Post: #1

Well I, for one, believe this is totally accurate, not a self-serving rationalization hamster on PED's trying to, as the article says, "silence the critics". I mean who would be so crass as to criticize a woman nowadays, anyway??

As for the impact to society...welllll...what's good for women is good for society. So there.


https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/pa...r-in-life/

Working mothers may finally be able to relax and silence the critics. According to a new working paper out of Harvard Business School, daughters of women who work are more successful later in life than daughters of stay-at-home moms.

Researchers Kathleen McGinn, Elizabeth Long Lingo, and Mayra Ruiz examined data from approximately 50,000 people in 24 different countries over a 10-year period. And they found that women who grew up with moms who worked spend less time on housework, are more likely to be employed, and even hold supervisory positions. These women are also more likely to be financially successful.

In fact, in the United States, daughters of working mothers earned 23% more than those women who grew up with stay-at-home mothers, collecting an average annual income of $35,474 compared to $28,894.

But daughters weren't the only ones affected: Sons also seemed to benefit from having working mothers, but not in relation to their careers. These boys grow up to spend more time "caring for family members" than those with stay-at-home mothers.

"There is no single policy or practice that can eliminate gender gaps at work and at home. But being raised by a working mother appears to come very close to that," McGinn said in a press release "Women raised by a working mother do better in the workplace, and men raised by a working mother contribute more at home."

Post: #2

In other words, having a miserable mother with a stupid job makes the daughter more likely to be miserable with a stupid job.

Post: #3

Notice also how they define "better" as women earning more and men doing more chores. Because history teaches us that THOSE are the hallmarks of a successful culture...[sarcasm off]

Post: #4

I am certain that they buried the stinking rotten body somewhere in that study.

Also the way they call it "may do better" vs "are doing better" is telling.

They link badly to the supposed meta study: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-benefit-...orking-mom

I strongly mistrust it since they use the feminazi transgender gender lingo and focus excessively on things like how many hours father and mothers spend with their children at home as a form of gender-discrimination.

Quote:The survey included several pages of questions related to gender attitudes, home life, and career path. The researchers were primarily interested in the answer to one key question: Did your mother ever work for pay, after you were born and before you were 14?

"It didn't matter to us if she worked for a few months one year, or worked 60 hours per week during your whole childhood," (What bullshit is this???? Did not matter whether it was one of the 50% of female lawyers and doctors who give up their jobs after marrying another doctors or lawyer and never working again? So if she worked in the first 3 months of the pregnancy, then she would count as a "working mom". In addition - 40% of the working moms are dirt-poor doing part-time jobs with their husbands also hardly making good cash, so of course the supplmental income is going to be better.) McGinn says. "We weren't interested in whether your mom was an intense professional, but rather whether you had a role model who showed you that women work both inside and outside the home. We wanted to see how that played out."

The research team aimed to find out whether growing up with a working mom influenced several factors, including employment, supervisory responsibility, earnings, allocation of household work, and care for family members.

Survey respondents included 13,326 women and 18,152 men from 24 developed nations. The researchers based their analyses on responses collected from the 2002 and 2012 surveys. They categorized the countries by their attitudes toward gender equality, both at home and in the workplace.

"Liberalizing Egalitarians" were those countries where respondents' attitudes toward gender were already egalitarian in 2002 and became even more so over the following decade (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, and Slovenia). "Stagnating Moderates" leaned slightly egalitarian in 2002 and remained stagnant in the following decade (Israel, the United States, Great Britain, Spain, Australia, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, and Taiwan). "Stagnating Conservatives" started off with conservative attitudes toward gender roles in 2002 and stayed that way (Chile, Latvia, Mexico, Philippines, and Russia.) (Again bullshit - such comparisons can only be made with economically similar countries - you cannot compare Sweden, Norway or Germany with Mexico, Chile or the Philippines - even Russia in 2002 was a hellhole in great parts - comparing this is like comparing Amazonian bushmen and qualifying all of the women as working moms.

Men tended to report more conservative gender attitudes than women-with the exception of Mexico, where women were more conservative than men, McGinn says.

The researchers controlled for factors including: age; marital status; religion; years of education; urban versus rural dwelling; average Female Labor Force participation in the respondent's home country during the years the respondent was 0 to 14 years old; (Another point - working mom is any mother who worked even for one month for 3 hours per day between a child's age of 0-14. That would include the 1-5% effectively non-working moms with a high IQ who helped at some charity event qualifying this as "working mom") Economic Freedom Index in the respondent's home country during the survey year; Gender Inequality Index in the respondent's home country; and Gross Domestic Product in the respondent's home country. Stripping those things away, they focused on the effects of being raised by a mother who worked outside the home. "The direct effects are significant across the board," McGinn says.

Quote:The data also showed that while being raised by a working mother had no apparent effect on men's relative wages, women raised by working moms had higher incomes than women whose moms stayed at home full time.

Again - how, why, how much, where??????? You have highly divergent countries with an enormous time-frame. Also very suspicious that men had zero effect on net earnings! So they twist the story as a sign that it only has a positive effect on girls showing a wonderful gender-example for the women. Trust me cupcake - only 2% of women have real careers. 60% have shitty jobs that their daughters could do without. And the other 38% who work also have not overly great jobs. And the 2% who do - they are reaching economic strata at which they prefer to quit the job because it's stressful or husbands make enough for both of them.

Some comments:

Quote:Kallol Kar
Below standard research work. When man and woman decide to start a family the unit becomes an alloy and u cannot segregate the duties in terms of manhours

Quote:imjustdelaney
This is a sad article. I have always been a working person and now a mom of 8 and 3 year olds. I've never known anything but working full-time unless I was out on maternity leave. I was married, a single mom, and now I'm remarried. And, for the first time in my life, we are setting up a plan for me to be able to stay home with our kids. My son has mental health issues that seem to be prolific among today's children. Maybe that's perhaps BECAUSE there is a lack of parental involvement at home? We rush to get ready and out of the house in the morning and we rush to get dinner and bed times taken care of in the evening so we can do it all over again the next day. In the meantime, I've missed out on watching my kids grow into the people they're going to become in life. It's not the daycares' job to raise my kids. It's mine. And my husband is supportive of whatever path I take; he just wants me to be happy. If that means downsizing and leaving our dream home and living on a budget so that our kids can be raised by the people who put them on planet earth, that's worth it. Raising children, especially ones that are outside-the-box kids, is not a science. It's not always about the numbers.

Since they have no specific definition of what constitutes working mom, how many hours were really worked by those "working moms", what economic social parts of society they looked at (a cross cut of the entire society or only certain parts), how the working mothers are divided by all those diverse countries, whether changing economic systems were taken into account - Chile, Philippines, Russia especially from 2002 to 2018 is one hell of a change.

The feminazis focus especially on any kind of work and on house chores by the boys. This is so much bullshit that you can throw away the entire crap into feminazi pile of history.

Even without any input into the data I could predict the following:

+ working moms at the bottom are better than dirt-poor unemployed moms
+ middle class and upper class moms who quit work or at best work a little bit part-time are hardly working moms, but they are certainly put into the stats, because they will likely produce the most efficient kids
+ 2002 to 2018 were changing times in many countries with more women pressing into the work-force - has this meta-factor been discounted?
+ did the shitheads include the many new Muslim "stay-at-home" moms in Western Europe?????? Those numbers increased tremendously between 2002 and 2018 - enough to slant the overall results!

Nah - they just publish shit for propaganda goals.

Post: #5

I wonder what do daughters do when mom is at work...

Post: #6

The meta-data study is useless, but the pic above of teenage daughters is inspiring.

Post: #7

(05-12-2018 04:26 PM)blck Wrote:  I wonder what do daughters do when mom is at work...

Post: #8

I think the forum goes overboard with working mothers and women with careers.

Certain careers are masculine and terrible, bad hours, etc, like finance, law. But there are much more enjoyable jobs for women then there are for men. I've personally seen plenty of women maintain their femininity working a low competition office job or teaching. Guys sometimes have no idea how easy it is in a city like NYC or SF for a bitch to make $100k as an office manager or some BS marketing job that they would never give to a man.

I'm undecided on the working wife/mother. If she enjoys the job, keeps it low priority, and brings in a decent amount of money it won't be a deciding factor.

Post: #9

That's because the only women who can afford staying home are welfare queens.

Post: #10

Breaking news: "study" by angry feminist finds angry feminism to be better.

Post: #11

Is this
Working single moms vs non working single moms
Or
Working married moms vs non-working moms

If that variable isn't isolated this study is worthless

Post: #12

Making 6.5k more a year in income than someone else doesn't mean you're doing better in life than they are.

It means you're making more money. And even then, it's real hazy, especially when women are concerned, since they tend to control the purse strings of their significant other.

A girl could be making $0 a year and living a very high status life, that's not uncommon at all.

A guy making $0 a year on the other hand, is probably living in a box under a bridge.

It's absurd to propose that how well one is doing in life equals how much money you're making.

A better study would have been, "track your happiness, from 1 to 10, every day, for a year.

We take the average, and then you'd have a stronger case that one group is doing better in life than another group.

Post: #13

At this advanced age the only women I care about are strippers.

If they produce more strippers, good on them. I'm probably going to live another sixty years.

Aloha!

Post: #14

Kona's indicating he's gonna run for office on a platform :

" "

I think its genius... get his corruption money and corruption poon

Post: #15

(05-12-2018 12:53 PM)The Father Wrote:  Notice also how they define "better" as women earning more and men doing more chores. Because history teaches us that THOSE are the hallmarks of a successful culture...[sarcasm off]

Successful women are rarely successful in any way that men value.

Can she cook, clean, stay in shape, raise great kids or maintain a healthy sex life?

Or are the kids fat and listless but with an exaggerated sense of self worth? Is she overweight? Is she sexual or is the husband miserable but stuck in a marriage with a couple of hostages?

Post: #16

(05-12-2018 10:00 PM)Kona Wrote:  At this advanced age the only women I care about are strippers.

If they produce more strippers, good on them. I'm probably going to live another sixty years.

Aloha!

Wait, why strippers? As Tom Leykis says, being with a stripper is like making a dinner you can only look at but not eat. (Or something like that.)

If you're gonna go this route, why not save the dollar bills and do some kind of an arrangement?

As for me, I don't like tattoos, implants, or any other element of "stripper subculture." Maybe it's different in Hawaii than it is on the East Coast, stripper-wise.

Post: #17

This study is a prime example of the problem with modern science/rationalism. It argues under the assumption of progress that women everywhere are happier in the workforce, and then proceeds to cherry pick data that supports that claim, while ignoring several other factors outside of work that provide women contentment in life.

Post: #18

Well this is a classic case of devil being in the detail.

What is a "working mother"? What is to "do better in life"?

Once the kids are at school I'd be very suspicious of a woman who didn't work in some capacity. With modern technology just what the hell is there to do? Housework can be done in an hour, no problem.

If a woman is back to work ASAP when her baby is still a baby then I would assume that that woman is either dirt poor and has to work, or is mentally ill in some capacity. No woman should desire to be away from her children, certainly not to slave away in some BS make-work job just so they can continue to be good consumers for The Man.

I wonder if the children are grateful that mommy can afford new handbag but not spend time with them.

Post: #19

Researchers Kathleen McGinn, Elizabeth Long Lingo, and Mayra Ruiz = Research was not conducted by competent researchers thus making the research not valid or worthy of reading.

Professor McGinn studies the role of gender and social class at work, at home, and in negotiations. = Cultural Marxist and never had a real job

Elizabeth’s research, teaching, and consulting focuses on how entrepreneurs, innovative leaders, change makers and creative producers advance their ideas from concept to implementation. = Never had a real job and has never been a successful entrepreneur

Mayra Ruiz - "I promote a greater understanding and the implementation of positive practices in the field of diversity, inclusion and equality in organizations through research, teaching and consulting." = Cultural Marxist also never had a real job

Also all three are childless and single. At least they appear to be.

Watch out for my research paper on the 3rd Trimester and what to expect.

At MIT I had a awesome professor that told us to read research papers like a VC reads a business plan. Flip to the back of the research paper and first look at the mathematical superstructure of all the data being cited and who was behind the actual data. Then dive into the background and experience of the team members or authors of the paper. If all that passes a solid smell test then the paper is worth fucking reading. He said it just like that.

He was also a professor with industry experience and made millions after getting his PhD. Being a professor was his retirement job.

Post: #20

If modern ‘wisdom’ is to be believed:

Children are better off without fathers

And

Daughters are better off with absent mothers,

Then

Children are better off as feral orphans.

Post: #21

Making more money=better life

Forget all the increased depression, drug addiction and other mental health issues, overall loss of income because more divorce and having kids out of wedlock. Sounds like a better life to me.

Post: #22

(05-13-2018 09:26 AM)realologist Wrote:  Making more money=better life

Forget all the increased depression, drug addiction and other mental health issues, overall loss of income because more divorce and having kids out of wedlock. Sounds like a better life to me.

Don't forget what they leave out = higher taxation.

Who cares if you earn more than [imaginary life X] when you are taxed a lot to get that new "life." Stats are in the details, of course the devil is there too.

Post: #23

(05-13-2018 05:50 AM)N°6 Wrote:  If modern ‘wisdom’ is to be believed:

Children are better off without fathers

And

Daughters are better off with absent mothers,

Then

Children are better off as feral orphans.

I mean, there was that thread about the Spaniard raised by wolves. Only started having problems when he dealt with modern civilization.

Post: #24

(05-12-2018 12:47 PM)The Father Wrote:  Well I, for one, believe this is totally accurate, not a self-serving rationalization hamster on PED's trying to, as the article says, "silence the critics". I mean who would be so crass as to criticize a woman nowadays, anyway??

As for the impact to society...welllll...what's good for women is good for society. So there.


https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/pa...r-in-life/

Working mothers may finally be able to relax and silence the critics. According to a new working paper out of Harvard Business School, daughters of women who work are more successful later in life than daughters of stay-at-home moms.

Researchers Kathleen McGinn, Elizabeth Long Lingo, and Mayra Ruiz examined data from approximately 50,000 people in 24 different countries over a 10-year period. And they found that women who grew up with moms who worked spend less time on housework, are more likely to be employed, and even hold supervisory positions. These women are also more likely to be financially successful.

In fact, in the United States, daughters of working mothers earned 23% more than those women who grew up with stay-at-home mothers, collecting an average annual income of $35,474 compared to $28,894.

But daughters weren't the only ones affected: Sons also seemed to benefit from having working mothers, but not in relation to their careers. These boys grow up to spend more time "caring for family members" than those with stay-at-home mothers.

"There is no single policy or practice that can eliminate gender gaps at work and at home. But being raised by a working mother appears to come very close to that," McGinn said in a press release "Women raised by a working mother do better in the workplace, and men raised by a working mother contribute more at home."

Roastie logic it seems. Btw, WB the author but only pump and dump.

Post: #25

Even if we just talk financially...

Quote:In fact, in the United States, daughters of working mothers earned 23% more than those women who grew up with stay-at-home mothers, collecting an average annual income of $35,474 compared to $28,894.

How quickly will they blow that 23% difference and then some on:

- eating out
- alcohol
- anti-depressants
- excessive travelling
- day care + babysitting

And that's not even close to a full list for "career" bitches.