3 ms·

> But you might miss out on your career: and that is logical… if you go away for 5 months, then your colleague who is ultra competitive and childless and was wa

by m4x 5y ago

> But you might miss out on your career: and that is logical… if you go away for 5 months, then your colleague who is ultra competitive and childless and was waiting for his chance will just snatch up your position and when you are back you will find yourself sidelined Sure, and I assume this is part of the reason men (and women!) feel concerned about taking parental leave. The law has no effect on people's perceptions. But... > you prioritised family, hence where your career will go from that point shouldn’t matter to you at all. ... this is just a false dichotomy. People don't have to choose between total dedication to one or the other, and it's quite possible (and practically achievable) to be good at both. > Are people supposed to modify business objectives due to personal choices? If people do believe the answer is yes, we are entering the land of such deeply ingrained entitlement that to me that is the real problem. You suggest it's entitlement when people want to have kids while also maintaining their careers, but I think you have it backwards - the real entitlement here is thinking you should be able to profit in a society that is fundamentally dependent on people who choose to raise another generation, while refusing to do so yourself or even acknowledge that what parents do is in general a service to society. What do you think society would look like if everybody took your advice? The best minds would never want to reproduce, because they'd lose their careers, and many good minds who did choose to reproduce would be sidelined at great cost to their respective industries.

Taurenking 5y ago
> ... this is just a false dichotomy. People don't have to choose between total dedication to one or the other, and it's quite possible (and practically achievable) to be good at both. the previous post highlights that there's an issue with the entitlement of coming back at the same or even better job position which is just ludicrous from a business perspective if a colleague of yours has advanced in that same timeframe >You suggest it's entitlement when people want to have kids while also maintaining their careers, but I think you have it backwards - the real entitlement here is thinking you should be able to profit in a society that is fundamentally dependent on people who choose to raise another generation, while refusing to do so yourself or even acknowledge that what parents do is in general a service to society. Huh? As a business your only purpose is to make profit, I don't think I understand how the choices of individual employees should affect the overall direction of the corporation. Historically, women chose/were forced to dedicate themselves to child rearing and now they have the option not to. Same goes with men, nowadays. It's a general service to society yes, but no one is imposing it on you today (in the west at least). What I think really changed is this perception that because you __chose__ to be a parent __and__ you chose to stay away for x amount of time you should be still considered/thought as been on top of your game as an employee/career wise. > What do you think society would look like if everybody took your advice? The best minds would never want to reproduce, because they'd lose their careers, and many good minds who did choose to reproduce would be sidelined at great cost to their respective industries. I disagree, and without going into the "gender norms" discussion, I think an easy solution would be: a) partners having kids earlier (like back in the days) b) accepting/understanding that child rearing comes at a cost (especially as a woman) and setting lower expectations (or go back to point a really)

by m4x 5y ago

Taurenking 5y ago

> ... this is just a false dichotomy. People don't have to choose between total dedication to one or the other, and it's quite possible (and practically achievable) to be good at both. the previous post highlights that there's an issue with the entitlement of coming back at the same or even better job position which is just ludicrous from a business perspective if a colleague of yours has advanced in that same timeframe >You suggest it's entitlement when people want to have kids while also maintaining their careers, but I think you have it backwards - the real entitlement here is thinking you should be able to profit in a society that is fundamentally dependent on people who choose to raise another generation, while refusing to do so yourself or even acknowledge that what parents do is in general a service to society. Huh? As a business your only purpose is to make profit, I don't think I understand how the choices of individual employees should affect the overall direction of the corporation. Historically, women chose/were forced to dedicate themselves to child rearing and now they have the option not to. Same goes with men, nowadays. It's a general service to society yes, but no one is imposing it on you today (in the west at least). What I think really changed is this perception that because you __chose__ to be a parent __and__ you chose to stay away for x amount of time you should be still considered/thought as been on top of your game as an employee/career wise. > What do you think society would look like if everybody took your advice? The best minds would never want to reproduce, because they'd lose their careers, and many good minds who did choose to reproduce would be sidelined at great cost to their respective industries. I disagree, and without going into the "gender norms" discussion, I think an easy solution would be: a) partners having kids earlier (like back in the days) b) accepting/understanding that child rearing comes at a cost (especially as a woman) and setting lower expectations (or go back to point a really)