Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

roxy1234

(117 posts)

4. if the per hour rates are the same

Reply to antigone382 (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 06:28 PM

Feb 2013

And the yearly earning are different then some other factors are to blame and if it is women taking more off times to take care of their kids then something else should be blame instead of trying to convince the world that employers are discriminating against female employees

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Women should NOT be economically penalized for bearing children and caring for their families. [View all] antigone382 Feb 2013 OP

shameless kick. n/t antigone382 Feb 2013 #1

Hi, I'm an RN (female) and I'd like to address a couple of points in your post Heddi Feb 2013 #2

Yes, the article mentions that there are important educational distinctions between the two. antigone382 Feb 2013 #3

if the per hour rates are the same roxy1234 Feb 2013 #4

The point is that women face disproportionate barriers. antigone382 Feb 2013 #6

Well the women I work with who are CNA's Heddi Feb 2013 #5

Those are very interesting insights into the world of nursing. antigone382 Feb 2013 #7

A long term fix to our economy... valiberal26 Feb 2013 #8

As an environmentalist, I don't necessarily agree with that. antigone382 Feb 2013 #9

And then when those children grow up, they would also need to have 6 or 7 kids too? How many people uppityperson Feb 2013 #10

Like I said, in an ideal world... valiberal26 Feb 2013 #11

Overpoulation issues aside, I have no desire to subsidize large families. Peter cotton Feb 2013 #12

It is unfortunate to me that the discussion of compensating women for reproduction... antigone382 Feb 2013 #13

That was my point actually. valiberal26 Feb 2013 #17

I don't know that we need to encourage it to the point of six children per family. antigone382 Feb 2013 #18

We already subsidize breeding through the tax code customerserviceguy Feb 2013 #27

ZPG=zero population growth? antigone382 Feb 2013 #31

You are correct customerserviceguy Feb 2013 #33

I believe this conversation is about Texasgal Feb 2013 #16

Post #8 advocated having the government encourage women to have half a dozen children or more. Peter cotton Feb 2013 #23

No not clear Texasgal Feb 2013 #26

Interesting question, but not one I addressed. Peter cotton Feb 2013 #28

The problem I may have is that Texasgal Feb 2013 #29

Why should one stay on topic for the entirety of a thread? Peter cotton Feb 2013 #30

Or we could look at immigration laws gollygee Feb 2013 #14

What! The last thing we need is more overbreeding. smirkymonkey Feb 2013 #15

Long term fix... valiberal26 Feb 2013 #19

Two words: "Carrying capacity". Spider Jerusalem Feb 2013 #21

Only if your model has unlimited resources and opportunity TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #24

I've read your OP and your responses. I believe I understand your points. maggiesfarmer Feb 2013 #20

Interesting points, thanks! I think that general time off for family issues should be compensated. antigone382 Feb 2013 #22

thanks for picking up the humble brag about my daughter, maggiesfarmer Feb 2013 #25

It sounds like you have a good reason to be proud. antigone382 Feb 2013 #32