4 ms·

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 th

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.
- TheHypnotist 8y ago
  "Women specifically" Childcare doesn't just affect women.
- ep103 8y ago
  Its badly worded. The idea is that men and women should both be affected by having kids, and if that means less career advancement, then so be it. But the assertions is that a choice between a man and a woman to have kids shouldn't result in only the woman seeing less career advancement. You can make this argument for and against pretty easily, I think. But I would prefer to live in a world where a woman gets months off to have and start raising a kid, and a man gets the same amount of time off to bond with their new born child. Thereby spreading the impact of having children equally across both sexes, and creating what I think would be a better world.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    But what about biology? Biologically, men and women are _not_ equal in terms of giving birth and caring for a child. They're just not, and there's no changing that.
  - tomp 8y ago
    > Thereby spreading the impact of having children equally across both sexes, and creating what I think would be a better world. What makes you think that both sexes (on average) want the same things? Is it possible that women want to spend more time with children, and men want to spend more time competing? (If "no", what would make you change your mind?)
rebuilder 8y ago
It's a family issue and an economy issue. A society where only women are expected to bear the career cost of having children is a societh where half the workforce has their career growth stunted. The age where you have kids is very important careerwise. I think if you can improve women's career prospects, the effects for family income and overall economic output can be quite significant.
jumpman500 8y ago
I don't think his argument was directed at women. It was comparing the person who throws their life away to work against someone that chooses to have a life outside of work. Yes there's cultural context that puts more pressure on women to have a life outside of work, but anyone can choose to have a life outside of work. Shouldn't the company give the most compensation to the person that gives most of their time and energy to their work? I don't want to defend that way of life. I think having a family and life is a good thing, but some people do nothing except work and should probably get more compensation for it. To me the problem is just that people wrap their entire self worth up into the dollar amount they make. Having a family is usually much more fulfilling than a successful career. I know lots of men and women that have made that chosen family over work and are way happier for it.
tomp 8y ago
> Society expects women to do this work, and devalues men who do it By "society", you men "women", right? The reality is that as much as men like young, fertile, nurturing women, women as well like dominant, successful men (speaking of heterosexuals at least). The so called "choreplay" doesn't lead to more sex, as it turns out. [1] (With the obvious disclaimer that it's just one not-the-most-scientific study, and there's also the other perspective of men now wanting women who earn more... my point is though, that it's not some oppressive "society" boogeyman, but pretty clear (average hetero-)sexual preferences of actual people.) > The reality is that having children is important Is it? For whom? Maybe for society, but probably not for Amazon. Why should then Amazon pay for it. As it turns out, Amazon can afford it, but your run-of-the-mill garage startup can't. I think that if the government/society wants to support people having children (which I think is a good idea, at least as long as we claim immigration to be a good idea), then they should also structure incentives appropriately. For example, they could pay for maternity/parental leave, and even reward companies whose employees have newborns (that would also neatly take care of the problem where incentivizing childbirth has the least effect on the smartest cohorts of the population; if the benefits are proportional to salary, you'll incentivize smart ambitious hard-working people to procreate). [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equa...

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.

TheHypnotist 8y ago
"Women specifically" Childcare doesn't just affect women.
ep103 8y ago
Its badly worded. The idea is that men and women should both be affected by having kids, and if that means less career advancement, then so be it. But the assertions is that a choice between a man and a woman to have kids shouldn't result in only the woman seeing less career advancement. You can make this argument for and against pretty easily, I think. But I would prefer to live in a world where a woman gets months off to have and start raising a kid, and a man gets the same amount of time off to bond with their new born child. Thereby spreading the impact of having children equally across both sexes, and creating what I think would be a better world.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  But what about biology? Biologically, men and women are _not_ equal in terms of giving birth and caring for a child. They're just not, and there's no changing that.
- tomp 8y ago
  > Thereby spreading the impact of having children equally across both sexes, and creating what I think would be a better world. What makes you think that both sexes (on average) want the same things? Is it possible that women want to spend more time with children, and men want to spend more time competing? (If "no", what would make you change your mind?)

rebuilder 8y ago

It's a family issue and an economy issue. A society where only women are expected to bear the career cost of having children is a societh where half the workforce has their career growth stunted. The age where you have kids is very important careerwise. I think if you can improve women's career prospects, the effects for family income and overall economic output can be quite significant.

jumpman500 8y ago

I don't think his argument was directed at women. It was comparing the person who throws their life away to work against someone that chooses to have a life outside of work. Yes there's cultural context that puts more pressure on women to have a life outside of work, but anyone can choose to have a life outside of work. Shouldn't the company give the most compensation to the person that gives most of their time and energy to their work? I don't want to defend that way of life. I think having a family and life is a good thing, but some people do nothing except work and should probably get more compensation for it. To me the problem is just that people wrap their entire self worth up into the dollar amount they make. Having a family is usually much more fulfilling than a successful career. I know lots of men and women that have made that chosen family over work and are way happier for it.

tomp 8y ago

> Society expects women to do this work, and devalues men who do it By "society", you men "women", right? The reality is that as much as men like young, fertile, nurturing women, women as well like dominant, successful men (speaking of heterosexuals at least). The so called "choreplay" doesn't lead to more sex, as it turns out. [1] (With the obvious disclaimer that it's just one not-the-most-scientific study, and there's also the other perspective of men now wanting women who earn more... my point is though, that it's not some oppressive "society" boogeyman, but pretty clear (average hetero-)sexual preferences of actual people.) > The reality is that having children is important Is it? For whom? Maybe for society, but probably not for Amazon. Why should then Amazon pay for it. As it turns out, Amazon can afford it, but your run-of-the-mill garage startup can't. I think that if the government/society wants to support people having children (which I think is a good idea, at least as long as we claim immigration to be a good idea), then they should also structure incentives appropriately. For example, they could pay for maternity/parental leave, and even reward companies whose employees have newborns (that would also neatly take care of the problem where incentivizing childbirth has the least effect on the smartest cohorts of the population; if the benefits are proportional to salary, you'll incentivize smart ambitious hard-working people to procreate). [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equal-marriage-mean-less-sex.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/does-a-more-equa...