|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2005 : 18:03:44
|
Does anyone else have female friends popping out of the woodwork who are gleefully announcing their lifetime commitment to be "child free"? I'm trying to figure out if this is some new cultural phenomenon.
One sociological study on child free women:
http://www.raleighnokidding.com/misc/Study_Report.pdf
I was surprised that never wanting to be pregnant was so low on the reasons to be childfree (only 3%) And concerns about overpopulation was a reason for only 5% of the subjects. And I was totally SHOCKED that for 73%, career was not a factor.
The only part of the study that bugged me was how 78% felt that people with children got more than their fair share of benefits in the workplace. This comment killed me: "While parents in the workplace have been allowed to take unofficial time off to tend to the needs of children, no such arrangement has been made for childfree people".
WTF? Even in the statement it says the "needs" of children. If one doesn't have children then why would that person need such unofficial time off? This mentality in American culture that only parents (and not society, too, to some degree) are responsible for the welfare of future generations is just bizarre to me.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
Edited by - marfknox on 07/25/2005 18:05:25
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 18:16:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Does anyone else have female friends popping out of the woodwork who are gleefully announcing their lifetime commitment to be "child free"?
Such as myself? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 18:34:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Does anyone else have female friends popping out of the woodwork who are gleefully announcing their lifetime commitment to be "child free"?
Only a friend of a friend. She made this "commitment" when she was young, but as time has passed by and the clock ticked, she's starting to warm to the idea of actually having one. This is what I naively would think is fairly common. As the number of reproductive years left decreases, the will to have children increases. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 18:38:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
This comment killed me: "While parents in the workplace have been allowed to take unofficial time off to tend to the needs of children, no such arrangement has been made for childfree people".
WTF? Even in the statement it says the "needs" of children. If one doesn't have children then why would that person need such unofficial time off? This mentality in American culture that only parents (and not society, too, to some degree) are responsible for the welfare of future generations is just bizarre to me.
Well, when you're asked to stay late to catch up work because so-and-so had to leave early to take their kids to a doctor's appointment, it isn't about the welfare of future generations. It's about an obviously unfair work arrangement. It's bizarre to me that parents think people without kids should have no problem getting routinely screwed over at the workplace. People who would never normally shirk responsibilities think it's perfectly acceptible if it's "for their kids." I think it's bizarre parents expect to do less work, get "unofficial" time off, and yet expect the same pay--in some case more, since they have families to support.
I'm sure raising a family is hard, and employers should be willing to accomodate parents, but not at the expense of employees without children. You seem to be supporting a double-standard.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/25/2005 18:46:09 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 19:27:09 [Permalink]
|
The real "horror" of it, H, is that your tax bill might be considerably lower if you (the childless) weren't paying for public schools and other such government endowments of the parents.
But we - as a society - have decided that children are a good thing to encourage, and educated, healthy children are even better. So not only do the childless pay a disproportionate per-capita amount of school taxes, they also might be left holding the bag when some parent invokes their rights under the Family Medical Leave Act to go get a sick kid out of school and to the doctor's office.
On the other hand, if the childless coworkers are being illegally made to work (for example, being denied overtime), that's a different issue and there are laws to prevent that. In fact, it should be the parent who makes up whatever work they miss, as the FMLA isn't a "get out of work free" pass.
Parents don't "bizarrely" expect any of this - Congress told them to do it. Blame your Senators and Representatives (most of whom have kids, so it might be difficult to find sympathy there). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 19:38:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Parents don't "bizarrely" expect any of this - Congress told them to do it. Blame your Senators and Representatives (most of whom have kids, so it might be difficult to find sympathy there).
Yes, there are workplace programs and benefits in place for parents. But the original comment was specifically addressing the issue of unofficial time off, meaning the abuse of company time outside of such programs. In that, parents should not expect to be treated any differently that someone who takes unofficial time off for any other reason.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/25/2005 19:46:23 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 19:59:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
But the original comment was specifically addressing the issue of unofficial time off, meaning the abuse of company time outside of such programs. In that, parents should not expect to be treated any differently that someone who takes unofficial time off for any other reason.
Ah, you're correct, of course. My mistake.
And at this point, I must admit to near-complete ignorance about how most of the "working world" works. At 18, I got into a professional workplace, and haven't left. We need extra time? So long as one has enough accrued paid time off, or can otherwise make up the time, just let the supervisor know.
To my knowledge, none of my coworkers have ever even been asked to work late to cover someone else's absence (although I imagine if it has happened, it's happened in accounting, given their biweekly deadlines for payroll). And I've seen people go out of their way to stay at work when a deadline is looming, rather than leave work for a kid with the sniffles. Not quite "tell little Jimmy to keep direct pressure on the wound while he walks home from school," but I've definitely overheard people make deals with their in-laws in order to avoid leaving work.
Perhaps my company is abnormal. I really couldn't say, having a personal sample size of one (more or less, but that's a longer story). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 20:19:16 [Permalink]
|
As a childless wife, I have absolutely no trouble with paying taxes for schools and libraries. When I picture being old and frail, I want educated people taking care of me, not a bunch of mouth-breathing religionists who think that I have health problems because I haven't been praying enough. Besides, plenty of childless adults in my hometown paid taxes to support my schooling.
On the issue of deciding to be childless: I never really firmly decided one way or the other. I like kids, but I never felt financially stable enough to comfortably consider bringing a child into the household. Then I found out that I can't carry a child. My response was relief, in that I no longer had to decide whether or not I wanted kids. But I'm not some kind of childless activist or anything.
What I find amazing is how many women are so focused on being mommies, and find infertility emotionally devastating. I have had goals that I have achieved and goals I didn't, but I never felt that any one of them was make-or break for my self-esteem. |
trish |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2005 : 22:44:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And at this point, I must admit to near-complete ignorance about how most of the "working world" works. At 18, I got into a professional workplace, and haven't left. We need extra time? So long as one has enough accrued paid time off, or can otherwise make up the time, just let the supervisor know.
To my knowledge, none of my coworkers have ever even been asked to work late to cover someone else's absence (although I imagine if it has happened, it's happened in accounting, given their biweekly deadlines for payroll). And I've seen people go out of their way to stay at work when a deadline is looming, rather than leave work for a kid with the sniffles. Not quite "tell little Jimmy to keep direct pressure on the wound while he walks home from school," but I've definitely overheard people make deals with their in-laws in order to avoid leaving work.
Perhaps my company is abnormal. I really couldn't say, having a personal sample size of one (more or less, but that's a longer story).
Obviously policy varies from workplace to workplace, but for the most part I see more companies willing to do their best to accomodate people's schedules, either through telecommuting or variable hours. And for the most part, co-workers and managers alike understand the pressures of real life and are more than happy to work together to find a solution that works for everybody. Of course I find all this a good thing. But it is a situation that requires give and take, and people who only take (whatever their excuse, be it children, ill health, or elderly parents) quickly become a source of malcontent in the workplace. I don't see any reason why single workers who fill in for an absent parent shouldn't be accorded that time off later.
Basically my problem isn't with allowing parents to tend to family emergencies, but with marfknox's sentiment that if one doesn't have children they don't deserve equal (if informal) time off. We all have lives we'd rather be living outside of work. If someone is permitted to be let out of work early to pick up the kids from soccer practice, I would expect equal flexibility if I submitted a request to leave early for a reason unrelated to child care.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/25/2005 22:45:12 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 07:18:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The real "horror" of it, H, is that your tax bill might be considerably lower if you (the childless) weren't paying for public schools and other such government endowments of the parents.
But we - as a society - have decided that children are a good thing to encourage, and educated, healthy children are even better. So not only do the childless pay a disproportionate per-capita amount of school taxes, they also might be left holding the bag when some parent invokes their rights under the Family Medical Leave Act to go get a sick kid out of school and to the doctor's office.
On the other hand, if the childless coworkers are being illegally made to work (for example, being denied overtime), that's a different issue and there are laws to prevent that. In fact, it should be the parent who makes up whatever work they miss, as the FMLA isn't a "get out of work free" pass.
Parents don't "bizarrely" expect any of this - Congress told them to do it. Blame your Senators and Representatives (most of whom have kids, so it might be difficult to find sympathy there).
FMLA isn't a onesy-twosy type of deal. It's for long term illnesses. And all it does is hold your job open while you're gone. You still burn through sick and vacation time while off on FMLA and earn none. (Some differences as each employer has different rules) Once your FMLA time is up, you can either go back to work, or the employer can fill your position. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 07:23:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Does anyone else have female friends popping out of the woodwork who are gleefully announcing their lifetime commitment to be "child free"? I'm trying to figure out if this is some new cultural phenomenon.
And some women have decided that having children is not the end all be all of female existance. That particular cultural norm is now challenged because people no longer accept women as property but as complete human beings. My sister-in-law doesn't want kids because she is too busy.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 07:27:16 [Permalink]
|
| Well, where I work at people have the option to work at home (unless, of course, it's utterly necessary for their job to be at workplace). It's a good option for parents, methinks. Company will provide you with a laptop or some other mobile device if needed, grant you wireless connection and all, as long as you make sure you follow said company's confidentiality guidelines (such as not leaving classified material where anyone can see and whatnot). |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 15:56:50 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote:
“Basically my problem isn't with allowing parents to tend to family emergencies, but with marfknox's sentiment that if one doesn't have children they don't deserve equal (if informal) time off. We all have lives we'd rather be living outside of work.”
We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one, but let me explain and illustrate why I take the position I do.
If you have a job at a university or other place with lots of infrastructure, if you make a stable middle-class income, if there are two parents or at least other family to help out, then you probably don't need any special, unofficial privileges at work. Alas, there are plenty of single parents who work low income jobs. If bosses at some of those jobs are willing to specially accommodate such employees, even at a slight expense of other employees, we are all better off.
Now the illustration: I worked for 4 years at a locally owned coffee house that was successful enough to have about 30 employees and start opening more stores around town. Two of my coworkers were dating, and eventually the woman got pregnant, and they decided to get married. By the time the baby was born, the father was in line to be a manager at one of the new stores, and the mother was offered a desk job at headquarters where she'd enjoy an increase in pay and a 9-5, M-F work schedule. While those two people were indeed qualified for those positions, everybody knew that they were selected above other qualified candidates because they had a kid.
Another example – at that coffee house it was policy that supervisors had to work at least one weekend shift, and that none could count on having the same schedule week by week. But one of the supervisors had three kids, so they made an exception and let her work morning shifts, M-F. (This meant that sometimes us other supervisors would often have to work a couple weekend shifts.)
I see it as akin to what also happens with elderly and handicapped employees. The same coffee house I worked at hired a disabled person, and waved the company policy about requiring all employees to be able to do all the various jobs in the store. The same coffee house also gave a pay increase to an employee after he suffered from an unexpected heart condition and fell deep into medical debt.
I am in full support of businesses that favor certain employees when special needs arise.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 16:07:46 [Permalink]
|
This increase in the number of people making a clear life-choice to not have kids is being called the “childfree movement” by a lot of my female friends. A pretty nifty thing, in that having children should be a conscious and carefully thought out choice, not a social expectation of women or married couples.
I am not choosing to be child free. My husband and I plan to adopt two kids once we're financially stable enough. Adopting for two reasons – I don't want to physically have kids, and neither of us want to bring more children into the world when we don't have to in order to be parents.
Related to pressure on child-free people to have kids, I have been pressured by my own liberal parents to have kids the natural way. They consider my choice to adopt to be “selfish”, and I consider their desire to have grandkids that resemble them vain. We haven't yet told my in-laws that we plan to adopt. We figure we won't until we've started the paperwork. But I'm hoping they'll be cool and not judgmental.
I seriously don't get why parents get so nosy about kids once you get married. As if it was our responsibility to produce grandkids for them.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 16:46:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
WTF? Even in the statement it says the "needs" of children. If one doesn't have children then why would that person need such unofficial time off? This mentality in American culture that only parents (and not society, too, to some degree) are responsible for the welfare of future generations is just bizarre to me.
WTF indeed. It does seem like it's difficult these days for some people to understand the concept of individuals taking responsibility for the decisions they make. Discouraging responsibility for one's choices by placing any of that responsibility on others only encourages irresponsibility, of course.
If X amount of unofficial time off is available to one employee, that same amount of time should be available to every employee, of course. And of course it's not anyone's responsibility to take up someone else's slack in the workplace because of choices made about their lives outside the workplace. If Joe drills 1,000 holes a day and Mike drills 1,000 holes a day, they should get paid the same amount, of course. And if Joe drills fewer holes because he left early to pick up his kid at soccer practice, or showed up late because he had a hangover, or took a long lunch to work on his hobby, his net pay should be reduced to reflect the difference in productivity, of course.quote:
Originally posted by marfknox...
I am in full support of businesses that favor certain employees when special needs arise.
Sounds like discrimination to me. Exactly what source should be referenced to determine what is and is not a need?
Everyone, whether they have children or not, pays taxes that help support everyone else's children, as if it was their responsibility. That, of course, more than accommodates the social responsibility requirement. Situation resolved.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2005 : 17:20:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Sounds like discrimination to me. Exactly what source should be referenced to determine what is and is not a need?
Why marfknox, of course.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
