4 ms·

>>An unmarried, childless woman earned — on average — the same annual salary after receiving her doctorate as a man with a PhD in the same field, the researcher

>>An unmarried, childless woman earned — on average — the same annual salary after receiving her doctorate as a man with a PhD in the same field, the researchers found. This suggest that there is no sexism when it comes to compensation for your work, at least among PhDs. >>That difference, they say, was explained entirely by the finding that married women with children earned less than men. Married men with children, on the other hand, saw no disadvantage in earnings. Isn't it obvious? Women spend more time away from work raising children. I am ok with the world working that way. Women are better equipped to take care of a child in its first years and taking time to do that will naturally lead to making less money at work (because you spend less time there/learn less/have less experience). It makes sense to split roles in a family: a better equipped partner takes care of children and the other spends more time providing. That's efficient use of combined family human resources. I see no reasons to fight it. Life is about choices if you want children you will not get as far in your career as people who prioritize career over everything else. It would be unfair to force the latter group to subsidize your lifestyle choices.

foobar2020 10y ago
I believe somewhere at the core of the issue lies inadequate recognition of the critical importance and difficulty of parenthood. It's crazy expensive, eats up half of your life, and sometimes gets very unrewarding. But it's so obvious that being a parent is crucial to the society! A civilization that sacrifices reproduction over GDP is bound to disappear. Contrast with f. eg. the Muslim culture, where children are the main source of pride of the mother. At the risk of sounding condescending (I'm not) let's thank our mothers for bringing us into this world. Well done job moms, you really are the best.
- bluecalm 10y ago
  >>I believe somewhere at the core of the issue lies inadequate recognition of the critical importance and difficulty of parenthood. I am not sure that's a problem. I've chosen to remain childless because of it and I've never ever met a person who would downplay how hard it is to raise children and not make their (and your) life miserable in the process. >>But it's so obvious that being a parent is crucial to the society! Well, my view is that we have way too many people. We have already taken all the land, we are polluting, cutting down forests and there are so many of us we even make the world a worse place to live for ourselves (let alone other species). >>A civilization that sacrifices reproduction over GDP is bound to disappear. There is a middle ground between disappearing and having way less people. Machines are coming, we don't need that many to sustain the civilization. >>Muslim culture, where children are the main source of pride of the mother. Yeah, and Muslim countries are overcrowded, poor and unstable (at least vast majority of them). >>At the risk of sounding condescending (I'm not) let's thank our mothers for bringing us into this world. Well done job moms, you really are the best. At the risk of sounding nihilist: I am not thankful and I will not bring children myself. Too much risk of them being unhappy, breathing polluted air and getting cancer. They would also use a lot of resources, produce a lot of trash and compete over ever decreasing land to build houses on. I support people who are fit to have children (which includes resources, a good mate, mental health and ability to make them happy) but I don't think we should incentivize it today environment.
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    >> Well, my view is that we have way too many people. true, but only for quantity. quality people, meaning happy, educated, highly moral, caring, contributing to society, etc people we definitely don't have enough. you cannot guarantee to raise such a person no matter how hard you try, but you (anybody) can do your best.
- urahara 10y ago
  The most amazing thing is that getting supplied with new high-quality human beings is crucial to SOCIETY, but it's mostly the FAMILY'S burden, and in most cases, the WOMAN'S one. The society needs new productive humans, but suggests that it's a woman's problem to arrange the whole thing.
  - tomp 10y ago
    If the father supplies money and the mother supplies childcare, the burdens are approximately equal, no?
- llamaz 10y ago
  >> Muslim culture, where children are the main source of pride of the mother. Sons* are the main source of pride
wow_hn 10y ago
> Women are better equipped to take care of a child in its first years If you're talking about a nurturing personality, I think this entirely depends on the person. I've known men that are very good parents of very young children, and women who are very poor parents of very young children. It really depends on the person. If you're arguing this position from the perspective of breastfeeding, please see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744030
- bluecalm 10y ago
  >>If you're arguing this position from the perspective of breastfeeding, please see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744030 There is more to breast-feeding than milk. There is bonding, warmth, strengthening of immune system (which requires a child actually sucking on a nipple to work). I am sure we will be able to raise a child without any human intervention in not so distant future but it doesn't change the biology. Children wouldn't survive without women in natural settings but can survive without men. While we are able to substitute a lot what women are equipped with using technology it doesn't change the fact that they are better equipped than men.
  - wow_hn 10y ago
    > There is more to breast-feeding than milk. So are you suggesting my children didn't receive as much bonding, warmth, etc, because I fed them breastmilk instead of my wife? If that's the case, they're growing up to be remarkably well-adjusted, happy, and (quite) intelligent children despite that supposed deficiency. It sounds like you've been exposed to a very certain, very traditional, kind of family situation. Please let me assure you that this is not the only way people raise successful families. Even breastmilk, while highly recommend when possible, isn't critical for a babies' well-being since it's not possible at all in many cases (mother's health/can't breastfeed, adoption, etc.). EDIT: Rate limited, my response to ps4fanboy: > The fact that you were able to take time off to care for your children suggests that you are most probably middle class or better Ironically, me taking off work to raise the kids brought us surprisingly close to the poverty line (wife's a school teacher). But we decided it was worth it, my wife wanted to return to work, and that I would be a great caregiver. But we're both highly educated, if that was somehow your suggestion. > this social standing in society is much more likely to be a contributing factor to childrens long term success than breast feeding Agreed, in general. So we both can agree that breast-feeding, while recommended, is not a critical factor in raising well-adjusted children.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>I see no reasons to fight it. Life is about choices if you want children you will not get as far in your career as people who prioritize career over everything else. It would be unfair to force the latter group to subsidize your lifestyle choices. As a man, I don't want to be punished for having children at home either, so I actually sympathize more with the mothers than with your argument.

foobar2020 10y ago

I believe somewhere at the core of the issue lies inadequate recognition of the critical importance and difficulty of parenthood. It's crazy expensive, eats up half of your life, and sometimes gets very unrewarding. But it's so obvious that being a parent is crucial to the society! A civilization that sacrifices reproduction over GDP is bound to disappear. Contrast with f. eg. the Muslim culture, where children are the main source of pride of the mother. At the risk of sounding condescending (I'm not) let's thank our mothers for bringing us into this world. Well done job moms, you really are the best.

bluecalm 10y ago
>>I believe somewhere at the core of the issue lies inadequate recognition of the critical importance and difficulty of parenthood. I am not sure that's a problem. I've chosen to remain childless because of it and I've never ever met a person who would downplay how hard it is to raise children and not make their (and your) life miserable in the process. >>But it's so obvious that being a parent is crucial to the society! Well, my view is that we have way too many people. We have already taken all the land, we are polluting, cutting down forests and there are so many of us we even make the world a worse place to live for ourselves (let alone other species). >>A civilization that sacrifices reproduction over GDP is bound to disappear. There is a middle ground between disappearing and having way less people. Machines are coming, we don't need that many to sustain the civilization. >>Muslim culture, where children are the main source of pride of the mother. Yeah, and Muslim countries are overcrowded, poor and unstable (at least vast majority of them). >>At the risk of sounding condescending (I'm not) let's thank our mothers for bringing us into this world. Well done job moms, you really are the best. At the risk of sounding nihilist: I am not thankful and I will not bring children myself. Too much risk of them being unhappy, breathing polluted air and getting cancer. They would also use a lot of resources, produce a lot of trash and compete over ever decreasing land to build houses on. I support people who are fit to have children (which includes resources, a good mate, mental health and ability to make them happy) but I don't think we should incentivize it today environment.
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  >> Well, my view is that we have way too many people. true, but only for quantity. quality people, meaning happy, educated, highly moral, caring, contributing to society, etc people we definitely don't have enough. you cannot guarantee to raise such a person no matter how hard you try, but you (anybody) can do your best.
urahara 10y ago
The most amazing thing is that getting supplied with new high-quality human beings is crucial to SOCIETY, but it's mostly the FAMILY'S burden, and in most cases, the WOMAN'S one. The society needs new productive humans, but suggests that it's a woman's problem to arrange the whole thing.
- tomp 10y ago
  If the father supplies money and the mother supplies childcare, the burdens are approximately equal, no?
llamaz 10y ago
>> Muslim culture, where children are the main source of pride of the mother. Sons* are the main source of pride

wow_hn 10y ago

> Women are better equipped to take care of a child in its first years If you're talking about a nurturing personality, I think this entirely depends on the person. I've known men that are very good parents of very young children, and women who are very poor parents of very young children. It really depends on the person. If you're arguing this position from the perspective of breastfeeding, please see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744030

bluecalm 10y ago
>>If you're arguing this position from the perspective of breastfeeding, please see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744030 There is more to breast-feeding than milk. There is bonding, warmth, strengthening of immune system (which requires a child actually sucking on a nipple to work). I am sure we will be able to raise a child without any human intervention in not so distant future but it doesn't change the biology. Children wouldn't survive without women in natural settings but can survive without men. While we are able to substitute a lot what women are equipped with using technology it doesn't change the fact that they are better equipped than men.
- wow_hn 10y ago
  > There is more to breast-feeding than milk. So are you suggesting my children didn't receive as much bonding, warmth, etc, because I fed them breastmilk instead of my wife? If that's the case, they're growing up to be remarkably well-adjusted, happy, and (quite) intelligent children despite that supposed deficiency. It sounds like you've been exposed to a very certain, very traditional, kind of family situation. Please let me assure you that this is not the only way people raise successful families. Even breastmilk, while highly recommend when possible, isn't critical for a babies' well-being since it's not possible at all in many cases (mother's health/can't breastfeed, adoption, etc.). EDIT: Rate limited, my response to ps4fanboy: > The fact that you were able to take time off to care for your children suggests that you are most probably middle class or better Ironically, me taking off work to raise the kids brought us surprisingly close to the poverty line (wife's a school teacher). But we decided it was worth it, my wife wanted to return to work, and that I would be a great caregiver. But we're both highly educated, if that was somehow your suggestion. > this social standing in society is much more likely to be a contributing factor to childrens long term success than breast feeding Agreed, in general. So we both can agree that breast-feeding, while recommended, is not a critical factor in raising well-adjusted children.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>I see no reasons to fight it. Life is about choices if you want children you will not get as far in your career as people who prioritize career over everything else. It would be unfair to force the latter group to subsidize your lifestyle choices. As a man, I don't want to be punished for having children at home either, so I actually sympathize more with the mothers than with your argument.