Talk:Shared earning/shared parenting marriage

Page Numbers Needed in References

This article lacks page numbers in book references. If someone with access to the referenced books could add page numbers, it would be much appreciated. Help on this subject for books with multiple references in the same article can be found here. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added many of the pincites. Ndickinson1 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Issues

There are still no page numbers listed in the book references in this article. Given the reliance on the first book referenced, and given the primary author's history of including citations in other articles in which the cited work does not support the related language, the vague nature of the citations in this article is a real problem. Also, am I reading the second citation correctly? Does this citation list four separate books, with no page numbers or other specifics? That is not acceptable. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional books (there are actually many that discuss this) have been added in the introductory paragraph and in the cites. The article is one of the best-referenced articles on Wikipedia. Ndickinson1 (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heteronormative?

Frequent references are made to the "men" and "women" in the Shared Earning/Shared Parenting Marriage relationship. Might "spouse" or "partner" be more appropriate as this type of relationship is also becoming popular among gay families? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.224.251 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. The focus of the article is intended to be heterosexual couples because the gender stereotypes are more likely for them than for same sex couples; all of the psychological studies I cited have to do with hetero couples for this reason. Also the statistics on incidence have to do with it. In other words, it is important for heteros wanting to know information about this for the male and female nomenclature to be used or the authorities and statistics cited lose their accuracy and meaning.

This also means the article contains discussion irrelevant to same-sex couples.

And there are also issues for same sex couples doing this that don't exist for heteros. Perhaps you could create a same sex shared-earning/shared parenting marriage page where you discuss issues such as, how a gay couple deals with breastfeeding (if they choose to do it), how a lesbian couple deals with equal pay problems (perhaps lesbians face fewer equal pay problems than hetero women?), sperm donation (for lesbian couples), surrogacy (for gay couples), adoption, that are required for same sex couples but are not centrally relevant here. I know there are also studies of the foster children that many same-sex couples adopt and how they thrive. You could include a link to this page and also list it at the bottom of this article as a reference point.

I am sure people would be interested in a page on same-sex shared earning/shared parenting marriage; I just don't want to confuse or dilute the significant issues for heteros that don't exist for same-sex couples, and I imagine you would not want the same to happen with regard to the significant issues for same-sex couples that don't exist for heteros. Ndickinson1 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms?

There is no section that is critical to this type of parenting. So this is settled science? A section devoted to discussing alternative or traditional Parenting Marriage types would add value to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.32 (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange article. It feels like a hodgepodge. Not disagreeing with any facts or conclusions set out, but it rambles. 66.57.170.71 (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Income tax penalties and tax subsidies to sole breadwinners Sub-section

This entire section is heavy on the scare-quotes. The phrase "stacking effect" — used only in this sub-section — is never defined and doesn't link anywhere. — 2605:A601:640:B301:8E70:5AFF:FEFF:A620 (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection United States: Impact of current income tax reform proposals –– Remove a paragraph

I'm deleting the following paragraph of the subsection named above:

Elizabeth Warren, in her book "The Two-Income Trap", appears not to have any concept that any childcare would (or should) be the responsibility of fathers; one of the examples in her book involves a father losing his job during the Recession but the family still paying for outsourced childcare for an extended period of time; she does not identify that if the father had done the childcare instead the family in her example could have prevented bankruptcy. In her book "A Fighting Chance", she states that financial instability in a family is worse when both parents work. In reviewing this book, the Economist magazine stated that there "are problems with her thinking" and this "notion. . . will sound strange to families whose eggs are all in one basket."[54]

This paragraph was added on 4 Aug 2014 by User:50.152.41.187. It appears to be too biased to remain in this Wikipedia (WP) article, as I show below, so I am hereby removing it.

I now own the book The Two-Income Trap, which receives an introduction in the WP article Elizabeth Warren, providing an overview of this book. This User refers above to Warren's "example" which clearly is the first 5 pages of her book. But the User is merely giving his/her opinion that "if the father had done the childcare instead the family in her example could have prevented bankruptcy." The book provides absolutely no support for this User's opinion, which therefore is a biased opinion which does not belong in a WP article.

The quote from above – "Elizabeth Warren, in her book 'The Two-Income Trap', appears not to have any concept that any childcare would (or should) be the responsibility of fathers" – is an opinion which has absolutely no source or support in the whole book, and is so biased that it sounds ridiculous when applied to any US citizen of normal capability, including Warren. Such extreme statements certainly do not belong on WP.

The complete Economist statement, in its article (Mass. appeal) of "Apr. 26th 2014: Washington, DC: From the print edition", was:

Are two incomes worse than one? (new paragraph) There are problems

with Mrs. Warren's thinking. She ...

Actually, as quoted above, Warren's statement that "financial instability in a family is worse when both parents work" is a statistical fact, well documented in her book "The Two-Income Trap". It is a complicated topic, to which the above WP link luckily provides an adequate overview. I believe most WP editors would agree, the Economist's statement-of-opinion that "There are problems with Mrs. Warren's thinking" does not belong on WP.

And when I look at this subsection's title, I wonder what this User's criticism of Warren has to do with the subsection's topic? Always trying to help our WP readers, For7thGen (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]