4 ms·
I don't disagree with your larger point, rayiner, about "figur[ing] out a way to allow women to have careers and also children". But I agree with the GP poster
by kaitai 6y ago
I don't disagree with your larger point, rayiner, about "figur[ing] out a way to allow women to have careers and also children". But I agree with the GP poster (hycaria) that the top poster (astan?) creates a false dichotomy, that one must either have a high pressure grinding 100-hr-week job or be a SAHM, which are certainly mutually exclusive. Many of us do just work 40-50 hours per week. Further improvements in work-life balance and support for families of all kinds would definitely be good for the US.
- rayiner 6y agoI agree 100%. We shouldn't create a dichotomy, we should figure out ways to enable people to do both.
- refurb 6y agoBut people can have a career and kids, just not a high-power start up founder career. And how do you ever fix that? There will always be people willing to not have kids to further their career. Or work 16 hr days. Or never see their family. These are often the people at the top. Do you force them not to do it? Reminds me of this scientist I worked with. He’d work all day, go home get dinner, come back and work until 9 or 10. He was an internationally known scientist. No way he could do that and have a healthy family relationship. Now try having a family and competing with this guy?