3 ms·

"The choice to have kids isn't like the choice to work out or get good at Starcraft. It's a choice which benefits all of society." If a person choose to spend

by belorn 6y ago

"The choice to have kids isn't like the choice to work out or get good at Starcraft. It's a choice which benefits all of society." If a person choose to spend time on themselves then that is a choice which also benefits all of society. "Even if everybody only worked 20 hours a week, people with children would still need concessions that people without children don't." I have my doubts. The concessions that people need to balance life and work looks all very similar. A lot of the concessions that people with children seem identical to the concession that many people without children also need, those being flexibility in the job and hours spent doing work. If we include debilitating health conditions, does it matter for the job if a person need flex time to balance the condition or if they do so in order to setup the teaching platform to their kids? What concessions are we talking about that is not some kind of flexibility or time off, and which only a parent could benefit from?

gwd 6y ago
> What concessions are we talking about that is not some kind of flexibility or time off, and which only a parent could benefit from? Well, to go back to my first post: If you're in the middle of a Zoom call, and a parent's toddler interrupts them and they have to take 30 seconds to see their finger painting before sending them back to the other parent, just be patient and accept that. If someone in the middle of a Zoom call says, "Sorry, just let me take 30s to pump out 5 pull-ups here", or "Sorry, just bear with me while I search to see how fast Queens regenerate energy", I think you have a right to be somewhat annoyed. If someone says, "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- our infant is sleeping poorly", and it's the 10th time this month, cut them some slack for the 10th time. If they say, "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- I was up all night playing Starcraft" or "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- I did back-to-back marathons yesterday", and it's the 10th time this month, I think you have a right to be somewhat more annoyed. I could go on, but do I need to? I feel like the difference between having a human being that depends on you for its very survival and having a hobby that you can mostly schedule -- or at least behaves predictably -- should be pretty obvious.
- belorn 6y ago
  You don't know the background to justify being annoyed. Maybe the reason they spent up all night playing starcraft was that they had any of the long list of medical conditions that causes stress and disruption of normal sleep, and what you perceive is laziness is management of that condition. If someone in the middle of every meeting say "sorry just let me take 30s to go to the bathroom", are they disrespecting you or do they have a disorder of the bowel? The concessions one need to give a parent is the same that one need to give someone who has something more important in life than work. It doesn't really matter what that thing is. It could be a child, a medical condition, an elderly needing help, or something else, but the concession needed is the same. If someone is doing 10 back-to-back marathons in a single month then maybe its time to talk to them. It sound like a person crashing from stress and who might need a break from work (ie a concession) in order to not end up in the hospital.
  - gwd 6y ago
    > The concessions one need to give a parent is the same that one need to give someone who has something more important in life than work. It doesn't really matter what that thing is. It could be a child, a medical condition, an elderly needing help, or something else, but the concession needed is the same. Once again, where did I say that people shouldn't be cut slack for a medical condition or a sick relative? The comment to which I responded, starting this sub-thread, was making the case that because parents had chosen to have children, that therefore they should not be given more concessions than people who had not chosen to have children -- as though the decision to raise children was comparable to the decision to become a grandmaster Starcraft player. Most people don't choose to have a debilitating medical condition, nor do they chose to have relatives who need special care; so those situations aren't relevant to the discussion.
    - belorn 6y ago
      The distinction that I see is that work should allow people to balance life and work life, regardless if the reason people need concessions are children or because other reasons. It is also a sad fact that in many cases there are social stigma attached to those reasons and thus make it likely to be concealed. What get perceived as choice can actually one of those situation which a person has not chosen. To put a number to those things, about 50% of the population is currently suffering from a chronic diseases. You add that with the number of people who has elderly relatives, the number of people with children, and the total number is creeping very fast towards almost 100%. It is also a bit telling that in a very large company in my country, the term used for flex work can be roughly translated to "entrusted work schedule". It seems that the reason people are not given concessions automatically is that the employer simply don't trust their employees and view flexibility as something that a stereotyped lazy employee will abuse to goof off and play video games. A good start to combat this would be to view flex time as something that everyone need, which would naturally benefit parents.

by belorn 6y ago

gwd 6y ago

> What concessions are we talking about that is not some kind of flexibility or time off, and which only a parent could benefit from? Well, to go back to my first post: If you're in the middle of a Zoom call, and a parent's toddler interrupts them and they have to take 30 seconds to see their finger painting before sending them back to the other parent, just be patient and accept that. If someone in the middle of a Zoom call says, "Sorry, just let me take 30s to pump out 5 pull-ups here", or "Sorry, just bear with me while I search to see how fast Queens regenerate energy", I think you have a right to be somewhat annoyed. If someone says, "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- our infant is sleeping poorly", and it's the 10th time this month, cut them some slack for the 10th time. If they say, "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- I was up all night playing Starcraft" or "Sorry I'm a bit slow today -- I did back-to-back marathons yesterday", and it's the 10th time this month, I think you have a right to be somewhat more annoyed. I could go on, but do I need to? I feel like the difference between having a human being that depends on you for its very survival and having a hobby that you can mostly schedule -- or at least behaves predictably -- should be pretty obvious.

belorn 6y ago
You don't know the background to justify being annoyed. Maybe the reason they spent up all night playing starcraft was that they had any of the long list of medical conditions that causes stress and disruption of normal sleep, and what you perceive is laziness is management of that condition. If someone in the middle of every meeting say "sorry just let me take 30s to go to the bathroom", are they disrespecting you or do they have a disorder of the bowel? The concessions one need to give a parent is the same that one need to give someone who has something more important in life than work. It doesn't really matter what that thing is. It could be a child, a medical condition, an elderly needing help, or something else, but the concession needed is the same. If someone is doing 10 back-to-back marathons in a single month then maybe its time to talk to them. It sound like a person crashing from stress and who might need a break from work (ie a concession) in order to not end up in the hospital.
- gwd 6y ago
  > The concessions one need to give a parent is the same that one need to give someone who has something more important in life than work. It doesn't really matter what that thing is. It could be a child, a medical condition, an elderly needing help, or something else, but the concession needed is the same. Once again, where did I say that people shouldn't be cut slack for a medical condition or a sick relative? The comment to which I responded, starting this sub-thread, was making the case that because parents had chosen to have children, that therefore they should not be given more concessions than people who had not chosen to have children -- as though the decision to raise children was comparable to the decision to become a grandmaster Starcraft player. Most people don't choose to have a debilitating medical condition, nor do they chose to have relatives who need special care; so those situations aren't relevant to the discussion.
  - belorn 6y ago
    The distinction that I see is that work should allow people to balance life and work life, regardless if the reason people need concessions are children or because other reasons. It is also a sad fact that in many cases there are social stigma attached to those reasons and thus make it likely to be concealed. What get perceived as choice can actually one of those situation which a person has not chosen. To put a number to those things, about 50% of the population is currently suffering from a chronic diseases. You add that with the number of people who has elderly relatives, the number of people with children, and the total number is creeping very fast towards almost 100%. It is also a bit telling that in a very large company in my country, the term used for flex work can be roughly translated to "entrusted work schedule". It seems that the reason people are not given concessions automatically is that the employer simply don't trust their employees and view flexibility as something that a stereotyped lazy employee will abuse to goof off and play video games. A good start to combat this would be to view flex time as something that everyone need, which would naturally benefit parents.