GADZOOKS

That picture almost brought up dinner and I'm watching emergency surgery on Discovery Health.
[right][snapback]76329[/snapback][/right]

Ahem.

PEACE has been declared.
I found someone really cool.

I guess Barta was right, after all.
[right][snapback]76544[/snapback][/right]

Ahem.

PEACE has been declared.
I found someone really cool.

I guess Barta was right, after all.
[right][snapback]76544[/snapback][/right]

Ahem.

PEACE has been declared.
I found someone really cool.

I guess Barta was right, after all.
[right][snapback]76544[/snapback][/right]

Nothing like a running flame war that runs people off and inflames everyone followed by a "never mind".
[right][snapback]76581[/snapback][/right]

I hope this isn't situational. Remember today when you have your first fight.
[right][snapback]76574[/snapback][/right]

Without a spellcheck we don't count off for spelling anymore.

Actually I HATED using run and flame twice, but it's just the way it had to be. I got nasty notes for Mill's he-man woman hating, lost a good poster for not interfering, and now he's gonna run off and live happily ever after with one of 'em?

                                    Nice work Alfalfa.


[right][snapback]76584[/snapback][/right]

Now I wanna hear about how great love is and the benefits of the opposite sex. Unless Mill gets whipped and ain't allowed to come out and play.
[right][snapback]76597[/snapback][/right]

Nothing like a running flame war that runs people off and inflames everyone followed by a "never mind".
[right][snapback]76581[/snapback][/right]

ROFL. I haven't changed. Women CAN suck. This one doesn't. She's one of the good ones.

Whatever people, just thought you might be a little happy for me.
[right][snapback]76615[/snapback][/right]

ROFL. I haven't changed. Women CAN suck. This one doesn't. She's one of the good ones.

Whatever people, just thought you might be a little happy for me.
[right][snapback]76615[/snapback][/right]

We're just as happy ........................ for us!!


[right][snapback]76628[/snapback][/right]

ROFL. I haven't changed. Women CAN suck. This one doesn't. She's one of the good ones.

Whatever people, just thought you might be a little happy for me.
[right][snapback]76615[/snapback][/right]

There's a wanted ad in my local paper tonight for a male guinea pig. Too bad Millness already got a, uh, position. He mighta been perfect for it. 
[right][snapback]79346[/snapback][/right]

Our results for both housewives with relatively little work experience and working wives are thus consistent with the hypotheses developed from the institutional perspective. They imply that when a negative evaluation of marriage is tied to a negative evaluation of wives’ work, women’s ability to allocate more time to labor market work in preparation for a possible divorce is constrained by gender display. That is, wives ability to prepare themselves economically for the possibility of divorce is constrained by forces that encourage them to produce gender at the same time. The constraints link the normative expectations in marriage to the negative economic consequence of divorce in such settings.


Another implication of our findings is that the limits that gender display places on wives’ increased labor market work when divorce becomes increasingly possible should be considered when determining the overall merits of marriage in insuring women’s economic well-being. This is of particular relevance in industrialized countries where divorce rates are high or increasing, and where the evaluation of wives’ work depends on the production and maintenance of marital satisfaction (e.g., settings that combine a high degree of gendered role differentiation and fault orientation toward divorce). These are also settings where the negative economic consequences of divorce are expected to be relatively severe and of greatest policy relevance. If displaying gender actually ameliorates marital problems and prevents divorce, then it is a beneficial response to marital satisfaction decline. In reality, however, it is unlikely to resolve fundamental sources of marital strains in contemporary marriages, such as weak communication skills.

This study was motivated by the need to better understand how wives’ behavioral conformity to normative expectations in marriage could be linked to the negative economic consequences of divorce among women in highly gendered industrialized countries. Data limitations precluded a parallel investigation of husbands’ responses to a decline in marital satisfaction. Such analyses would further the understanding of constraints on increases in the time that husbands spend on unpaid work. For example, do sole breadwinner husbands also tend to “do gender” by reducing their commitment to housework (Brines 1994) or caregiving when faced with declining marital satisfaction? Do husbands in dual-earner couples adapt to the decline in marital satisfaction by limiting their labor market work time? If so, is the extent of these limitations substantially smaller than that of wives? Answering these questions would provide insights into processes underlying husbands’ relatively low housework time (e.g., Bianchi et al.
2000) as well as their relatively strong post-divorce economic position (e.g., Duncan and Hoffman 1985).

A few here have wondered whether all that "doing" or "displaying" gender stuff that I go on about is really 'rigorous' and 'scientific' enough. I think that's fair enough.

Here's the URL for a report on research using all the bells and whistles of contemporary empiricism to operationalize and test "gender display" and "doing gender" hypotheses in accouting for actual behavior and 'economic'/labor choices, as against alternative hypotheses:

Housework, Market Work, and "Doing Gender" by Hiromi Ono and James Raymo
[right][snapback]80068[/snapback][/right]

"That piece is unreadable. I trust that such linguistics are of equivalent value inside academia as they are useless outside it."
  Is this fair warning?  I was just getting ready to read it.

Is "doing gender" something I have to go back in the thread and read up on to understand?
[right][snapback]80167[/snapback][/right]

"Doing gender" sounds like it ought to be more fun.
[right][snapback]80168[/snapback][/right]

Yo, Speedy.  By all means read it and see what you think. "Doing gender" is something Nomarchy began educating us, or me, about a fair while back on C-SPAN. I thought it just plumb bad colloquialism, but instead it is a critical concept of how we assume that our gender determines our character and defines the parameters of our behavior, when it fact it is just "assumptions." Often it is not that our gender defines those things ("who we are") but rather our understandings or beliefs about our gender that limit and shape how we behave and what we seek and do. The way we perceive our gender is, in other words, how we "do" our gender.

Well, anyway, that's my take. 
[right][snapback]80179[/snapback][/right]

"This measure is based on a subjective report of wives’ marital
satisfaction and may differ from measures based on husbands’ reports (Rhyne 1981), or measures relyingon objective standards of a satisfying marriage (Gager and Sanchez 2003)."

In sum, our study suggests that, when the evaluation of marriage is closely tied to the evaluation of
wives’ work performance, gender display in response to declining marital satisfaction can limit wives’
allocation of time to labor market work. Potential limits imposed by gender display in response to
expectation of divorce should be taken into consideration when evaluating the economic benefits of
marriage in some settings.

OK, So I read along and am doing fine, everything going according to scientific theory then this jumps out at me:
I can understand not going by the husband's report, but not even an "objective standard"? Then the summary:
Doesn't sound very concrete for all the trouble they went to in having a scientific model. Women may worry more about paying work if they aren't satisfied and think they may end up divorcing?

They don't seem to spend a lot of effort on clarity when it comes to the final product.
[right][snapback]80199[/snapback][/right]