Re: [Phys-l] Women Earn 46% of Undergraduate Math Degrees butRepresent Only 8% of Math Professors ??

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

This is a subject G. Hardin dealt w/ at great length from many 
directions, environmental, moral, economic, social, etc.  He was seen as 
a radical then w/ some lefties accusing him of fascism and even sexism.  
Bartlett is somewhat the Colorado version.

My first post was hours after I'd written so I'll add.

The Swedish evidently believe in at home people.  The wife of my 
friends' recently fathered son abandoned them.  He stayed at home w/ a 
munificent grant to raise his child 'till school age.  The language has 
a word for house husband.  I wondered why Sweden could afford cradle to 
grave support, e.g. education, health, the above example, etc.  then 
realized it's probably because Sweden no longer has an empire.  Erik 
told me when he married Carla, his tax reduction was so great he had 
just as much disposable income.  After raising her two boys she returned 
to elementary teaching.  I must ask if her /elem. ed. cred. from UCSB 
was all she needed in Sweden.  My wife's B.A. from UCSB was sufficient 
for her to trench music in an infant school in England. 

Rant:  And I can't substitute teach in Calif., because I haven't passed 
the CBEST, even w/ a Ph.D.

Richard Tarara wrote:

> What's been 'forced' on people is the expectation that one must live at a
> level beyond the means of a single salary--pretty much regardless of how
> high that single salary is. 

Not initially true.  Since ~ >1975 children can no longer expect to be 
'better off" than their parents.  This is a result of the graduates of 
the trilateral commission beginning w/ Carter and accelerating w/ Reagan 
(not a member, but hired them).  In the UK it was Thatcher.  In order to 
keep up w/ their parents spice must work.  I agree the zeitgeist now 
compels those fortunate enuf not to work to also work.  It's curious 
that the cpc * crowd excoriate the middle class for abandoning their 
children to nannies and child care, and then force poor mothers into 
workfare.

* conservative politically correct

> There IS a real problem at the lowest end of
> the socio-economic spectrum, but there is also the problem that children
> are produced by people who don't have the economic (and sometimes other) 
> means to raise them.
>
> This is probably another topic where we should turn to the research--and I
> have seen only a little--to see what it says about sending children--0-5
> years old--off to day care versus full-time parental nurturing.
>
> Rick [Wondering also who JC thinks is responsible for this care--the tax
> payer?]
>
> [Dealing with women in the workforce with statistics, is a prime example of
> where we need to remember Mark Twain's musings on statistics.  Probably the
> best (and worst) that can be said is that it is getting better but is not
> yet perfect.]
>
>
>  
>
> > [Original Message]
> >    
> >
> > Come on, this is silly.  The problem of care for children is a major one
> > that our country has not faced up to.  Some European countries provide
> > excellent care so that the mothers can work.  Working mothers is now an
> > economic imperative.  That is also a problem, but one which has been
> >    
> forced
>  
>
> > onto people and is not just a matter of choice.
> >
> >    
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
>
>