1.09.2006
RE: previous post, or, more on gender and work
That was a total lie. I am not 100% tired of talking about this stuff, as my brother pointed out, or I would not have posted about it. So I hereby retract that statement.
Re. David's comment. That makes sense, except that if you have multiple children then it's not a matter of spending 2 years out of the workforce, but 4 or 6 or 8. So I'm not saying that everyone should/would make this decision or even that I would personally, but it's possible that it's worth it to have daycare eat up most or all of one person's income in order to keep working. Either way, you're going to lose one income--you could do it staying home with your kid(s) or you could do it paying someone else to take care of your kid(s) for 8-10 hours a day while you work and advance your career. In some/many professions, taking 6 or 8 years out for rearing children would not just stall a career, but reverse it.
There are also, I think/hope, some happy mediums in between these two rather harsh options, including staying at home for 6 months or 1 year per child, rather than 2 full years. I'm also fervently hoping that, as time passes, it becomes more and more possible to do some combination of telecommuting or part-time work with part-time child care, either in the home or outside it. (As a veteran babysitter, I think you're kidding yourself if you think it's possible to work from home while taking care of a child of almost any age.) This should be especially possible for those of us with portable skills who aren't in high-earning, fast-paced, 60-hour-a-week careers in business or law or whatever it is that those high-earners do. (Aside: Who makes those huge salaries? Everyone I know is a teacher, a social worker, a writer, a social activist, or a Jewish communal professional.)
As far as "Who pays on a date?" goes, David's comment about the importance of social etiquette make sense to me. I guess I just feel that sometimes it's about social convention and not all about that other stuff, which is pretty much what David was saying. And the current social convention seems to be that the guy pays the entire bill on the first date, although the woman offers to split the bill. After the first date, I think it depends. Ken Wheaton over at the Nondating Life has something to say about who pays from at least one guy's perspective, but some of these people are spending far more on dates than I would ever want to anyone to spend on me.
And that's all I'm saying about dating on this blog, possibly forever, as the gantze mishpocha reads it.
Re. David's comment. That makes sense, except that if you have multiple children then it's not a matter of spending 2 years out of the workforce, but 4 or 6 or 8. So I'm not saying that everyone should/would make this decision or even that I would personally, but it's possible that it's worth it to have daycare eat up most or all of one person's income in order to keep working. Either way, you're going to lose one income--you could do it staying home with your kid(s) or you could do it paying someone else to take care of your kid(s) for 8-10 hours a day while you work and advance your career. In some/many professions, taking 6 or 8 years out for rearing children would not just stall a career, but reverse it.
There are also, I think/hope, some happy mediums in between these two rather harsh options, including staying at home for 6 months or 1 year per child, rather than 2 full years. I'm also fervently hoping that, as time passes, it becomes more and more possible to do some combination of telecommuting or part-time work with part-time child care, either in the home or outside it. (As a veteran babysitter, I think you're kidding yourself if you think it's possible to work from home while taking care of a child of almost any age.) This should be especially possible for those of us with portable skills who aren't in high-earning, fast-paced, 60-hour-a-week careers in business or law or whatever it is that those high-earners do. (Aside: Who makes those huge salaries? Everyone I know is a teacher, a social worker, a writer, a social activist, or a Jewish communal professional.)
As far as "Who pays on a date?" goes, David's comment about the importance of social etiquette make sense to me. I guess I just feel that sometimes it's about social convention and not all about that other stuff, which is pretty much what David was saying. And the current social convention seems to be that the guy pays the entire bill on the first date, although the woman offers to split the bill. After the first date, I think it depends. Ken Wheaton over at the Nondating Life has something to say about who pays from at least one guy's perspective, but some of these people are spending far more on dates than I would ever want to anyone to spend on me.
And that's all I'm saying about dating on this blog, possibly forever, as the gantze mishpocha reads it.
# posted by Abacaxi Mamao : 1/09/2006 08:23:00 AM
Comments:
<< Home
I consider myself lucky to never have been part of the Jewish Dating scene - Sarah and I fell for each other when we first met (or at least I fell for her, and do a great "stalker" routine ;)
So my comments on dating are a bit dated (rimshot!) and might not be reflective of anything in particular.
Is there something broken in the system where the guy pays for the first date, and then after that it's either switch-off, or "asker pays"? If not, why fix it?
So my comments on dating are a bit dated (rimshot!) and might not be reflective of anything in particular.
Is there something broken in the system where the guy pays for the first date, and then after that it's either switch-off, or "asker pays"? If not, why fix it?
Nothing wrong with that at all. It just seems that some men don't want women to pay at all, ever. Barring that possibility, the system you mention sounds wonderful.
And be thankful that you were never part of the Jewish dating scene. I don't know what it's like for men (obviously), but women are subjected to profiles that say things like (these are direct quotes):
> My ideal match would be a fine
> modern Orthodox girl, although to
> the modern side, I would want her
> covering her hair and dressing
> properly. Someone who likes to
> have a good time (like
> Adventurous), Attractive looking,
> to the taller and thinner side,
> and easy to deal with."
Easy to deal with?!? My foot!
-and-
> I'm looking for a nice girl who is
> easy-going. A good-hearted person
> who gets along well with others -
> especially me :) Preferably she
> pays attention to the world around
> her and has something to say about > it. Not opinionated, more
> interested and curious.
All issues of poor English and writing aside, my burning question upon reading this profile was: What should she have to say about the world if not her opinion? She should spout other people's opinions?
I was going to devote a post to this, but decided that I'd rather hide in the comments for now. I may change my mind later. Or not.
Post a Comment
And be thankful that you were never part of the Jewish dating scene. I don't know what it's like for men (obviously), but women are subjected to profiles that say things like (these are direct quotes):
> My ideal match would be a fine
> modern Orthodox girl, although to
> the modern side, I would want her
> covering her hair and dressing
> properly. Someone who likes to
> have a good time (like
> Adventurous), Attractive looking,
> to the taller and thinner side,
> and easy to deal with."
Easy to deal with?!? My foot!
-and-
> I'm looking for a nice girl who is
> easy-going. A good-hearted person
> who gets along well with others -
> especially me :) Preferably she
> pays attention to the world around
> her and has something to say about > it. Not opinionated, more
> interested and curious.
All issues of poor English and writing aside, my burning question upon reading this profile was: What should she have to say about the world if not her opinion? She should spout other people's opinions?
I was going to devote a post to this, but decided that I'd rather hide in the comments for now. I may change my mind later. Or not.
<< Home
