giggle:

“They’re looking for me”

By chuck

January 18, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

I think this one will finish covering the topics of the week as far as jokes are concerned:

A man and a beautiful woman were having dinner in a fine restaurant. Their waitress, taking another order at a table a few paces away suddenly noticed that the man was slowing sliding down his chair and under the table, but the woman acted unconcerned. The waitress watched as the man slid all the way down his chair and out of sight under the table. Still, the woman dining across from him appeared calm and unruffled, apparently unaware that her dining companion had disappeared.

After the waitress finished taking the order, she came over to the table and said to the woman, “Pardon me, ma’am, but I think your husband just slid under the table.” The woman calmly looked up at her and replied firmly, “No he didn’t. My husband just walked in the door.”

By chuck

January 18, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

ONE MORE:

The engineer and the manager…

A man is flying a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts, “Excuse me. Can you help me? I promised my friend I would meet him half an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”

The man below says, “Yes, You are in a hot air balloon, hovering approximately 30 feet above this field. You are between 40 and 42 degrees N. Latitude, and between 58 and 60 degrees W. longitude”.

“You must be an engineer,” says the balloonist.

“I am,” replies the man. “How did you know?”

“Well,” says the balloonist, “everything you have told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost.”

The man below says, “You must be a manager.” “I am,” replies the balloonist, “but how did you know?”

“Well,” says the man below, “you don’t know where you are, or where you are going, You have made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now it is somehow my fault.”

Have a great weekend everybody. Especially you Monica. Have fun with those little ones.

By lozen

January 18, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

E. L. Doctorow, “…the politician, usually to get elected, has to appeal to prejudices, symbols, biases, fears, all of the ways we have of not thinking…”

By lyrazel

January 18, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this

Debora, I tend to look at work as owner so my taking up the slack means there is a crew behind me that I can trust. Your office situation is more catty than I am used to dealing with… you defiantly have some pecking order issues with coworkers but I like your attitude that work is NOT the most important thing in life. Maybe it is the be-all-end-all to those you work with… The compassion and regard you give your parents by helping out is worth more than any job could fulfill. Good luck

By Oh Well

January 18, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

By the lack of support for Shaunti’s position this week on the blog, I can only surmise that the old-fashioned ideal of a stay-at-home parent is just that—an outdated idea based on a vision of a “perfect world” which doesn’t exist. Maybe I should just throw in the towel and vote for Hillary. I don’t have the energy to fight anymore.

For the record, I admire any woman who has the courage to bring a child into the world, married or not. Deep inside, I think women are ultimately more courageous than men. I apologize for being disrespecful toward single moms earlier this week. I’m ashamed that we men aren’t better husbands and fathers.

By Dr. Mom

January 18, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

The children are our future. The belief that a mother (or father) should make the sole sacrifice for this future is very old fashioned. If we are to prosper as a people, we must focus on our true bottom line, people. American’s focus on the dollar as the only measure of success needs to be adjusted. As a country we have enough money to sustain everyone (and still allow many do better). Companies who support the family as well as the individual are gaining market share. Consumers want to do business with companies that believe the community is equally important as the bottom line.

It shouldn’t be a question of who is responsible, but who is not.

By Oh Well

January 18, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

I have to say, lyrazel, I was blessed to have the two best assistants any business owner could ask for—we had 20 good years together. I gave them both 4 weeks paid vacation plus unlimited “personal time” in case they needed to leave an hour early for some family reason. I even sent them on a trip to Vegas while I stayed home and watched the shop by myself.

Maybe I am an A-hoe, but at least I’m generous. ; > }

By Oh Well

January 18, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

Dr. Mom—I agree that children are our future. Your vision of “shared responsibility” for raising children in place of the parents bearing personal responsibility sounds a little Big Brotherish to me, however. Even without kids, I paid about $5K in school taxes alone last year due to being a property owner. Heap on top of that about $30K in capital gains taxes, and you’ll have to forgive me if i feel like I’m doing all I can.

By Oh Well

January 18, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

From a life-satisfaction standpoint, I think childless folks like myself end up lacking in the end, however. What good is financial success when you have no one to share it with?

God bless all you parents!

By Dr. Mom

January 18, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this

Thanks Oh Well. I totally appreciate where you are coming from, as I was in my mid-thirties before I joined the Mommy ranks. The idea is not so much Communisim or Big Brotherism, as it is a tolerance and appreciation for what everyone can bring to the table. If we started to appreciate everyones individual contributions to the community as a whole, our children may not grow up believing that “whoever dies with the most toys wins”.

By Lee

January 18, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Well stated Dr. Mom. Debora, get a real job and a life.

By single

January 18, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

As a single person with no kids I can vouch for being taken advantage of by co-workers with children. My company went thru a huge conversion that required EVERYONE to stop whatever they were doing and get this done within 10 days or ELSE. Guess who couldn’t do their part so I ended up at work until 2:30am to do if for them, three days in a row? And then there are the mothers who’s kid is only sick on Monday mornings, Friday afternoons, and three-day weekends … A LOT. If we’ve got to work weekends, guess who gets the pass if LITTLE Johnny’s got soccer? Sorry mom’s you should not be ENTITLED to the same raises nor promotions because you’re at the office less, which in MOST caseS means you’re doing less work. Not ALL cases, but most. The others who have to take up your slack DESERVE to be your boss. They did the work and you went to a soccer game. You can’t have it all