7 ms·

"You don’t want to be the one to step forward and say ‘I’m a mom with kids and I may not be as single-mindedly devoted to my career as everyone else." Then be

"You don’t want to be the one to step forward and say ‘I’m a mom with kids and I may not be as single-mindedly devoted to my career as everyone else." Then be prepared to lose that promotion to the single-minded person. This is part of the cause of what the article says is "women who otherwise might be promoted to more senior jobs". If there is someone else - woman, man, alien, whatever - who is equally qualified but who is also completely focused on their career, then why would a manager not reward that person and instead choose the person who is not willing to dedicate an unreasonable amount of time to work? What manager would not choose the person with more time to dedicate and is actually willing to dedicate that time? You're going to get more out of the singled-minded person. It seems to me this is really an issue for these women at home, not work. Why would they not have a conversation with their husbands about this? If the wives are making more money and have more prospects and opportunities for advancement over their spouse - the spouse should theoretically be willing to agree to be the one who makes the sacrifice when surprise child-related stuff pops up. Right? So it's probably likely that either their spouse is making the same or more, or they simply aren't having these conversations at home and instead are asking Amazon to make their lives easier. I'm not sold that this is an Amazon problem.

danudey 8y ago
The problems are: 1. Society expects women to do this work, and devalues men who do it. This means that mothers are often left responsible for children, and thus they lose out compared to men (or women who choose not to have children, or haven't yet). We're effectively punishing women for continuing our species. 2. Without these sort of support structures in place, managers will look at women as a liability; "but what if she has a kid and then she has to miss work all the time?" Your argument is basically "these women aren't as dedicated, or otherwise they wouldn't have had kids". The reality is that having children is important, and women specifically shouldn't have to look at having children as the end of their career, or at least their career advancement, because Amazon refuses to provide something which other companies already do. Essentially this is an Amazon problem because it's only a liability at companies who don't provide this sort of opportunity, which other companies do. Amazon is basically saying "We don't care about what women have to deal with, that's your problem not ours" and talented women are going to learn that lesson and go elsewhere where neither they nor their spouses have to make those sacrifices.
- hnaccy 8y ago
  >The reality is that having children is important, and women specifically shouldn't have to look at having children as the end of their career, or at least their career advancement Why?
  - keiferski 8y ago
    Because sacrificing the family unit at the altar of corporate capitalism probably isn't the right thing to do?
    - hnaccy 8y ago
      Daycare while both parents work on their careers all year is the family unit?
      - AndrewGaspar 8y ago
        Yeah, honestly amazed that somebody would straight faced make the argument that not taking time off to raise your children in order to spend more time at work (which is a perfectly fine choice, I'm not arguing it's not!) is somehow sticking it to the man.
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    You seriously don't see why having children is important? How about the total extinction of the human race in a single generation?
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    Are you asking why having children is important, or why it's bad that women (and not men) often have to choose between children and career advancement?
- ams6110 8y ago
  (1) was certainly true even fairly recently. I think it is less true in the past 10 years at least. > women specifically shouldn't have to look at having children as the end of their career, or at least their career advancement Why not? All choices have consequences. Nobody can really "have it all." I (a male) have definitely made work choices that limited my income and advancement so I could have more time to spend on things involving kids and family.
Barrin92 8y ago
I don't understand this artificial distinction between home and work. Work is not sacred ground, we can change culture in the workplace the same way we can change culture at home, why do not both? We spend as much time at work as we do at home, you endorse sharing burdens at home, so I assume you think that equality between men and women is a good thing. So why not argue for the same culture, one that supports people regardless of their sex, in the workplace? Especially when such a vital social function, raising future generations, is concerned? You're not convinced that this is an amazon problem, but is anything ever an amazon problem, or facebooks problem, or any other companies problem? People are waking up to the fact, mainly educated and aware knowledge workers, that they can negotiate how they want to work just like they can negotiate and shape how they want to live. If you want to convince others that companies are paperclip AI like entities with complete disregard for the humans who work in them, then that burden is on you.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  Amazon's ideal workforce seems it would be like the Eunuchs in Game of Thrones. Castrated so they can focus on their true mission.
- whytaka 8y ago
  GP's argument already does what you propose. In fact, the argument is, "Now that the workplace has changed (in inviting women to be committed workers), why hasn't the home changed yet?" By making this issue about "Moms" getting a fair shake by getting day care support from work, there may be the consequence of prolonging child care as being solely within the mother's domain.
binaryorganic 8y ago
Women in America are fighting for a fraction of what much of the developed world already has in place with regard to things like paid maternal leave, so yes, you can think like a manager and say “why is this my problem?”, but the future seems eager to realize the importance of looking at problems like this more holistically, and to suggest workplaces don’t have a larger role in the solution feels misguided when viewed through that lens. Also, marital status has no place in this conversation, IMHO. Any corporation that would speak to the problems of “wives” being solved by/with their “husbands” is living in the last century. You can disagree, and corporations might as well, but that argument won’t wear well with time.
- hockeybias 8y ago
  And U.S. companies are historically more productive.
  - dv_dt 8y ago
    Actually, nations that offer much more generous maternal and paternal child leave are right in the same range of productivity as the US, with some above the US. http://time.com/4621185/worker-productivity-countries/ http://time.com/4621185/worker-productivity-countries/
kuwze 8y ago
Exactly! The level of productivity we could have would enormous if we just focused on cutting out inessential tasks at the source instead of the periphery. I have been trying to promote the idea of neural ablation in company forever, but my boss just keeps moving me to darker parts of the building.
52-6F-62 8y ago
Colour me crazy, but it might show a bit of maturity not wanting to dedicate an unreasonable amount of time to work. I would likely trust that person's rational more than the go-getter-at-all-costs. What's life for, anyway?
- organsnyder 8y ago
  Especially given that quantity of work does not equal quality (or even the quantity of value generated!).
supercanuck 8y ago
Let me flip this around, If Amazon is willing to hire people who are dedicated but not as qualified, why are they paying so much to senior managers? I as a shareholder would like to know this
unwabuisi 8y ago
> If the wives are making more money and have more prospects and opportunities for advancement over their spouse - the spouse should theoretically be willing to agree to be the one who makes the sacrifice when surprise child-related stuff pops up. Why are we assuming all these women are co-habitating or married? I don't want to sound like I'm attacking anyone, just curious.

danudey 8y ago

The problems are: 1. Society expects women to do this work, and devalues men who do it. This means that mothers are often left responsible for children, and thus they lose out compared to men (or women who choose not to have children, or haven't yet). We're effectively punishing women for continuing our species. 2. Without these sort of support structures in place, managers will look at women as a liability; "but what if she has a kid and then she has to miss work all the time?" Your argument is basically "these women aren't as dedicated, or otherwise they wouldn't have had kids". The reality is that having children is important, and women specifically shouldn't have to look at having children as the end of their career, or at least their career advancement, because Amazon refuses to provide something which other companies already do. Essentially this is an Amazon problem because it's only a liability at companies who don't provide this sort of opportunity, which other companies do. Amazon is basically saying "We don't care about what women have to deal with, that's your problem not ours" and talented women are going to learn that lesson and go elsewhere where neither they nor their spouses have to make those sacrifices.

hnaccy 8y ago
>The reality is that having children is important, and women specifically shouldn't have to look at having children as the end of their career, or at least their career advancement Why?
- keiferski 8y ago
  Because sacrificing the family unit at the altar of corporate capitalism probably isn't the right thing to do?
  - hnaccy 8y ago
    Daycare while both parents work on their careers all year is the family unit?
    - AndrewGaspar 8y ago
      Yeah, honestly amazed that somebody would straight faced make the argument that not taking time off to raise your children in order to spend more time at work (which is a perfectly fine choice, I'm not arguing it's not!) is somehow sticking it to the man.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  You seriously don't see why having children is important? How about the total extinction of the human race in a single generation?
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  Are you asking why having children is important, or why it's bad that women (and not men) often have to choose between children and career advancement?
ams6110 8y ago
(1) was certainly true even fairly recently. I think it is less true in the past 10 years at least. > women specifically shouldn't have to look at having children as the end of their career, or at least their career advancement Why not? All choices have consequences. Nobody can really "have it all." I (a male) have definitely made work choices that limited my income and advancement so I could have more time to spend on things involving kids and family.

Barrin92 8y ago

I don't understand this artificial distinction between home and work. Work is not sacred ground, we can change culture in the workplace the same way we can change culture at home, why do not both? We spend as much time at work as we do at home, you endorse sharing burdens at home, so I assume you think that equality between men and women is a good thing. So why not argue for the same culture, one that supports people regardless of their sex, in the workplace? Especially when such a vital social function, raising future generations, is concerned? You're not convinced that this is an amazon problem, but is anything ever an amazon problem, or facebooks problem, or any other companies problem? People are waking up to the fact, mainly educated and aware knowledge workers, that they can negotiate how they want to work just like they can negotiate and shape how they want to live. If you want to convince others that companies are paperclip AI like entities with complete disregard for the humans who work in them, then that burden is on you.

jjeaff 8y ago
Amazon's ideal workforce seems it would be like the Eunuchs in Game of Thrones. Castrated so they can focus on their true mission.
whytaka 8y ago
GP's argument already does what you propose. In fact, the argument is, "Now that the workplace has changed (in inviting women to be committed workers), why hasn't the home changed yet?" By making this issue about "Moms" getting a fair shake by getting day care support from work, there may be the consequence of prolonging child care as being solely within the mother's domain.

binaryorganic 8y ago

Women in America are fighting for a fraction of what much of the developed world already has in place with regard to things like paid maternal leave, so yes, you can think like a manager and say “why is this my problem?”, but the future seems eager to realize the importance of looking at problems like this more holistically, and to suggest workplaces don’t have a larger role in the solution feels misguided when viewed through that lens. Also, marital status has no place in this conversation, IMHO. Any corporation that would speak to the problems of “wives” being solved by/with their “husbands” is living in the last century. You can disagree, and corporations might as well, but that argument won’t wear well with time.

hockeybias 8y ago
And U.S. companies are historically more productive.
- dv_dt 8y ago
  Actually, nations that offer much more generous maternal and paternal child leave are right in the same range of productivity as the US, with some above the US. http://time.com/4621185/worker-productivity-countries/ http://time.com/4621185/worker-productivity-countries/

kuwze 8y ago

Exactly! The level of productivity we could have would enormous if we just focused on cutting out inessential tasks at the source instead of the periphery. I have been trying to promote the idea of neural ablation in company forever, but my boss just keeps moving me to darker parts of the building.

52-6F-62 8y ago

Colour me crazy, but it might show a bit of maturity not wanting to dedicate an unreasonable amount of time to work. I would likely trust that person's rational more than the go-getter-at-all-costs. What's life for, anyway?

organsnyder 8y ago
Especially given that quantity of work does not equal quality (or even the quantity of value generated!).

supercanuck 8y ago

Let me flip this around, If Amazon is willing to hire people who are dedicated but not as qualified, why are they paying so much to senior managers? I as a shareholder would like to know this

unwabuisi 8y ago

> If the wives are making more money and have more prospects and opportunities for advancement over their spouse - the spouse should theoretically be willing to agree to be the one who makes the sacrifice when surprise child-related stuff pops up. Why are we assuming all these women are co-habitating or married? I don't want to sound like I'm attacking anyone, just curious.