ESPY Awards 2024: Serena Williams roasts Harrison Butker

[TimHauck 2,658]

6 hours ago, iam90sbaby said:

Get your Googler out and look it up, you're a big boy, I believe in you

Just read a few, they seem pretty inconsistent and inconclusive, but leaning more towards being positive.  The main thing that seemed consistent was children of mothers working part-time (AKA not a homemaker) had the best outcomes.  So far from a “fact” that stay at home mothers “raise better children” but you are welcome to share the literature that makes you think this.  You, like Butker, are of course welcome to your opinion.

This meta analysis seems to sum up what I read:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5657565_Maternal_Employment_and_Children's_Achievement_in_Context_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Four_Decades_of_Research
 

Years of research about the nature of the associations between maternal employment and children’s achievement have been beset by inconsistent results and scant attention to the power of the

findings.

By and large, when significant, effect sizes were very

small in magnitude. In the analyses of moderators, the direction of

significant effects tended to be positive, with a few notable excep-

tions for the SES, age of child, and race/ethnicity 

moderators.

When all achievement outcomes were combined and all eligible studies were included, there was a trend toward a small positive association between maternal employment and children’s achieve-

ment. However, when the NLSY redundancy was managed by

substituting the NLSY-low and NLSY-high studies, and again

when fixed effect trim and fill analyses were conducted, the

subsequent results did not reach significance or trend levels.

When each achievement outcome was examined separately,

nonsignificant findings predominated. The nonsignificant findings for the effects of maternal employment on children’s achievement

were not an artifact of power, although power was reduced to some extent for the analyses of moderators. Power to detect small effects was adequate for combined and separate outcome analyses, and

ranged from a low of .71 for formal achievement tests and teacher

ratings to a high of .99 for grades, formal tests of intellectual

functioning, and the combined achievement outcomes. Despite

conventional wisdom to the contrary and years of conflicting

empirical findings, whether a mother works outside the home does

not portend negative consequences for children’s achievement

under most conditions. Indeed, there are a number of circum-

stances when maternal employment relates favorably to achievement.

A number of studies examined achievement outcomes for chil-

dren by the extent of mothers’ work outside the home, and this

distinction was consequential for the achievement outcomes. Some

studies compared part-time and full-time employed samples with

nonemployed samples, and some contrasted only part-time and

full-time samples. When achievement was compared between part-

time and full-time employment, higher achievement was found for children of part-time as compared with full-time worker

[seafoam1 2,858]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Just read a few, they seem pretty inconsistent and inconclusive, but leaning more towards being positive.  The main thing that seemed consistent was children of mothers working part-time (AKA not a homemaker) had the best outcomes.  So far from a “fact” that stay at home mothers “raise better children” but you are welcome to share the literature that makes you think this.  You, like Butker, are of course welcome to your opinion.

This meta analysis seems to sum up what I read:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5657565_Maternal_Employment_and_Children's_Achievement_in_Context_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Four_Decades_of_Research
 

Years of research about the nature of the associations between maternal employment and children’s achievement have been beset by inconsistent results and scant attention to the power of the

findings.

By and large, when significant, effect sizes were very

small in magnitude. In the analyses of moderators, the direction of

significant effects tended to be positive, with a few notable excep-

tions for the SES, age of child, and race/ethnicity 

moderators.

When all achievement outcomes were combined and all eligible studies were included, there was a trend toward a small positive association between maternal employment and children’s achieve-

ment. However, when the NLSY redundancy was managed by

substituting the NLSY-low and NLSY-high studies, and again

when fixed effect trim and fill analyses were conducted, the

subsequent results did not reach significance or trend levels.

When each achievement outcome was examined separately,

nonsignificant findings predominated. The nonsignificant findings for the effects of maternal employment on children’s achievement

were not an artifact of power, although power was reduced to some extent for the analyses of moderators. Power to detect small effects was adequate for combined and separate outcome analyses, and

ranged from a low of .71 for formal achievement tests and teacher

ratings to a high of .99 for grades, formal tests of intellectual

functioning, and the combined achievement outcomes. Despite

conventional wisdom to the contrary and years of conflicting

empirical findings, whether a mother works outside the home does

not portend negative consequences for children’s achievement

under most conditions. Indeed, there are a number of circum-

stances when maternal employment relates favorably to achievement.

A number of studies examined achievement outcomes for chil-

dren by the extent of mothers’ work outside the home, and this

distinction was consequential for the achievement outcomes. Some

studies compared part-time and full-time employed samples with

nonemployed samples, and some contrasted only part-time and

full-time samples. When achievement was compared between part-

time and full-time employment, higher achievement was found for children of part-time as compared with full-time worker

That font is too small to read. 

[TimHauck 2,658]

20 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

That font is too small to read. 

That was for @Strike, he says he has old eyes

[kilroy69 1,233]

"I thought Mrs. Williams was a great host and applaud her for using her platform to express her beliefs on a variety of topics."

He added: "Sports are supposed to be the great unifier and at an event dedicated to celebrating a diverse group of men and women who have accomplished great feats, she used it as an opportunity to disinvite those with whom she disagrees with from supporting fellow athletes."  Just exposing liberal hypocrisy in a classy way. Good for him.   

[TimHauck 2,658]

52 minutes ago, kilroy69 said:

"I thought Mrs. Williams was a great host and applaud her for using her platform to express her beliefs on a variety of topics."

He added: "Sports are supposed to be the great unifier and at an event dedicated to celebrating a diverse group of men and women who have accomplished great feats, she used it as an opportunity to disinvite those with whom she disagrees with from supporting fellow athletes."  Just exposing liberal hypocrisy in a classy way. Good for him.   

Except if everyone agreed with Butker and all adult women were homemakers, there would be no women’s sports after college (maybe before that).

[seafoam1 2,858]

4 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Except if everyone agreed with Butker and all adult women were homemakers, there would be no women’s sports after college (maybe before that).

Good.