4 ms·

How would this push any woman away from the choice to be a mother? And why should someone who wants to be a mother and a careerist have to accept more career p

How would this push any woman away from the choice to be a mother? And why should someone who wants to be a mother and a careerist have to accept more career penalties than someone who wants to be a father and careerist? And why should a woman who doesn't want children have to pay a penalty for the choices of those who do?

jacquesm 8y ago
> And why should a woman who doesn't want children have to pay a penalty for the choices of those who do? For the same reason that men do. After all, society as a whole has decided for some reason that children are a good thing, and that the cost of having them should be born by all, even those without.
- kgwgk 8y ago
  > After all, society as a whole has decided [...] that the cost of having [children] should be born by all, even those without. Is this not a thread about how society has NOT yet decided such a thing?
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    In theory, yes, but in practice taxes tend to favor married couples and people with children. So even if in the theoretical case you are right practically speaking we all share the cost of having children.
    - zimablue 8y ago
      Sorry to be that guy but you're making a clear logical fallacy. The argument is "should we subsidize children" and you're substituting "does society want to subsidize children" and then for THAT you're substituting "do we currently subsidize children". You can only go from 1 to 2 by assuming something like tyranny of the majority. You can only go from 2 to 3 by assuming that the current system is exactly what society would choose if they decided now. Which is obviously silly, given a blank slate drug laws, marriage laws and tax breaks would all be different for a few examples.
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        It is pretty safe to assume the tyranny of the majority in a democratic system and it is a given that society chose what it did, if it did not it would have changed. 'Given a blank slate' is so far from practice that it might as well be fiction. Utopia is not suddenly going to spring to life, if you want it there is only one way to get there: get into politics, and good luck because the one word you will learn very quickly once you've arrived there is 'compromise'.
        zimablue 8y ago
        No, the tyranny of the majority is NOT the safe thing to assume in a democratic system, or that that would be the right thing. Our systems are build to insulate decision making from 51% splits. But we're not arguing that we're about to do something from a blank slate, the blank slate point is that just because society DOES something, doesn't mean that it WANTs to do something, for the same reasons as above we don't decide everything by referendum. The US numbers on single payer, medicaid for all, drug laws and etc are miles away from the policy, your argument is like looking at marijuana being illegal in most states a few years ago and using it as evidence that they want it to be illegal.
        jacquesm 8y ago
        You now have 22 posts in this thread (and counting), it seems you are very much upset for having to pay for something that you do not feel that you benefit from. But if you consider that you too are a product of the societies that chose to support children and if you accept that once children are there it helps to have them well nourished, healthy and smart then maybe you'll come to the conclusion that your position is a pretty selfish one. So when you write 'we' you can substitute 'I' and be closer to the truth, and you don't need to drag in a whole pile of other stuff that is hypothetical rather than real, why ignore the evidence in front of your eyes if you have it? Hypotheticals are great to argue about things for which we do not have data, they suck at improving over reality when we do. As or the tyranny of the majority not being the safe thing to assume in a democratic system: the democratic system pretty much codifies the tyranny of the majority, with a few exceptions about forming coalitions where some give-and-take allows a small minority to score some points because they can be the swing vote. But if you want to see the tyranny of the majority at work you need to look no further than that US that you write about.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  Except that right now women who don’t want children experience a hiring penalty that men who don’t want children (and even men who do want children) don’t experience - due to an assumption that any given woman will take parental leave that any given man won’t.
  - jacquesm 8y ago
    Yes, it is totally unfair and I do not know what to do about it.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
I'm a childless woman. This is by choice. I might consider adoption, but I have absolutely no desire to be pregnant nor give birth. I'm 40, by the way, and have known I didn't want children for at least 25 years. I'm happy to give parents time off. I'm happy parents get more sick days where I'm at to take care of their young children. I'm happy my taxes, in part, go to this. We actually need children. And parents have more responsibilities than I do. I want children to be educated and well cared for. The most selfish reason is that I want competent folks to take care of me when I'm old: The other is that I want humanity to be better when I leave the earth. There are costs and benefits to everything. Besides, I had/have the choice of becoming a mother and getting those benefits - though there is a lot to lose as well. And it isn't me.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  I agree. I just don’t understand why offering (and enthusiastically encouraging people to take) as much paternity leave as maternit leave would be a negative thing in this context.
  - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
    I'm not sure. I think some folks are reacting to the forced paternity leave bit. And in one sense, I understand - but women don't realistically have those choices and I think most doctors would rather women didn't get right back to work. The other bit, as you've said in another reply, is that women get stuck with the assumption that she's going to take maternity leave and there is nothing the company can do about it. If it is extended to males, companies would have to worry about that with everyone and they'd rather not, thank-you-very-much. Offering is, I think, is both wonderful and not enough. If I understand correctly (immigrant here), Norway used to require some paternity leave and had a portion of parental leave that could be split between the two parents. At some point, the government quit making paternity leave a requirement, but still leaving it in place if the father wanted it and still allowing parental leave to be split between the parents. ... and fewer fathers took paternity leave at that point. The thing with not only offering but requiring such things is that it helps to change societal norms and expectations as long as they are offered for enough time. When it is simply optional, safeguards need to be put into place. I'm not the one to ask what the safeguards should be at the moment :)
sheepmullet 8y ago
> And why should someone who wants to be a mother and a careerist have to accept more career penalties than someone who wants to be a father and careerist? Because of clear biological differences you can’t simply substitute a man for a woman. As such this article is suggesting that we can make men worse off career wise to even things up. But that only makes sense from a narrow gender-equality perspective. It makes much more sense to look at it from a family unit perspective where it’s a good thing for the man to take on the career burden to help his family. > And why should a woman who doesn't want children have to pay a penalty for the choices of those who do? Because it is critical to the basic maintenance of our society. The same reason I pay a penalty for a large number of government services I don’t use.

jacquesm 8y ago

> And why should a woman who doesn't want children have to pay a penalty for the choices of those who do? For the same reason that men do. After all, society as a whole has decided for some reason that children are a good thing, and that the cost of having them should be born by all, even those without.

kgwgk 8y ago
> After all, society as a whole has decided [...] that the cost of having [children] should be born by all, even those without. Is this not a thread about how society has NOT yet decided such a thing?
- jacquesm 8y ago
  In theory, yes, but in practice taxes tend to favor married couples and people with children. So even if in the theoretical case you are right practically speaking we all share the cost of having children.
  - zimablue 8y ago
    Sorry to be that guy but you're making a clear logical fallacy. The argument is "should we subsidize children" and you're substituting "does society want to subsidize children" and then for THAT you're substituting "do we currently subsidize children". You can only go from 1 to 2 by assuming something like tyranny of the majority. You can only go from 2 to 3 by assuming that the current system is exactly what society would choose if they decided now. Which is obviously silly, given a blank slate drug laws, marriage laws and tax breaks would all be different for a few examples.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      It is pretty safe to assume the tyranny of the majority in a democratic system and it is a given that society chose what it did, if it did not it would have changed. 'Given a blank slate' is so far from practice that it might as well be fiction. Utopia is not suddenly going to spring to life, if you want it there is only one way to get there: get into politics, and good luck because the one word you will learn very quickly once you've arrived there is 'compromise'.
      - zimablue 8y ago
        No, the tyranny of the majority is NOT the safe thing to assume in a democratic system, or that that would be the right thing. Our systems are build to insulate decision making from 51% splits. But we're not arguing that we're about to do something from a blank slate, the blank slate point is that just because society DOES something, doesn't mean that it WANTs to do something, for the same reasons as above we don't decide everything by referendum. The US numbers on single payer, medicaid for all, drug laws and etc are miles away from the policy, your argument is like looking at marijuana being illegal in most states a few years ago and using it as evidence that they want it to be illegal.
        jacquesm 8y ago
        You now have 22 posts in this thread (and counting), it seems you are very much upset for having to pay for something that you do not feel that you benefit from. But if you consider that you too are a product of the societies that chose to support children and if you accept that once children are there it helps to have them well nourished, healthy and smart then maybe you'll come to the conclusion that your position is a pretty selfish one. So when you write 'we' you can substitute 'I' and be closer to the truth, and you don't need to drag in a whole pile of other stuff that is hypothetical rather than real, why ignore the evidence in front of your eyes if you have it? Hypotheticals are great to argue about things for which we do not have data, they suck at improving over reality when we do. As or the tyranny of the majority not being the safe thing to assume in a democratic system: the democratic system pretty much codifies the tyranny of the majority, with a few exceptions about forming coalitions where some give-and-take allows a small minority to score some points because they can be the swing vote. But if you want to see the tyranny of the majority at work you need to look no further than that US that you write about.
cimmanom 8y ago
Except that right now women who don’t want children experience a hiring penalty that men who don’t want children (and even men who do want children) don’t experience - due to an assumption that any given woman will take parental leave that any given man won’t.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  Yes, it is totally unfair and I do not know what to do about it.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

I'm a childless woman. This is by choice. I might consider adoption, but I have absolutely no desire to be pregnant nor give birth. I'm 40, by the way, and have known I didn't want children for at least 25 years. I'm happy to give parents time off. I'm happy parents get more sick days where I'm at to take care of their young children. I'm happy my taxes, in part, go to this. We actually need children. And parents have more responsibilities than I do. I want children to be educated and well cared for. The most selfish reason is that I want competent folks to take care of me when I'm old: The other is that I want humanity to be better when I leave the earth. There are costs and benefits to everything. Besides, I had/have the choice of becoming a mother and getting those benefits - though there is a lot to lose as well. And it isn't me.

cimmanom 8y ago
I agree. I just don’t understand why offering (and enthusiastically encouraging people to take) as much paternity leave as maternit leave would be a negative thing in this context.
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  I'm not sure. I think some folks are reacting to the forced paternity leave bit. And in one sense, I understand - but women don't realistically have those choices and I think most doctors would rather women didn't get right back to work. The other bit, as you've said in another reply, is that women get stuck with the assumption that she's going to take maternity leave and there is nothing the company can do about it. If it is extended to males, companies would have to worry about that with everyone and they'd rather not, thank-you-very-much. Offering is, I think, is both wonderful and not enough. If I understand correctly (immigrant here), Norway used to require some paternity leave and had a portion of parental leave that could be split between the two parents. At some point, the government quit making paternity leave a requirement, but still leaving it in place if the father wanted it and still allowing parental leave to be split between the parents. ... and fewer fathers took paternity leave at that point. The thing with not only offering but requiring such things is that it helps to change societal norms and expectations as long as they are offered for enough time. When it is simply optional, safeguards need to be put into place. I'm not the one to ask what the safeguards should be at the moment :)

sheepmullet 8y ago

> And why should someone who wants to be a mother and a careerist have to accept more career penalties than someone who wants to be a father and careerist? Because of clear biological differences you can’t simply substitute a man for a woman. As such this article is suggesting that we can make men worse off career wise to even things up. But that only makes sense from a narrow gender-equality perspective. It makes much more sense to look at it from a family unit perspective where it’s a good thing for the man to take on the career burden to help his family. > And why should a woman who doesn't want children have to pay a penalty for the choices of those who do? Because it is critical to the basic maintenance of our society. The same reason I pay a penalty for a large number of government services I don’t use.