|
01-08-2009, 05:39 PM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DC
Posts: 995
|
Senator track
From the most recent NYT Magazine
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/ma...1&ref=magazine What's interesting to me about these thoughts is wondering whether most traditionalists (meaning mainly those who embrace the 1950s concept of how families should function--which includes many main-stream Mormons) would embrace this view, that the career ladder should be a career lattice. Quote:
|
|
01-08-2009, 06:39 PM | #2 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
I suspect women are given more latitude than men when it comes to re-entering the work force after years off from the fast-track.
What's so great about being career-driven anyway? What's so good about putting in 80 hours a week? |
01-08-2009, 07:37 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DC
Posts: 995
|
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're saying about being "career driven." I don't think that's the point. I'm wondering whether we are really capable of nurturing non-traditional career tracks the way we probably should. And whether we want to. In my ideal world both mothers and fathers contribute more equally to the work force and the home-work force. But it's not as efficient, and I don't think most people even want it that way. |
|
01-08-2009, 07:56 PM | #4 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
Simple fact: the person who is not there is not going to be made the boss.
If you want to be boss, you need to be present. And then the other issue is this: would you rather have an employee who is going to be at work everyday, or one that will take several months off unexpectedly? Which of these two is more likely to progress further, all other things being equal? There will be certain careers for whom the on-off-on model of work is going to be a good fit. but for other careers it will not work as well. |
01-09-2009, 03:09 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DC
Posts: 995
|
Quote:
But you're still off-track. I'm asking about whether we really do value unpaid labor. How much do we talk about how hard a mother's job is and how significant her contribution? How much she has to manage and juggle? And then when they want to switch into the paid market labor, we make distinctions about how it's different, lesser, etc. I watched my mother, who sacrificed her adult life to caring for her children, when she needed to get a job signed up for a gig with barely any pay or hours or respect, but it was what she could get. She was in a bad marriage, and if she had wanted to leave (which I don't know if she did or not), she couldn't have. She had no marketable skills. It limited her choices, and I also think it limited her feelings of self-worth. The social/political/cultural problem as I see it is that we want people to be self-reliant, and yet we want to rely on women to raise children and then the market turns its back on them when they do, in many cases forcing them to donate their ability to be self-reliant in the process. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|