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