Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: whose watching the kids
Message-ID: <28311@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 10:24:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl.28311
Posted: Mon Jul 15 10:24:07 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 21:10:28 EDT
References: <540@ttidcc.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 36
Xref: watmath net.singles:7907 net.women:6432 net.politics:9972

> 
> Women have historically "chosen" to take time off to deal with children.
> I submit that men have historically "chosen" NOT to.  If the former chooses
> to do so less, and the latter chooses to do so more often, the workplace
> will adjust to include the notion of "time off" for kids as a universal
> benefit for workers, regardless of sex.  

Unfortuneately, by the time the market adjusts to allow me to do so,
my children will have grown to adulthood so I am unlikely to benefit,
though they may.

> Time-share jobs started out
> just that way, and haven't created massive binds in the market, either.

I didn't mean that the market (if by market, you mean the
employers) would suffer; I meant that in todays world the careers of
*both* employees rather than just of one, would suffer and the family
as a whole would be at a disadvantage with respect to income.

> Yes, I know you can give me a negative example. I can give positive
> examples.  Do we need to go through that exercise?) 

No.

> Of course, men can
> continue to chose NOT to, but what is their gain?

Beats me; I'm on your side.  I was just calling some practical
considerations to your attention (collective form of "your").

> 'course, so many men don't think of it thatta way.

-- 
Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa