Six reasons NOT to send your daughter to college

[JustPink]

I’m not really following the discussion much, but…you don’t mean “not being abused in general” do you? Because in the wider culture it is abused to the extreme. The “war on women” victim mentality stuff is Exhibit A.

Do you mean in THIS culture here in the US it’s extreme? Or do you mean worldwide?

Considering women in the middle east are legally able to get killed by their families if they get raped (as well as other horrible things), I really wouldn’t say the word misogyny is being abused to the extreme in today’s world…

 

[EasterJoy]

Now that you mention it I can see the mindset though I still find it very difficult to believe that he doesn’t have any believe that women are somehow inferior.if we were on 1950 I would give him the benefit of the doubt but in 2013not so much. Maybe too the fact that even the highly educated catholic men I know that would like a stay at home mom would like one who has an education (I think someone mentioned this in the thread too ) and would look at a woman with no more than high school education as a liability, causes me me suspicion as to the innocence of his opinion. Kinda sad that there are still people with this mindset today.

Actually, if you made me bet, I would bet that he believes women are by far superior in the day-to-day parenting of children, especially small children. He is trying to make sure that superiority is not put to a different use that is less valuable in the big picture. Life is not that simple and I think he is wrong, but I can’t automatically assume he’s arguing in bad faith.

My friends and I have children in middle school and high school now, though, and it is becoming more and more the sentiment that society neglects the degree to which fathers need to make themselves available to their “tweens” and teens. The thinking is that as a child matures there is a need for mothers to gradually back off (lest they be hovering too much for the child to feel his or her parents value their abilities) while fathers need to come more to the forefront because of the importance children attach to having both parents there to witness their projects, goals, and accomplishments.

IOW, by the time kids are in high school, it is not such a huge problem if Mom goes to work for a salary (provided she has some flexibility), but no later than middle school is also time for Dad to back off on his work schedule so he can coach, be involved in hobbies, and be a “fan” of his sons and daughters. For girls, especially, this attention from their dads can make them far less vulnerable to be starved for attention and overly flattered by the attentions of men their own age. The thinking is that families ought to be warned to really save money with both hands earlier in the life of the family, so Dad won’t be too stressed or putting in too many hours trying to make money for tuition and retirement during those last few years the children are living at home. If Mom is available to do some work for money, that could put Dad in the position to give his children the parenting time they could really benefit getting from him.

(You’ll note I’m assuming that supporting a large family, especially if their parents are sending them to Catholic schools and trying to help them with college, will rarely be accomplished in a total of 40 hours of paid work per week. Sometimes, but rarely.)

 

[57thDimension]

I don’t have extra seconds. Most of us don’t.

I find this strange since you’ve clearly spent the time to right a lengthy post that is based primarily on assumptions and incorrect data. If you are concerned about time, I think it would be better to respond to what has actually been written.

Please keep in mind that many of us have been involved with CAF for years, and we know (in an online sense) the other posters and have a general idea of their worldviews. E.g., I happen to be a “fan” of EasterJoy and respect almost everything she says in these forums. If you are commenting on her opinions, I would be inclined to question your posts rather than hers.

I’m not sure I understand your motives in presenting studies about female fertility and higher education. May I request that you plainly state your motives?

We aren’t [supposed to be] dealing with opinions or motives. Your focus on who writes what seems appropriate given your focus on my opinions, and not what is being written. Don’t focus on the people writing - that is how so many people slip into ad hominems.

And although I posted this earlier, I will repeat it. According to statistics, half of marriages in the United States of America end in divorce.

And I’ll repeat myself, as well: you are committing the ecological fallacy.

And although I posted this earlier, too, I’ll repeat it. According to statistics, divorce rates among married couples who use NFP are 1 out of 20. That’s means that 19 women out of twenty will remain married to a man who, presumably, is able to provide for his family. However, 1 out of 20 NFP-using couples will end up divorced, and that woman will be in peril if she has no means of supporting herself.

And I’ll repeat myself, as well: that study was flawed (and it didn’t control for confounders - e.g. waiting until marriage). It also commits the ecological fallacy (that is, regardless of who the person is, they have a 5% chance of divorce). That simply isn’t true. Also, NFP is selective of certain people.

The rest of your post reflects a misreading of my posts combined with assumptions of what I am saying.

From experience with my brother, I would say that older women who have post-high school training/certification that has allowed them to hold down a high-salary job are VERY attractive to many men!

Do you have a source for that? (e.g. not anecdotal)

Something (non-anecdotal) to consider:

For middle-class men, high physical attractiveness can render women desirable for dating, sexual relationships, and even marriage regardless of their occupation, income, and education — provided that they do not exhibit the obvious trappings of a lower-class status and lifestyle. In comparison, women appear unwilling to date, marry, or have sexual relations with low-income, uneducated males regardless of the men’s physiognomies and physiques.

Women with higher SES have higher socioeconomic standards for their male partners (Townsend 1989, 1998; Wiederman and Allgeier 1992). Higher-status women may shift their economic standards because they judge their own mate value to be higher — even though their income and occupational prestige are relatively unimportant to men. Alternatively, they may simply believe that men with inferior status and earning power offer few advantages and therefore do not merit their (the women’s) investment. These explanations are not mutually exclusive (Townsend 1998).

Townsend, John Marshall, and Timothy Wasserman. “Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria.” Evolution and Human Behavior 19.3 (1998): 171-191.

Many men have found out the hard way that a woman with firm skin, a slim figure, and a pretty face is not necessarily a good marriage partner.

Anecdotal evidence (and potential hasty generalization).

 

[57thDimension]

I cannot believe …] uniquely concerns women.

More strawman arguments. Please stop resorting to fallacies.

Let us consider this list of ccupations in which the divorced and never re-married are the most prevalent (that is, does not count the divorced and re-married, but only the currently divorced)

Excellent, now we can get started.

The study they got that data from (McCoy, Shawn P., and Michael G. Aamodt. “A comparison of law enforcement divorce rates with those of other occupations.” Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 25.1 (2010): 1-16.) was, as the title suggests, intended to show that law enforcement don’t have unusually high divorce rates.

The study used simple, raw statistics and a basic formula: (Separated + Divorsed) / (Total Population - Never Married) [sic]

They did not control for any factors at all. However, they did note one important thing, and that is the possible relevance of “the personality of the people who enter the profession” (they go between asking “whether it’s the nature of the jobs that lead to divorce, or if people prone to unstable relationships are drawn to certain professions”). That’s important, as it turns out.

But first: you will notice that the occupations with the lowest levels of divorce are either religious or male-dominated (along with fields related to them). In fact, some occupations (e.g. transit and railroad police, agricultural engineers) do not have statistics on women in their fields because there are so few (e.g. ~0). This is worth noting: gender ratios are important.

For example:

These results also suggest that women and men who work with a larger fraction of members of the opposite sex are more likely to get divorced

The results indicate that women who work in occupations with a larger fraction of male workers are more likely to be divorced, and to a lesser extent, men who work in occupations with a larger fraction of female workers are more likely to be divorced.

(From: McKinnish, Terra G. “Occupation, sex-integration, and divorce.” The American Economic Review 94.2 (2004): 322-325. - see also: Svarer, Michael. “Working Late Do Workplace Sex Ratios Affect Partnership Formation and Dissolution?” Journal of Human Resources 42.3 (2007): 582-595.)

It seems reasonable to point out that some of the occupations with the highest levels of divorce also interact with the most people, and in ‘interesting’ environments.

Now, you ignored my previous mentioning of selectivity, so you should probably go (re-)read it.

Back to personality:

“[a person’s] occupation reliably relates to features of personality (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).” It also relates to extraversion, lack of constraint, and sociosexuality (Gangestad, Steven W., and Jeffry A. Simpson. “Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation.” Journal of Personality 58.1 (1990): 69-96). Sociosexuality has a direct link with divorce risk (e.g.: Seal, David Wyatt, Gina Agostinelli, and Charlotte A. Hannett. “Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender.” Sex Roles 31.1-2 (1994): 1-22., Barta, William D., and Susan M. Kiene. “Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22.3 (2005): 339-360., etc).

The connections are noted between all of these things: “Personality influences the essential choices we make in life including choice of partner, education and career (Marrs, Barb, and Ruggiero 2007; Page, Bruch, and Haase 2002; Wilke et al. 2006)” (Vuust, Peter, et al. “Personality influences career choice: Sensation seeking in professional musicians.” Music Education Research 12.2 (2010): 219-230).

So, “boredom susceptibility” and “sensation seeking” affects both career and marriage (Wilke, A., J.M.C. Hutchinson, P.M. Todd, and D. Kruger. Is risk taking used as a cue in mate choice? (2006): Evolutionary Psychology 4: 367-93). Personality is genetically influenced - not surprisingly, divorce is substantially genetically mediated (nearly 60% heritable) (e.g.: Jocklin, Victor, Matt McGue, and David T. Lykken. “Personality and divorce: a genetic analysis.” Journal of personality and social psychology 71.2 (1996): 288., Johnson, Wendy, et al. “Marriage and personality: a genetic analysis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86.2 (2004): 285).

Unsurprisingly, personality disorders also correlated with lower educational attainment and higher divorce (Ettner, Susan L., Johanna Catherine Maclean, and Michael T. French. “Does having a dysfunctional personality hurt your career? Axis II personality disorders and labor market outcomes.” Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 50.1 (2011): 149-173., Grant, Bridget F., et al. “Prevalence, correlates, and disability of personality disorders in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (2004)., etc).

 

[PRmerger]

Anecdotal evidence (and potential hasty generalization).

Could you please summarize what your position here is on this thread regarding the article in the OP?

Do you agree that daughters should not receive a higher education in college?
Or do you disagree?

 

[57thDimension]

Let’s look at more of the occupations: when you go down the list, you will notice that education doesn’t seem to play as big a part. For example, sociologists have a 23.5% divorce rate, despite the minimum level of education being a master’s degree. In fact, dishwashers, cashiers, and hairdressers all have a lower divorce rate. Mathematicians must have at least a master’s degree, and yet truck drivers, butchers, bus drivers, bakers, and crossing guards have a lower divorce rate (and “less than high school” education requirements). Registered nurses require an associate’s degree at minimum, and yet “Coin, vending, and amusement machine servicers and repairers,” models, mail carriers, lobby attendants, and paperhangers have a lower divorce rate. Painters, construction and maintenance workers require “less than high school,” yet paramedics have a higher divorce rate. Parking lot attendants require less than high school, yet logisticians (minimum of a bachelor’s) and librarians (minimum of a master’s) both have higher divorce rates. “Tank car, truck, and ship loaders” need “less than high school” yet lawyers, astronomers, physicists, computer software engineers, materials engineers, and statisticians all have higher divorce rates (despite educational requirements ranging from a bachelor’s to a doctorate). (All data from McCoy and Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012-13 Edition.)

In other words, there is more to these rates than level of education (and education need not provide a buffer against divorce (e.g.: Chiaburu, Dan S., Gonzalo J. Muñoz, and Richard G. Gardner. “How to Spot a Careerist Early On: Psychopathy and Exchange Ideology as Predictors of Careerism.” Journal of Business Ethics (2012): 1-14)). I made this point previously and I’ll make it again: selectivity is important. If a person has a genetic predisposition towards both fidelity and pursuing education, we are in error to suggest that education leads to a lower divorce rate. Simply: they are co-related. Personality, then, is the independent variable upon which both education and fidelity are based. The types of people who pursue an education are the types of people who are less likely to divorce.

If you know how to correctly quote posts, then one must wonder why in the world you would deliberately cut out the person’s name as well as the link that takes us to the post you quoted.

Already explained.

Especially after it was requested of you to quote correctly by several people. Assuming that you simply did not know how to do it was the most charitable assumption I could make as to why you were posting in that fashion.

Given my manipulation of the quote function to provide the post number (and past usage of the multi-quote function), I think your assumption is entirely incorrect (please take a closer look at it). Basically, if you knew better how the quote function worked, you would realize that I do in fact know. Beyond that, the multi-quote function takes everything from every post selected (which I don’t want, and often quite a large amount).

The CCC says we must always assume the best, and so I was trying to follow suit.

That explains why you’ve assumed the worst of the blogger linked in the OP.

 

[PRmerger]

Beyond that, the multi-quote function takes everything from every post selected (which I don’t want, and often quite a large amount).

That is easily rectified by deleting the superfluous content.

You just need to highlight (right click) and then press your backspace button.

 

[57thDimension]

Aaaand that’s why you need to start posting in the normative way.

If you’re going to use the multi-quote feature then your response is understood to be directed at all the posters you’ve included.

Despite using multi-quote, you misunderstood anyway.

And yes, in cases where I’ve quoted multiple people directing different things at me, perhaps. It’s a stretch to say such a situation then requires all instances of quoting to refer back to the person making the comment (the idea doesn’t require that context).

Beyond that, there is research done on bias towards comments when names are provided versus when they aren’t (a la: Robson, Mark. “The Ethics of Anonymity.” The Modern Language Review (2008): 350-363).

Now, it seems the focus on me will not abate until I start using multi-quote, so, in order to have the discussion move forward, I will do so. (Rarely has a discussion hinged on so minor a point…)

On the whole, I don’t see too many “ideas” coming from your posts

Not quite. In the strict information sense there are lots of ideas (in fact, I would argue that my posts are almost entirely made up of ideas). Opinions, viewpoints, and normative claims are largely missing, though - there’s too much of that here.

rather the presentation of a lot of research which identifies statistical data and correlations and so forth.

Not quite. There are more causal data than there are statistical data. If a person has made a comment in this thread that actually provided some kind of data, they were almost invariably statistical data.

Many here I think assume that you present that data to argue that women should not take up education, and so forth.

Yes, they do assume. A lot. And they are entirely incorrect to do so. I’m surprised at the inability of some to slow down and actually read what I’ve written, rather than assuming non-agreement means disagreement. The ultimate irony of this discussion is that, despite examining the merits of higher education, many are resorting to decidedly un-intellectual arguments - not the greatest testament to higher education (and reinforcing points that people think I am making, too). To be honest, I find it hilarious how quickly people categorized me. Certain posters did the same thing with the individuals rating the thread (that is, assuming that such a rating, with no evidence whatsoever, was an endorsement of the linked blog (and somehow a reason to go apoplectic)).

But your answer above identifies that you don’t advocate repressing women’s access to education, etc. simply that they be aware of the trade-offs which may result, as the data suggests.

Yes. Nothing I’ve said has contradicted that, either. I’ve noticed a lot of incorrect information in this thread being used to support or oppose various courses of action, and I don’t think there is anything wrong in correcting it. I’ve noticed a lot of uncritical analysis in this thread with regards to arguments made in support of college (in general).

The article that was quoted at the start of the thread, and various videos from the same guy, was far more forthright in advocating a position, whereas you do not.

Correct, nor have I. But I doubt few have realized that (and I wonder if some still won’t).

+Sebastian

 

[EasterJoy]

Given my manipulation of the quote function to provide the post number (and past usage of the multi-quote function), I think your assumption is entirely incorrect (please take a closer look at it). Basically, if you knew better how the quote function worked, you would realize that I do in fact know. Beyond that, the multi-quote function takes everything from every post selected (which I don’t want, and often quite a large amount).

You are saying that you not only know how to give us the information we want, but that you are actually going to extra trouble to keep us from having the information we requested, because your opinion about the information we need is more important than ours. Oh, thank you. Thank you so much.

 

[57thDimension]

That is easily rectified by deleting the superfluous content.

You just need to highlight (right click) and then press your backspace button.

It seems I am correct in interpreting your posts directed to me as being patronizing.

You can demonstrate that you have something to add to the discussion by responding to my points, or at least not focusing on me. Right now, you’re doing neither.

+Sebastian

 

[EasterJoy]

Let’s look at more of the occupations: when you go down the list, you will notice that education doesn’t seem to play as big a part. For example, sociologists have a 23.5% divorce rate, despite the minimum level of education being a master’s degree. In fact, dishwashers, cashiers, and hairdressers all have a lower divorce rate. Mathematicians must have at least a master’s degree, and yet truck drivers, butchers, bus drivers, bakers, and crossing guards have a lower divorce rate (and “less than high school” education requirements). Registered nurses require an associate’s degree at minimum, and yet “Coin, vending, and amusement machine servicers and repairers,” models, mail carriers, lobby attendants, and paperhangers have a lower divorce rate. Painters, construction and maintenance workers require “less than high school,” yet paramedics have a higher divorce rate. Parking lot attendants require less than high school, yet logisticians (minimum of a bachelor’s) and librarians (minimum of a master’s) both have higher divorce rates. “Tank car, truck, and ship loaders” need “less than high school” yet lawyers, astronomers, physicists, computer software engineers, materials engineers, and statisticians all have higher divorce rates (despite educational requirements ranging from a bachelor’s to a doctorate). (All data from McCoy and Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012-13 Edition.)

In other words, there is more to these rates than level of education (and education need not provide a buffer against divorce (e.g.: Chiaburu, Dan S., Gonzalo J. Muñoz, and Richard G. Gardner. “How to Spot a Careerist Early On: Psychopathy and Exchange Ideology as Predictors of Careerism.” Journal of Business Ethics (2012): 1-14)). I made this point previously and I’ll make it again: selectivity is important. If a person has a genetic predisposition towards both fidelity and pursuing education, we are in error to suggest that education leads to a lower divorce rate. Simply: they are co-related. Personality, then, is the independent variable upon which both education and fidelity are based. The types of people who pursue an education are the types of people who are less likely to divorce.

Already explained.

Given my manipulation of the quote function to provide the post number (and past usage of the multi-quote function), I think your assumption is entirely incorrect (please take a closer look at it). Basically, if you knew better how the quote function worked, you would realize that I do in fact know. Beyond that, the multi-quote function takes everything from every post selected (which I don’t want, and often quite a large amount).

That explains why you’ve assumed the worst of the blogger linked in the OP.

Let’s cut to the chase, sir.

Imagine I’m your daughter, the recently-graduated valedictorian at the local Catholic high school, at which you serve as a member of the school board. Tell me why my female classmates and I, especially those of us who completed our educations at the top of our college prep high school class, were supposed to stay home and marry–who? one of the few neighbors that are *not *one of our cousins?–instead of going to college.

 

[EasterJoy]

… I made this point previously and I’ll make it again: selectivity is important. If a person has a genetic predisposition towards both fidelity and pursuing education, we are in error to suggest that education leads to a lower divorce rate. Simply: they are co-related. Personality, then, is the independent variable upon which both education and fidelity are based. The types of people who pursue an education are the types of people who are less likely to divorce…

Where is the control experiment, where you survey the people who wanted to pursue an education that their brother got and who were* capable* of doing so, but who weren’t allowed to do it, having been kept instead in their parents’ homes with no education except what they could get for themselves by the use of a library card?

That is what the author is proposing and what seem to be defending, you know: refusing to allow daughters to go to college, and refusing the daughters only.

 

[PRmerger]

It seems I am correct in interpreting your posts directed to me as being patronizing.

You can demonstrate that you have something to add to the discussion by responding to my points, or at least not focusing on me. Right now, you’re doing neither.

+Sebastian

I will no longer respond to any of your posts that have the author’s name deleted.

If you are addressing me, you will need to keep my name so authorship can be established. And context can be maintained. And all the readers will be able to go back to the original post easily.

 

[JustPink]

Already explained.

I understand you have already explained. However, my assumptions that you weren’t posting quotes correctly because you did not know how were done before you explained. And since you asked about why I made the assumptions when I did, I was merely answering. I did not want to assume that you were posting quotes in that way for the reason you later stated, because that would be a rather rude assumption to make about someone, and would come off as me assuming you were mean and petty.

And so like I said, I made the assumption that you did not know because that would have been much nicer and excusable than what turned out to be the real reason.

Given my manipulation of the quote function to provide the post number (and past usage of the multi-quote function), I think your assumption is entirely incorrect (please take a closer look at it). Basically, if you knew better how the quote function worked, you would realize that I do in fact know. Beyond that, the multi-quote function takes everything from every post selected (which I don’t want, and often quite a large amount).

I see that even though you are still erasing the poster’s name and replacing it with the number of the post, I can now see that after PRmerger explained to you how to do it correctly, the posts you are quoting are at least including the link to the post. While before it wasn’t even doing that. But I’ll assume the best and assume that’s just coincidence and that you are not actually lying.

That explains why you’ve assumed the worst of the blogger linked in the OP.

Would you mind referencing me to the “assumptions” you are accusing me of making regarding the author of the article in the OP?

 

[JustPink]

You are saying that you not only know how to give us the information we want, but that you are actually going to extra trouble to keep us from having the information we requested, because your opinion about the information we need is more important than ours. Oh, thank you. Thank you so much.

Exactly. That is why I thought it much kinder to assume he simply did not know.

 

[severus68]

More strawman arguments. Please stop resorting to fallacies.

Excellent, now we can get started.

The study they got that data from (McCoy, Shawn P., and Michael G. Aamodt. “A comparison of law enforcement divorce rates with those of other occupations.” Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 25.1 (2010): 1-16.) was, as the title suggests, intended to show that law enforcement don’t have unusually high divorce rates.

The study used simple, raw statistics and a basic formula: (Separated + Divorsed) / (Total Population - Never Married) [sic]

They did not control for any factors at all. However, they did note one important thing, and that is the possible relevance of “the personality of the people who enter the profession” (they go between asking “whether it’s the nature of the jobs that lead to divorce, or if people prone to unstable relationships are drawn to certain professions”). That’s important, as it turns out.

But first: you will notice that the occupations with the lowest levels of divorce are either religious or male-dominated (along with fields related to them). In fact, some occupations (e.g. transit and railroad police, agricultural engineers) do not have statistics on women in their fields because there are so few (e.g. ~0). This is worth noting: gender ratios are important.

For example:

(From: McKinnish, Terra G. “Occupation, sex-integration, and divorce.” The American Economic Review 94.2 (2004): 322-325. - see also: Svarer, Michael. “Working Late Do Workplace Sex Ratios Affect Partnership Formation and Dissolution?” Journal of Human Resources 42.3 (2007): 582-595.)

It seems reasonable to point out that some of the occupations with the highest levels of divorce also interact with the most people, and in ‘interesting’ environments.

Now, you ignored my previous mentioning of selectivity, so you should probably go (re-)read it.

Back to personality:

“[a person’s] occupation reliably relates to features of personality (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).” It also relates to extraversion, lack of constraint, and sociosexuality (Gangestad, Steven W., and Jeffry A. Simpson. “Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation.” Journal of Personality 58.1 (1990): 69-96). Sociosexuality has a direct link with divorce risk (e.g.: Seal, David Wyatt, Gina Agostinelli, and Charlotte A. Hannett. “Extradyadic romantic involvement: Moderating effects of sociosexuality and gender.” Sex Roles 31.1-2 (1994): 1-22., Barta, William D., and Susan M. Kiene. “Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22.3 (2005): 339-360., etc).

The connections are noted between all of these things: “Personality influences the essential choices we make in life including choice of partner, education and career (Marrs, Barb, and Ruggiero 2007; Page, Bruch, and Haase 2002; Wilke et al. 2006)” (Vuust, Peter, et al. “Personality influences career choice: Sensation seeking in professional musicians.” Music Education Research 12.2 (2010): 219-230).

So, “boredom susceptibility” and “sensation seeking” affects both career and marriage (Wilke, A., J.M.C. Hutchinson, P.M. Todd, and D. Kruger. Is risk taking used as a cue in mate choice? (2006): Evolutionary Psychology 4: 367-93). Personality is genetically influenced - not surprisingly, divorce is substantially genetically mediated (nearly 60% heritable) (e.g.: Jocklin, Victor, Matt McGue, and David T. Lykken. “Personality and divorce: a genetic analysis.” Journal of personality and social psychology 71.2 (1996): 288., Johnson, Wendy, et al. “Marriage and personality: a genetic analysis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86.2 (2004): 285).

Unsurprisingly, personality disorders also correlated with lower educational attainment and higher divorce (Ettner, Susan L., Johanna Catherine Maclean, and Michael T. French. “Does having a dysfunctional personality hurt your career? Axis II personality disorders and labor market outcomes.” Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 50.1 (2011): 149-173., Grant, Bridget F., et al. “Prevalence, correlates, and disability of personality disorders in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (2004)., etc).

Its interesting that anything else anyone cites, like EasterJoy, you put down and you cite more articles. This is getting rather tedious and your refusal to quote the posters’ names, disrespectful. I for one are done responding to you until you post your position directly and quote names too.

 

[JustPink]

I find this strange since you’ve clearly spent the time to right a lengthy post that is based primarily on assumptions and incorrect data. If you are concerned about time, I think it would be better to respond to what has actually been written.

Write*

 

[Julianna]

Geez louise 57 are YOU for or against women going to college? This thread eeds to have the plug pulled already.

 

[pnewton]

If you cannot discuss the points being made, then please don’t respond at all.

+Sebastian

P.S. Your above comment is an ad hominem. Please stop using those.

When it comes to **opinions **on parenting, whether one is a parent or the child is core, not ad hominem. Ad hominem arguments have no bearing in matters of logic or fact, but on something this tied to opinion, it is most critical.

It is not a question to dodge.

 

[Rau]

…In the strict information sense there are lots of ideas (in fact, I would argue that my posts are almost entirely made up of ideas). …
+Sebastian

If that’s so, they are of course other people’s ideas! What’s missing for me I think is that you don’t do anything with all this ‘information’ that you have gathered, other than point to it. Your only takeout seems to be limited to this “yawn” of a conclusion (which I copied from this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11225051&postcount=243

• “The only point I’ve really been interested in making is that there are consequences/undesirable outcomes/opportunity costs/etc for every action (and particularly for delaying marriage). If there is to be any change in attitudes or policy, it should be in making it clear that delaying marriage is not always in a woman’s best interests, and can sometimes lead to serious problems (e.g. the usual increased chance of birth complications, miscarriage, child disability, and so forth, but also the fact that they reduce their chances of getting married as they get older [for a range of reasons]).” *

I call it a “yawn” of a conclusion because most people would agree with this. The debate could perhaps centre around the acceptability of the trade-offs. You could express an opinion, eg. express how you would apply it in the up-bringing of your daughters (and sons)? Are there any morality questions inherent in this issue, or just the practicalities your mention in the above quote? What case is there for a societal commitment to (significant) maternity leave?

The folk on CAF are not proving good at “duelling” research reports with you. Try having a discussion!

PS: What has led you to become so knowledgeable of research in this area?