3 ms·

Exactly. There are a shocking number of comments making the same point as this comment. Seems like they had missed the context of the article and started pointi

Exactly. There are a shocking number of comments making the same point as this comment. Seems like they had missed the context of the article and started pointing at the gender specificity of it... but why?

RyanZAG 14y ago
I don't believe I missed the context of the article - I believe I tried to address that exact issue. The article - and the whole context surrounding the article - are discussing the issues of 'getting ahead' and work-life balance in a way that is very specific to women. They're certainly free to do this, but I believe they consigning themselves to a type of echo-chamber and missing out on incredibly useful philosophy on the subject by trying to constrain it to only women. When I say that the situation is sad I'm referring to the loss to everyone involved by not realizing that the issue of work-life balance is a truly global issue, and by boxing it in with specifics (such as women only, tech worker only, etc), the debate is far shallower and loses out on a lot of important history. .. but why? The reason is that there should be no 'gender specificity' at all in the article. Including it is a mistake and detracts from the very important message and makes it difficult for male experts in the field to enter the discussion as well. It's a loss for everyone involved.
- septerr 14y ago
  I wouldn't decry the article addressing mostly women, because IMO, work life balance is more an issue for women esp those of us who harbor carrer related ambitions. In spite of men treating women as equal and sharing responsibilities, in my experience, most of the time women carry the greater part of the daily load related to running a household and tending to children. Women feel an unspoken pressure from society to have a clean beautiful well run house. Add to that the pressure to look good, be in a good shape and dress well. They are bombarded with images of professional women in business attire and women in aprons cooking gourmet meals with children frolicking around. They are constantly struggling to be both these type of women. On the other hand, society and media don't put out so many conflicting images of men. Men have been consistently expected to be bread winners, be successful in their professional life. I am not saying, men don't understand that with a working wife, they have to lend a helping hand at home, but from what I have seen, women end up carrying most of the daily brunt and they feel like they must because of what they see on tv and thousands of years of history. [EDIT: fixed typo]
  - mimiflynn 14y ago
    In this regard, to make it less gender specific, we would have to assign the term 'second shift', which, although this term is historically used in regard to women, it can also be used for men that have to do the majority of child raising and housework in addition to working full time. So, if anyone, a man or a woman, is doing the majority of the housework and child raising ('second shift'), this article speaks to them.
    - septerr 14y ago
      agreed

RyanZAG 14y ago

I don't believe I missed the context of the article - I believe I tried to address that exact issue. The article - and the whole context surrounding the article - are discussing the issues of 'getting ahead' and work-life balance in a way that is very specific to women. They're certainly free to do this, but I believe they consigning themselves to a type of echo-chamber and missing out on incredibly useful philosophy on the subject by trying to constrain it to only women. When I say that the situation is sad I'm referring to the loss to everyone involved by not realizing that the issue of work-life balance is a truly global issue, and by boxing it in with specifics (such as women only, tech worker only, etc), the debate is far shallower and loses out on a lot of important history. .. but why? The reason is that there should be no 'gender specificity' at all in the article. Including it is a mistake and detracts from the very important message and makes it difficult for male experts in the field to enter the discussion as well. It's a loss for everyone involved.

septerr 14y ago
I wouldn't decry the article addressing mostly women, because IMO, work life balance is more an issue for women esp those of us who harbor carrer related ambitions. In spite of men treating women as equal and sharing responsibilities, in my experience, most of the time women carry the greater part of the daily load related to running a household and tending to children. Women feel an unspoken pressure from society to have a clean beautiful well run house. Add to that the pressure to look good, be in a good shape and dress well. They are bombarded with images of professional women in business attire and women in aprons cooking gourmet meals with children frolicking around. They are constantly struggling to be both these type of women. On the other hand, society and media don't put out so many conflicting images of men. Men have been consistently expected to be bread winners, be successful in their professional life. I am not saying, men don't understand that with a working wife, they have to lend a helping hand at home, but from what I have seen, women end up carrying most of the daily brunt and they feel like they must because of what they see on tv and thousands of years of history. [EDIT: fixed typo]
- mimiflynn 14y ago
  In this regard, to make it less gender specific, we would have to assign the term 'second shift', which, although this term is historically used in regard to women, it can also be used for men that have to do the majority of child raising and housework in addition to working full time. So, if anyone, a man or a woman, is doing the majority of the housework and child raising ('second shift'), this article speaks to them.
  - septerr 14y ago
    agreed