4 ms·

(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 child

(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?)
  - ep103 8y ago
    Sure, so give both the option of maternity leave, and let the ones who want to take it do so, and others who don't, won't.
    - tomp 8y ago
      I support that. But: (i) that won't address the advantage non-parents have, (ii) different choices will still result in different/unequal "impact", if you measure it by outcomes, and (iii) women will always be hit harder, because (most) literally have to take time off (giving birth is physically harms the body) whereas men don't. Personally, I think the best solution is (1) have generic parenthood leave (but not forced), (2) have the government pay for it, and (3) reward new parents and companies who's employees have new kids. (1) makes it (roughly) gender-equal, (2) encourages small businesses/startups (who otherwise won't be able to afford Amazon-like benefits - a paid one-year absence is extremely impactful for a 5-person company, whereas Amazon can just statistically assume that a certain % of its workforce will be out of work at any moment), (3) equalizes the economic value of mothers, fathers and non-parents, and also incentivizes high-income, well educated, smarter and more ambitious people to have kids (assuming the rewards are proportional to taxes/salary), which most "kid-having incentive programs" fail to do (e.g. strong social security will encourage low-income families to have more kids).
      - ep103 8y ago
        I'm not sure I'm okay with the measuring by outcome. So I like #s 1 and 2, but not so sure about #3. By rewarding a couple for having children, you are also punishing couples who choose not to have children and focus on their career. A couple shouldn't be punished because they choose to have a child, having children is human and our system should support that. But if a couple chooses to have children, they shouldn't expect to be rewarded with benefits that bring them back up to the level of a person who forwent that experience to focus on continuing to work. If you're worried that by only offering the opportunity to benefits, that men will disproportionately turn them down while women will need to take them (because giving birth physically harms the body), then 1) that just means the benefits involved should be made to be more appealing to men as well, and 2) I'm not completely convinced that's a bad thing Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

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?)
- ep103 8y ago
  Sure, so give both the option of maternity leave, and let the ones who want to take it do so, and others who don't, won't.
  - tomp 8y ago
    I support that. But: (i) that won't address the advantage non-parents have, (ii) different choices will still result in different/unequal "impact", if you measure it by outcomes, and (iii) women will always be hit harder, because (most) literally have to take time off (giving birth is physically harms the body) whereas men don't. Personally, I think the best solution is (1) have generic parenthood leave (but not forced), (2) have the government pay for it, and (3) reward new parents and companies who's employees have new kids. (1) makes it (roughly) gender-equal, (2) encourages small businesses/startups (who otherwise won't be able to afford Amazon-like benefits - a paid one-year absence is extremely impactful for a 5-person company, whereas Amazon can just statistically assume that a certain % of its workforce will be out of work at any moment), (3) equalizes the economic value of mothers, fathers and non-parents, and also incentivizes high-income, well educated, smarter and more ambitious people to have kids (assuming the rewards are proportional to taxes/salary), which most "kid-having incentive programs" fail to do (e.g. strong social security will encourage low-income families to have more kids).
    - ep103 8y ago
      I'm not sure I'm okay with the measuring by outcome. So I like #s 1 and 2, but not so sure about #3. By rewarding a couple for having children, you are also punishing couples who choose not to have children and focus on their career. A couple shouldn't be punished because they choose to have a child, having children is human and our system should support that. But if a couple chooses to have children, they shouldn't expect to be rewarded with benefits that bring them back up to the level of a person who forwent that experience to focus on continuing to work. If you're worried that by only offering the opportunity to benefits, that men will disproportionately turn them down while women will need to take them (because giving birth physically harms the body), then 1) that just means the benefits involved should be made to be more appealing to men as well, and 2) I'm not completely convinced that's a bad thing Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.