The Economist points out ‘child penalty’ and encourages women to prioritize work over kids
On literally the exact same day that Time magazine went to bat for meatless, tofurky-centered Thanksgivings, their comrades over at The Economist slammed children for committing the unforgivable sin of lowering their mothers’ earnings …
In a super-ratioed tweet posted Saturday afternoon, The Economist wrote, “Having children lowers women’s lifetime earnings, an outcome known as the ‘child penalty.’”
Having children lowers women’s lifetime earnings, an outcome known as the “child penalty” https://t.co/Eei0a5Gy1d
— The Economist (@TheEconomist) November 23, 2019
The tweet linked to a report in which the magazine’s self-described “data team” poo-pooed mothers who prioritize raising their children over working a job.
The “team” specifically highlighted research showing “that women who grew up in families in which the mother worked a lot relative to the father tended to suffer relatively small child penalties.”
“Conversely, those who grew up with stay-at-home mothers were more likely to scale back their careers. This suggests that women are heavily influenced by the examples set by their own mothers when deciding how to balance work and family,” the report continued.
The team then concluded their post by suggesting that it would behoove women who want to rectify the so-called “gender pay gap” to spend more time at work and less at home.
“All of which is a lesson to those mothers who want their daughters to bridge the gender pay gap. Their wishes are more likely to come true if they lead by example when their girls are young,” they wrote.
The team’s startling decisions to describe having a child as a penalty, encourage women to prioritize their work over their children and perpetuate the debunked “gender pay gap” have not sat well with the public, it would appear.
Some critics blasted the 176-year-old magazine for its divisive language about children:
Were you raised by baboons in the wild, becauae humans raising other humans is never a “penalty”.
It is an honor.
— Cringey Von F*ckstick (@Wolfknight74) November 24, 2019
Placing children on a scale of product profitability is an interesting take.
Value includes more than dollars and cents, and it appears that what’s become priceless is common sense.
— Jean Paul Zodeaux (@JeanPaulZodeaux) November 24, 2019
Luckily, vast majority of women don’t view their children as a penalty. Single feminists promote this garbage.
— Ryan Francis (@spiz516) November 24, 2019
Fyi…there is not a child in the universe who is a “penalty”
— Lee Ann Steen (@leeannsteen1) November 24, 2019
Children are not a penalty & that should never be called that. Our families are in fact one of the major motivators for us to work harder & earn more. However, motherhood/families are among the many reasons men (overall) earn more money than women. But rational people know that.
— Betty Ann (@bawlaw99) November 24, 2019
That’s a hell of a hallmark birthday card you got there.
“Happy Birthday, my penalty and drag on my earnings.”
2019 has not been Earth’s best year
— Meier Ben Avraham (@hebrewservative) November 24, 2019
“Known as the “child penalty”” by all who wake up every day and think “what can I complain about and blame on others today?”
— as-the-fly-crows (@astheflycrows1) November 24, 2019
Others blasted the magazine for portraying women as victimized by a system that’s otherwise more fair and impartial than any other in human history:
What a perfect, shining example of everything that’s wrong with modern liberalism and ‘feminist’ fake victimhood peddling. My God children are penalty??? How bout the future of humanity? One ‘academic’ paper only proves these people are nuts. And ruining humanity.
— Natalie (@Natalie28611481) November 24, 2019
“Modern America has replaced virtue with victimhood, and the nation is poorer for it. Our society is one of the wealthiest in the history of mankind, but we’ve trained ourselves not to recognize this obvious fact.” -Jon Gabriel for @azcentral #Thanksgiving
— Gary Berg (@GaryBerg100752) November 23, 2019
According to @TheEconomist children are a penalty and responsible for the wage gap.
When are women going to stop making themselves victims shd pointing fingers at other groups of people for their own decisions? https://t.co/Yfl1Gasc1q
— Mrs. Happy Wife, Former ZEF (@Happywife151) November 23, 2019
Others argued that the type of feminism that The Economist and other media outlets routinely promote is the real penalty.
Well, not having children lowers women’s lifetime happiness, an outcome known as the “feminist’s penalty”.
— Witch Nectar (@WitchNectar) November 24, 2019
This is one of the many #feminist myths that destroy women. Amazing it’s been around for so long. Happiness, meaning, joy and a legacy are not measured by income. Scholars keep pitching this nihilism and wondering why there’s a #suicide epidemic. How mysterious!
— DogsMumm (@DogsMumm) November 24, 2019
Is this to say that the research is wrong? Probably not. It may, however, be a tad shortsighted. Common sense suggests that men AND women who prioritize their home life earn less money than their work-focused counterparts.
Common sense and logic also suggest that there’s nothing wrong with this, that every man and woman is free to prioritize taking care of their family and that any potential losses in income they “suffer” are worthwhile sacrifices to them, regardless of what certain “data team” eggheads proclaim.