In article <CqDGMz.pIt at mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, oommen at brazil.psych.purdue.edu (Mona Oommen) writes:
|>|> And here's one woman who does *not* feel that sharing a position is fine.
|> I feel that it is certainly exploitative to the woman and the man. If
|> both are good at their work, then they should get from the employer what
|> they deserve. Why should being married or being part of a couple have
|> such high costs?
But why are we defining goals for the couple? Suppose each of them only _wants_
to work half the year, and spend the other half with relatively few responsibilities?
(Unfortunately there are few such opportunities in my field. 3/4 time would suit me
just fine!) They may be good at their work and still only want to spend part of
their time at it, whatever the reason.
It's certainly a good deal for the university, who get more than one faculty
member for the price (as someone pointed out, each of them is bound to work more
than strictly half time). But it's not so bad for the couple either, who get
(presumably) most tenured faculty benefits. We can only speculate over whether
they would have preferred two full-time faculty jobs. For all we know, this may
be their ideal situation.
I don't see why it's restricted to couples either --- why can't one find another
like-minded person in the same field and share a job with him or her?