I guess you guys have heard the one on how female bosses are better bosses.

Well here is one for you.

A new female CEO is appointed, within the first week, two employees are escorted of the grounds by security guards.

Recently another 4 people have tendered their resignation.

Sick leave has skyrocketed.

SJF - So on this basis, over 95% of people have children. When you combine the strong biological and social imperatives to do so, it’s unrealistic to call it a ‘choice’

Just because 95% of people have children it does not follow that it is not a choice. Exactly what are these biological and social imperatives? If it is an imperative then what is wrong with the other 5%?

There is no such thing as a biological imperative to have children. There may be a strong instinct to have sex but that is not the same as an instinct to have children. The fact that sex can result in children does not make for an instinct to have children.

There are no social imperatives to have children. There may be a great deal of peer and family pressures to have children but many women resist this and so it is not an imperative. It may feel like an imperative to some women but it is not. There may be social situations where people think they have to breed. If we cannot solve social situations without resorting to that solution then we probably do not deserve to continue to exist as a society.

Only women can choose to have children and this discussion about the value of what some have to do as a consequence of their choice is much more about trying to validate their decision to have children than it is about justice. No woman is forced to have a child but many have them for the wrong reasons. Rather than accept responsibility for their personal decisions they often try to shift the guilt onto other sections of society by trying to make their choices appear more worthy than anyone else’s choices. No matter how much compensation they are paid for their choices they will never have enough to appease their guilt.

SJF, would you mind clarifying a few things for me? Your scheme sounds fascinating, but I'm a bit puzzled as to what's in it for "the husband".

For example, I can have a cleaner come in once a week for a day and for well under $200 have the place spotless and all my shirts ironed.

What other benefits accrue to me under your scheme? Sex? The going rate at the local brothel (I checked yesterday) is $50 for the house and $75 per half-hour for the woman providing the service. Let's allow 2 sessions a week, seeing as how there's always a young, attractive girl ready to go. There goes another $250 (you still pay for the unused time in each half-hour block, you see), so I'm now up to $450 and I've got sparkling floors, empty testicles and the world's my oyster.

"Ahah", you cry, "but what about kids?"

Good question. As a single parent, I'm entitled to have over 90% of childcare charges paid by the Governemt, meaning that I pay less that $100 per week for 2 children and if I need a baby-sitter for the nights I'm down at the brothel, I can get the teenaged girl next door to do it for about $20.

I like cooking and have always done the majority of it when in a relationship, but that's OK, we'll call it a hobby.

So, the largest amount I could possibly be prepared to pay my prospective employe...wife, would be about $600/week. I'm afraid I'd have to insist on her having an ABN, or preferably a registered company with proper insurances, as otherwise she may avoid paying herself enough superannuation and the terms would be strictly on a "fee for service" basis.

I'd be prepared to renegotiate annually...

The more i think on it, the more I reckon you're onto something , SJF. Funnily enough, my parents had a scheme back in the 60s whereby Dad paid Mum to stay home - they called it "housekeeping" money.

My original comment on husbands paying wives a salary has attracted all the usual outraged-dude huffies. The comment was made out of a sense of mischief, but I stand by the underlying truth of the argument – i.e. that unpaid carer labour done largely in the home fulfills an important but largely unrecognised and grossly undervalued economic function. Thankfully, some policymakers are finally coming to acknowledge that unpaid labour, especially in relation to children, is a far more complex social issue then just personal choice.

phanto

I am not saying that choice is completely at the mercy of biological and social imperatives. However, it is totally unrealistic to extricate choice from either of them.

For example, as a society we revere war, sport and business for a mixture of biological and social imperatives. Because of this, policymakers have no qualms about committing 100s of billions of dollars of public money to them every year. It’s a choice they rarely, if ever, have to justify.

By stark contrast, and despite a similar combination of biological and social imperatives, we place a very low value (but lots of sentimentality) on the raising of children, and the associated opportunity cost born by mothers (and some fathers) who are primarily responsible for their care. Similarly, any profession associated with children, e.g. teaching, is correspondingly undervalued.

Antiseptic

'...I'm a bit puzzled as to what's in it for "the husband".'

Gee ... I dunno. Is that a trick question? This might seem a bit radical ... but maybe he could just settle for that warm, fuzzy feeling of putting others' interests ahead of his own.

SJF:"maybe he could just settle for that warm, fuzzy feeling of putting others' interests ahead of his own."

LOL. Yet another variant of the "grrrls can do anything, as long as the man pays". All we're trying to work out is how much he pays and what he gets for his contribution. Your preferred option seems to be that he pays everything and is grateful to be aloowed to do so, while the wife has no obligation to do anything at all she doesn't feel like. Not much of a deal for the husband, really, so I think I'll pass this time. Besides, the hookers are young and pretty and good at their work, while the cleaner is old and ugly and just at good at hers. Once, she may have been a hooker, but the years pass...

On the other hand, if it's a loving partnership you're after, then both partners will be doing what they can, contributing where they are best able and the warm fuzzies flow all 'round.

I'm not sure that "marriage as domestic services contract" is quite what most people are looking for, despite your obvious interest in the concept.

antiseptic,

'Besides, the hookers are young and pretty and good at their work, while the cleaner is old and ugly and just at good at hers. Once, she may have been a hooker, but the years pass...'

Man you really need to step outside and smell the roses. Just think about how you have effectively reduced a male-female relationship to sex and cleaning, and the attitude towards women you are portraying.

'I'm not sure that "marriage as domestic services contract" is quite what most people are looking for, despite your obvious interest in the concept.'

Oh man, now you've turned it all around...

I agree with you now, it was SJF who started this concept after all.

You two are as bad as each other. I think you two should get married. I'd pay for tickets in the front row.

BTW SJF: 'My original comment on husbands paying wives a salary has attracted all the usual outraged-dude huffies. The comment was made out of a sense of mischief'

You sure? When anti does that he's considered just a boorish misogynist, and the female posters are rightly offended.