It stands to reason that its not because of cultural issues that people gravitate to certain things, but because of biology, of which culture THEN shapes a more comfortable reason around it.
While the findings below are interesting, ultimately the conclusions made are not valid since they refuse to accept biology as an answer. Without the acceptance of the different biological, needs, and desires, they are constantly positing things that make no sense.
Given that women are hypergamous, and that they have CHOICE in work when they are in a union (which is a big plus to why they want a union), is it any wonder that they exercise that choice based on the things that are allowed to influence it. If that is a given then isnt it also clear and easy to understand that the mate that has little or no choice in work, or is not allowed to use their mates work as a modifier, would end up not changing their work patterns based on what their mate does?
The amount he works and the returns on that labor are a consideration for women when in a union.
The amount she works and the returns on that labor are not a consideration for men when in a union.
The reason is simple. She looks to him as the anchor, and he looks to her as a satellite that increases the adaptability of the family unit, and therefore increases the plus that a family unit can bring to bear to situations.
His is the immovable object in which situations have no bearing on his work (ask most men and they will confirm that they are expected to work regardless of what’s going on. They do not get a "pink pass"). He sets the base. She, by her actions creates a variable top to that base, she is the situational maximizer. All this makes sense if one were not to ignore things like Hamilton’s ideas of "inclusive fitness".
Rather than the family being a rigid maximum of work (something that the state would want for its socialist purposes damn the needs of the local group), it is an adaptable unit structured to maximize its options in fulfilling its purpose of creating the next generation (or helping the next generation), and maximizing its fitness and abilities.
While feminists and the blank slate politicos wish to make maximal work units, which can be maximally milked/taxed for their political purposes, the family structure that biology imposes fouls this up by creating benefit for the entities that are actually doing the work. Rather than let the polity cheat the family in favor of the leaders, the family takes its cut first and keeps imposing biological structure and behavior that makes sure it benefits. They don’t seem to like this much.
Ultimately many of the changes or situations that they wish to create are not mediated by the men, or the control of the men, but are instead mediated by the women. The women ultimately being very inflexible on these terms. Like having an ambitious and somewhat successful man as a mate vs. a cute do nothing. She is hypergamous, and through mankind’s genetic history, cute do nothing males led to less children. While she may find them fun, she doesn’t find them to be good partners, no matter what the divorce laws say. Nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
Poor men give her fewer options, and her family unit has fewer choices and less success. She can’t see Nancy Pelosi as the one she should support and so she buffers his maximal effort to fit situational needs. They have children; she stays home and insures they get the best, not the minimum wage earner that don’t care (but is somehow worth 100k to feminists). She gets to tutor them, teach them life things, expand their world, etc.
To the chagrin of the communists, her work is not taxable. Which is the whole reason for the brouhaha, as the family gets the value of such expenses, and the only one that actually cares as to how that value is achieved is the statist who desire to tax that value for socialist programs. The socialist gangsters can’t get a cut, and she maximizes her families output.
When the children are older, or not yet here, she can direct those energies to flexible work. increase the savings and marginal living, saving nuts for later and putting the family on better footing for when children arrive, or when they donate to other parts of their family helping them do better. Another area in which the state wants their gangster cut, while claiming to give that back in greater value, which it never does.
So ultimately, the findings below are not all that odd to those who understand biology, and very odd and troubling to those who have described biology in such a way so that our behaviors then dovetail nicely with our exploitation by the state. Its the state that is the exploiter who trades nothing for what it takes, not the employer, who gives salary in exchange for work on mutual terms.
Keep in mind all this when reading, since such informative articles tend to leave out why they are asserting things, why things are a problem, and to what ends they want things for what reasons. Only the state benefits from two workers doing jobs in which they maximize what they can do regardless of family, friends, leisure, and their own lives. We ourselves benefit better from things that follow our biological needs like family, friends, leisure and control over our own lives. Working yourself into the ground for the collective while getting less for your family and having a less healthy family actually serves the workers little. What good is it to maximize earnings in blindness to all other value?
Working overtime has a disproportionate impact on women in dual-earner households, exacerbating gender inequality and supporting the "separate sphere" phenomenon in which men are the breadwinners while women tend to the home, according to research to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.
"Women whose husbands work long hours are more likely to quit their jobs, yet men’s careers are not impacted when their wives put in long hours," said Youngjoo Cha, author of the study and a doctoral candidate in sociology at Cornell University. "This suggests a potential return to the ’separate spheres’ arrangement—breadwinning men and homemaking women—as long hours become increasingly common."
To determine the impact of longer work hours on dual-earner households, Cha analyzed data from the 1996 panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation, a longitudinal household survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau that covers calendar years 1995 through 2000. The sample was limited to dual-earner married couples in professional and non-professional employment.
Cha found that women whose husbands worked more than 60 hours per week were 44 percent more likely to quit their own jobs. However, there was no impact on husbands’ odds of quitting when wives worked long hours.
Results were even more pronounced when Cha isolated professional workers. Professional women were 52 percent more likely to quit their jobs when their husbands worked more than 60 hours per week. As in the case of all workers, overworking wives did not affect the employment status of professional men.
Among professionals, husbands were more than twice as likely as wives to work more than 50 hours per week (30 percent of husbands compared to 12 percent of wives). According to Cha, this suggests that in professional occupations, women are less likely to expect spousal support than men are.
Dual-earner households with children were the most likely candidates for the "separate spheres" arrangement Cha discusses. Professional mothers whose husbands worked more than 60 hours per week were 90 percent more likely to quit their jobs than childless women whose husbands did not work long hours.
The effect of overwork was less in the case of non-professionals, yet still had a negative impact on the employment status of women.
Source: American Sociological Association
Add A Comment