3 ms·

Just in case this hasn't already been driven home: what you've demonstrated here is absolutely disgusting to a growing number of people. 1. Adherence to social

by lotyrin 14y ago

Just in case this hasn't already been driven home: what you've demonstrated here is absolutely disgusting to a growing number of people. 1. Adherence to social convention for its own sake 2. Submission to a multinational construed as something positive 3. Imbalanced monogamous relationships based on opportunity cost and trading status for reproductive capacity 4. Spending money and life on creating more humans Probably a few more but I don't really want to dig through it any more.

rayiner 14y ago
We're a society of monkeys that use social convention as a fluid device for mediating social interaction. We are a species where, thus far, the burdens of motherhood are associated with a single gender. We are a species that derives deep satisfaction from reproducing (from hard-wired hormonal responses), and have structured our society so that it would collapse without the assurance of continued generations of future humans. These things are true whether or not you would prefer an alternative world in which they weren't. Relevant to HN: at the end of the day Facebook stock is worth a lot less, and VC funding dries up if it becomes apparent that the 16-25 demographic is one of monotonically decreasing size...
- clicks 14y ago
  We are a species where, thus far, the burdens of motherhood are associated with a single gender I agree with you here. I don't know why the HN crowd is refusing to see this point... an infant in its early months really needs the mother. But I disagree on the point that the role of motherhood inextricably falls down on a woman's turf for the years to come. As a male I can say that I would be happy to be a stay-at-home-dad after the infant is of a certain age -- and I have met many women who're okay with this idea (of the man staying at home while the woman makes money).
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > But I disagree on the point that the role of motherhood inextricably falls down on a woman's turf for the years to come. As a practical matter, the latter follows the former, almost inexorably. Between the negative stigma of being pregnant at work to the negative stigma of taking maternity leave, to the negative stigma of having to be there for your young child when it is still in the "I need my mommy" stage (which lasts into the first couple of years), by the time the father can assume a fully co-equal role in parenting the woman has already substantially compromised her career and it becomes rational, in a perverse way, for her to be the one to undertake further compromises.
    - clicks 14y ago
      You bring up good points. However I wonder if many of the stigmas you mention are ingrained into society only by the persisting culture, and so one should not fear challenging them? There are many single-dads that do a wonderful job of raising kids alone as a single parent (admittedly I don't know any who started taking care of the kids below the age of 2 -- and I do accept that even 2 years is a hell of a long time).
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - rayiner 14y ago
        I think there is a lot culture can do to help make the distribution of child-rearing responsibilities more equitable. But who wants to risk their career progression to challenge the culture?
    - clicks 14y ago
      Rayiner some of your other posts are showing up as dead. I suspect this may have something to do with your other posts receiving negative points (HN algo tripped up by that probably). I'd recommend dropping a small note to info@ycombinator.com telling them to do something about this. edit: I just did, let's see what they do about it. (and it was this post that is showing up as dead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5404947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5404947)
      - drivebyacct2 14y ago
        Grinds my gears. Hellbanning is so damn rude, and I don't see how the algo can screw up with someone who has as much rep and average as rayiner.
- lotyrin 14y ago
  Appeal to tradition. Appeal to common practice. Naturalistic fallacy. Appeal to emotion. Forunately none of these things prescribe (or justify) human behavior. It's not an "alternate" world when many of us are already living here and welcoming others. No, an end to population growth isn't good for economic growth, luckily that's not what life's about.

by lotyrin 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

We're a society of monkeys that use social convention as a fluid device for mediating social interaction. We are a species where, thus far, the burdens of motherhood are associated with a single gender. We are a species that derives deep satisfaction from reproducing (from hard-wired hormonal responses), and have structured our society so that it would collapse without the assurance of continued generations of future humans. These things are true whether or not you would prefer an alternative world in which they weren't. Relevant to HN: at the end of the day Facebook stock is worth a lot less, and VC funding dries up if it becomes apparent that the 16-25 demographic is one of monotonically decreasing size...

clicks 14y ago
We are a species where, thus far, the burdens of motherhood are associated with a single gender I agree with you here. I don't know why the HN crowd is refusing to see this point... an infant in its early months really needs the mother. But I disagree on the point that the role of motherhood inextricably falls down on a woman's turf for the years to come. As a male I can say that I would be happy to be a stay-at-home-dad after the infant is of a certain age -- and I have met many women who're okay with this idea (of the man staying at home while the woman makes money).
- rayiner 14y ago
  > But I disagree on the point that the role of motherhood inextricably falls down on a woman's turf for the years to come. As a practical matter, the latter follows the former, almost inexorably. Between the negative stigma of being pregnant at work to the negative stigma of taking maternity leave, to the negative stigma of having to be there for your young child when it is still in the "I need my mommy" stage (which lasts into the first couple of years), by the time the father can assume a fully co-equal role in parenting the woman has already substantially compromised her career and it becomes rational, in a perverse way, for her to be the one to undertake further compromises.
  - clicks 14y ago
    You bring up good points. However I wonder if many of the stigmas you mention are ingrained into society only by the persisting culture, and so one should not fear challenging them? There are many single-dads that do a wonderful job of raising kids alone as a single parent (admittedly I don't know any who started taking care of the kids below the age of 2 -- and I do accept that even 2 years is a hell of a long time).
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 14y ago
      I think there is a lot culture can do to help make the distribution of child-rearing responsibilities more equitable. But who wants to risk their career progression to challenge the culture?
  - clicks 14y ago
    Rayiner some of your other posts are showing up as dead. I suspect this may have something to do with your other posts receiving negative points (HN algo tripped up by that probably). I'd recommend dropping a small note to info@ycombinator.com telling them to do something about this. edit: I just did, let's see what they do about it. (and it was this post that is showing up as dead: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5404947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5404947)
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      Grinds my gears. Hellbanning is so damn rude, and I don't see how the algo can screw up with someone who has as much rep and average as rayiner.
lotyrin 14y ago
Appeal to tradition. Appeal to common practice. Naturalistic fallacy. Appeal to emotion. Forunately none of these things prescribe (or justify) human behavior. It's not an "alternate" world when many of us are already living here and welcoming others. No, an end to population growth isn't good for economic growth, luckily that's not what life's about.