blatant NWO sexism in NYT
NYT says families with all girls are more likely to divorce or separate and somehow this negatively affects the national economy. Yeah right.. If anything, the opposite is true but that's applying the same kind of sexism. (Commentary + Repost)
"Over the last 60 years, parents with an only child that was a girl were 6 percent more likely to split up than parents of a single boy. The gap rose to 8 percent for parents of two girls versus those of two boys, 10 percent for families with three children of the same sex and 13 percent for four. Every year, more than 10,000 American divorces appear to stem partly from the number of girls in the family.
Whatever the cause, and there are some prime suspects..."
Uh huh.. Notice how they don't cover mixed gender offspring or fraternal twins (1 boy, 1 girl or 2 girls, 1 boy.. etc.) The next paragraph starts with words whatever and "some prime suspects" which means this author and his collaborators are pulling data from uncited sources in addition to Census findings they don't want to identify, like possibly the Heritage Foundation or some insurance company's reports which are nearly always biased to favor neoliberal and neoconservative long-term economic agendas.
Notice it's in the business section of the NYT, not Science or anywhere else probably because it got rejected by all other section editors for its content and scope. This kind of mainstream sexism needs to be removed forever from the public psyche. We can start by abolishing corporations!!!
It's a Girl! (Will the Economy Suffer?)
By DAVID LEONHARDT
Looking for a distraction, the two economists sauntered out of their offices at the University of California at Berkeley last spring and met near the water cooler.
The economists, Gordon B. Dahl and Enrico Moretti, are both experts in a rarefied part of the field known as econometrics. On this day, however, their conversation quickly drifted to a wide-ranging discussion of the reasons for the persistent wage gap between men and women.
Could the problem stretch far beyond the workplace, they wondered, and all the way back to childhood and the ways that parents treat boys and girls? Was it possible that even in the United States, even in 2003, parents favor boys in a way that has lifelong implications?
One way to look for such a preference, they realized, would be to see whether parents of girls divorced more often than parents of boys, as has long been the case in male-centric societies like China. So the two economists scurried back to their respective offices and, over the next three days, did what economists do: plugged reams of data into a computer and ran regressions, statistical speak for the search for patterns.
"We thought, 'There is no way we are going to find something systematic,' " Mr. Moretti said. "The results were shocking."
In every decade since the 1940's, couples with girls indeed divorced more often than those with boys, United States Census Bureau data showed. The effect was not huge - just a few percentage points - but it was unmistakable. It happened in every region of the country. It happened among whites more than blacks and among people with only high school diplomas more than those with college degrees.
Over the last 60 years, parents with an only child that was a girl were 6 percent more likely to split up than parents of a single boy. The gap rose to 8 percent for parents of two girls versus those of two boys, 10 percent for families with three children of the same sex and 13 percent for four. Every year, more than 10,000 American divorces appear to stem partly from the number of girls in the family.
Whatever the cause, and there are some prime suspects, the effects are as obvious as they are pernicious. Children from divorced families are twice as likely as other children to drop out of high school, become parents while teenagers or be jobless as young adults, earlier studies show. The new research makes clear that girls are bearing more than their share of these costs.
"I'd rather boys and girls have the same crack at success in life," said Mr. Dahl, an assistant professor at the University of Rochester.
THE study fits in with a fast-growing interest among economists in how families operate, research that is moving beyond the ways that women's family roles affect their finances to include fathers and children as well.
"This is part of well-known economic imperialism," said Shelly Lundberg, a professor of economics at the University of Washington at Seattle, referring to her field's penchant for sticking its nose into just about every human endeavor. "How families operate and how husbands and wives make decisions has important economic implications."
Taken together, this research strongly suggests that the age-old favoring of boys is not confined to the past or to developing countries like China and India. It is subtle and less widespread than it once was in the United States, but it still gives boys an important leg up.
Parents, and especially fathers, appear to invest more in their families when they include a boy. They put more money into their homes, spending an additional $600 a year on housing, according to a study of families with an only child by Ms. Lundberg and her colleague Elaina Rose, an associate professor of economics.
In addition, fathers increase their workweeks by more than two hours, and their earnings, after the birth of a first, male child. When the first child is a girl, workweeks increase by less than an hour.
add a comment on this article