that is totally what I just saidOriginally Posted by Loki
Yeah, buying them stuff to read is optional.
that is totally what I just saidYeah, buying them stuff to read is optional.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
There's libraries for a reason.Yeah, buying them stuff to read is optional.
On the other hand,
Expenditures for major budgetary components estimated in this study consisted of direct parental expenses made on children through age 17. These expenditures exclude college costs
and other parental expenses on children after age 17. In addition, expenditures on children
made by people outside the household and by the government are not included. Indirect costs
involved in child rearing by parents (time costs and foregone earnings and career opportunities)
are also not included in the estimates.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
The total does include assistance programs like food stamps however.
Private schooling and sporting expenses are also thrown in there
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I don't get why these numbers are surprising. I figure that each kid is going to set me back at least that much, probably much more. Childcare alone averages some $20-30k/year in my state. Obviously some costs go down as they get older, but others go up. Just extrapolating that figure over nearly two decades puts you at about half a million dollars, easy. There are economies of scale, of course, and ways to economize (public school, anyone?), but at the end of the day you're definitely going to spend a lot.
Then again, what's the point of wealth generation/accumulation if you don't have descendents to invest in?
Ask Alber.
Hope is the denial of reality
Ask the modern GOP
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
The modern GOP isn't the one supporting prohibitive estate taxes.
And that's why Johnny can't read!
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1467944.html
That's quite a long time to hold a grudge.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
God, that's a cynical way to view children.
I'm an outlier....by saying it's really not too expensive to have children. Breast milk is free. Toddlers don't need special baby foods from the grocery store. Even disposable diapers are an expensive convenience item that isn't necessary. One parent staying home saves at least $20K per year, just in "child care costs". Both parents working outside the home may look like more income, but not when costs of transportation, wardrobe, nannies or child care eat up that income. Even then, there's nothing quite like one parent being present for the important milestones: first smile, first words, first steps. Those are priceless.
We live in a pretty backward society when those who make large incomes, and might want to stay home with children, claim they can't "afford" it....
Today's parents can do better to save for their own retirement, than paying for their kids' college tuition. I was "lucky" enough to learn that before I'dspentwasted about $100k on my first child's college costs.
Too bad he disappeared.Ask Alber.
I prefer to think of it as realistic. Kids are expensive, and it's obviously a bad investment if you want to be wealthy. But I still think kids are a great idea - I just don't think they're cheap in the slightest.God, that's a cynical way to view children.
Stay-at-home is not an option for most people nowadays. The extra money from a second professional career easily offsets the cost of childcare, especially since they're going to go to school eventually anyways. Furthermore, the cost to the career of waiting it out while you have kids is simply too great from both a financial and position/skills perspective. (Also, no free lunches. There are costs to all of your 'cost saving' ideas above.)I'm an outlier....by saying it's really not too expensive to have children. Breast milk is free. Toddlers don't need special baby foods from the grocery store. Even disposable diapers are an expensive convenience item that isn't necessary. One parent staying home saves at least $20K per year, just in "child care costs". Both parents working outside the home may look like more income, but not when costs of transportation, wardrobe, nannies or child care eat up that income. Even then, there's nothing quite like one parent being present for the important milestones: first smile, first words, first steps. Those are priceless.
I don't deny that it might be nice in a perfect world with unlimited resources, but we don't live in that perfect world, and the reality is that there's little evidence that a stay-at-home parent produces much better outcomes for the kid than a decent daycare or nanny (caveat: there is evidence for very early childhood, but that's what maternity leave is for).
Er... how is that backward? They make large incomes because they don't stay home with their kids.We live in a pretty backward society when those who make large incomes, and might want to stay home with children, claim they can't "afford" it....
Just out of curiosity (ie. not trying to pick a fight), why is that?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Lots of reasons, ranging from the hard-headed to the touchy-feely. Some of them include:
1) Economically, we need to keep at least a reasonable dependency ratio in order to support the old and frail (which I hope to be some day). Obviously that doesn't mean we can have sustainable population growth indefinitely, but a gradual tapering of population is far preferable to having our fertility fall off a cliff. Kids are good for this.
2) If you have to have kids in the world (see reason 1), I'd prefer they have my genes and upbringing. Selfishly, I like to think that the combination of my genes and my cultural/etc. outlook are better for the whole of humanity than the average. I could be deluding myself, of course, but that's my prerogative.
3) Kids can be a good investment as a hedge against longevity risk. If you run out of money and have sufficient descendents (who don't hate you), chances are you'll have someone to take care of you in your dotage.
4) Kids are adorable.
5) I understand the logic of those who argue that people are fundamentally irrelevant to the world, so all of the previous reasons are a bit moot. I disagree - I'm far more of an optimist about people in general. In specific, I think that people - or, more broadly, conscious and intelligent beings - inform the natural world with meaning that it didn't necessarily have before. A universe without intelligence is dull and mechanistic, but with intelligent self-aware beings? It can be beautiful, amazing, glorious, horrific, etc. When people see a rainbow, it is far more than an optical phenomenon. We have given the world great injustices, true, but we also gave it the ideal of justice, which I find priceless. I prefer a universe infused with semantic meaning over one without it, so I would like our species to propagate and survive. Better yet, I'd like our lives to improve in the future, and I think they will - so I will be bequeathing a better world to them than the one I inherited. I know this may be at odds with those of us who have occasional bouts of nihilism, but that's my personal feeling about our species.
6) My wife likes kids, too. I like to stay on her good side.
There's more reasons, but that's a decent sampling.
That was a wonderful piece of writing. Thank you!
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Happy you enjoyed.
Hope is the denial of reality
Children are an added expense, but they're not necessarily "expensive". I'm not sure what you meant in the bolded part....what you call a "bad" investment, let alone what it means to be "wealthy".
Stay-at-home is still an option for millions of families, depending on their priorities. Saying that two incomes can "offset the costs" of childcare makes it sound like taking care of our own infants and toddlers is simply a financial decision. Saying all kids "eventually" spend most of their time at school is another parental punt.Stay-at-home is not an option for most people nowadays. The extra money from a second professional career easily offsets the cost of childcare, especially since they're going to go to school eventually anyways. Furthermore, the cost to the career of waiting it out while you have kids is simply too great from both a financial and position/skills perspective. (Also, no free lunches. There are costs to all of your 'cost saving' ideas above.)
Children, and forging families, aren't "inconveniences" that interfere or interrupt our professional careers and upward mobility. Well, unless it's only mothers that stay home....because womens' lower pay scales are the automatic default position.
The US doesn't have comprehensive or universal Maternity leave. Let alone equitable Paternity leave. "Decent Day Care" is practically an oxymoron. Full time nannies and au pairs mean paying a care-taker more than median wage, while losing something crucial in translation between money and family, as values.I don't deny that it might be nice in a perfect world with unlimited resources, but we don't live in that perfect world, and the reality is that there's little evidence that a stay-at-home parent produces much better outcomes for the kid than a decent daycare or nanny (caveat: there is evidence for very early childhood, but that's what maternity leave is for).
That's the paternalistic definition.Er... how is that backward? They make large incomes because they don't stay home with their kids.
Yes, they're expensive. By every reasonable measure. They cost quite a bit more than a car, every year until majority. I would consider that expensive. They're a bad investment in that their returns (as measured strictly in terms of money) will never pay off the money you put into them. There are other returns that boost your utility - say, loving children and having them love you back - but if we're just looking at dollars and cents, it generally isn't worth it.
Stay at home is only an option for people who make less money. That sounds backwards, but it isn't. Straight out of college, a two-earner household can easily make more money than median household income in the US (and I'm not talking about an Ivy League education or a particularly useful degree, either). The reason median household income is so low is partly because of the people who don't go to college, but a lot of it is because there are a huge number of single-earner (or 1.5 earner) households out there - there is a great deal of statistics that back me up on this one.Stay-at-home is still an option for millions of families, depending on their priorities. Saying that two incomes can "offset the costs" of childcare makes it sound like taking care of our own infants and toddlers is simply a financial decision. Saying all kids "eventually" spend most of their time at school is another parental punt.
Children, and forging families, aren't "inconveniences" that interfere or interrupt our professional careers and upward mobility. Well, unless it's only mothers that stay home....because womens' lower pay scales are the automatic default position.
Look, obviously kids are important and they're worth more than just dollars and cents. But they are inconvenient, and they do interrupt professional careers. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have them, but it does mean that if you want to have a real career you're going to have think carefully about work-life balance, and plan accordingly.
FMLA is pretty comprehensive. About 2/3 of the workforce works at an FMLA-covered company, and about 1/2 of the workforce has full FMLA benefits.The US doesn't have comprehensive or universal Maternity leave. Let alone equitable Paternity leave. "Decent Day Care" is practically an oxymoron. Full time nannies and au pairs mean paying a care-taker more than median wage, while losing something crucial in translation between money and family, as values.
As for day care, that may be your opinion but I think there are any number of day cares that are pretty good, albeit at a cost. Nannys and au pairs also don't make even close to the median wage. They make more than minimum wage, certainly, but hardly as much as the median wage.
Do you know what paternalistic means? Because I have no idea how it fits in here.That's the paternalistic definition.
I believe OG would call one of those words a 'weasel word'..."Decent Day Care" is practically an oxymoron.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I thought I misunderstood it, because I also didn't understand it here
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Wow, you're comparing children to cars?And talking in terms of ROI...by saying kids are bad investments....in monetary terms? There is no way to look at children as "just dollars and cents". Dude, if you're that calculating with your money, maybe you should consider being a dog or cat parent instead.
Statistics exist for everything. But if you chose your career, decided whom to marry, and picked your community, based on "statistical models"....well, I should probably shut my mouth at that point.Stay at home is only an option for people who make less money. That sounds backwards, but it isn't. Straight out of college, a two-earner household can easily make more money than median household income in the US (and I'm not talking about an Ivy League education or a particularly useful degree, either). The reason median household income is so low is partly because of the people who don't go to college, but a lot of it is because there are a huge number of single-earner (or 1.5 earner) households out there - there is a great deal of statistics that back me up on this one.
Translation: your career, and earning potential, are inextricably linked to your identity. Only a "real" career matters, and that doesn't include taking time off to parent your own kids. Instead, you think that means Day Care, a nanny, or a wife whose career means less than yours. All of which have a dollar figure that you compare to your income.Look, obviously kids are important and they're worth more than just dollars and cents. But they are inconvenient, and they do interrupt professional careers. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have them, but it does mean that if you want to have a real career you're going to have think carefully about work-life balance, and plan accordingly.
Still comparing all things to money....FMLA is pretty comprehensive. About 2/3 of the workforce works at an FMLA-covered company, and about 1/2 of the workforce has full FMLA benefits.
As for day care, that may be your opinion but I think there are any number of day cares that are pretty good, albeit at a cost. Nannys and au pairs also don't make even close to the median wage. They make more than minimum wage, certainly, but hardly as much as the median wage.
Paternal, as in male dominant attitude. When we speak of one parent staying home to raise babies, I'll bet you didn't consider that could mean you.Do you know what paternalistic means? Because I have no idea how it fits in here.
I said it's a bad investment, not that it's a bad idea. Investments normally look at monetary considerations, and this whole discussion was about the expense of kids. I don't understand what your problem is. (BTW, cats are dogs are far worse investments from a money angle.)Wow, you're comparing children to cars?
Didn't you choose where you lived to some extent on the basis of the SES, crime rate, and cultural/ethnic makeup of your community? Didn't you plan your career partly on the basis of potential earnings, projected job growth, etc.? Those are all rooted in statistics. It's not the only factor, but it definitely helps guide a decision by appropriately informing you of the costs and benefits of a particular course of action.Statistics exist for everything. But if you chose your career, decided whom to marry, and picked your community, based on "statistical models"....well, I should probably shut my mouth at that point.
I think maternity/paternity leave is important and valuable, and it's not like I don't plan on spending time with my children. But frankly, being a stay-at-home parent may be valuable, but it ain't a career. This doesn't have anything to do with my identity - in unicorn fairyland, I'd be happy to not work and just spend time raising children. Unfortunately, my wife and I also need to provide food, shelter, education, etc. for our children, and that requires a good job.Translation: your career, and earning potential, are inextricably linked to your identity. Only a "real" career matters, and that doesn't include taking time off to parent your own kids. Instead, you think that means Day Care, a nanny, or a wife whose career means less than yours. All of which have a dollar figure that you compare to your income.
(Also, I don't get where you think I said my wife's career means less than mine. She actually has a better career than mine right now, and I've been consistently advocating for the wisdom of both parents having careers.)
Actually, I have definitely considered being a stay-at-home dad. There's some obvious biological problems with this, but once you get around those I think I'd enjoy it quite a bit. But more practical considerations make stay-at-home for either parent a very challenging proposition.Paternal, as in male dominant attitude. When we speak of one parent staying home to raise babies, I'll bet you didn't consider that could mean you.
BTW, for your future edification, paternalistic does not mean paternal. Stealing from Webster, paternalism is defined as:
Paternalistic is a system (like a government) which tries to limit someone's freedom or authority 'for their own good'. It has nothing to do with male vs. female.a system under which an authority undertakes to supply needs or regulate conduct of those under its control in matters affecting them as individuals as well as in their relations to authority and to each other
My two cents: Often people focus on the financial aspect of a stay-at-home parent in the household, and that's very important. But I rarely hear discussions on the emotional impact. Some people just aren't cut out for the stay-at-home gig. It comes with a whole different lifestyle than the 9-5 job does. If you're a person who craves adult time, instant gratification (as in, "Good Job So-and-So!"), or gets bored easily, then it's probably not right for that person. People do value their careers, and I don't blame them for that. I just never felt that overly committed to mine, and my husband makes more than I did (though together we made just shy of 6 figures), and we had discussed for years that one of us would stay home with the kid(s) for the first few years of their lives. Still, despite all of the preparations we made, nothing prepared me for this new lifestyle I have. I was used to doing what I want, when I wanted to, and not worrying about another person. It took me over a year to get used to such a life. There are still days when I think, "Why did I quit my job? That was easier than this!" So, it's not for everyone. I'm grateful that my husband and I are on the same page when it comes to me staying home. But I won't pretend it's easy. I think every family has to do what's best for them in that situation. It may be best for some parents to be out of the house, while others flourish at home. The only thing that matters is that everyone is happy and adjusted at the end of the day, no matter which way you choose.
Sorry for hijacking the WTF thread. Maybe my post is a WTF in itself, eh?
The "expense" of kids is by no means a strictly monetary decision. I don't understand why you'd say that, especially after your missive about the other "investments" in family that have nothing to do with money.
Sure, I planned and chose those things as a single woman. Not as half of a partnership or married woman. Distinctly different outlooks of "statistics", wouldn't you say? Crime rates (especially in unknown cities, with no family around) means an entirely different thing to a single person than it does to a couple. Being totally honest --- it means more to a single woman than it might to a single male.Didn't you choose where you lived to some extent on the basis of the SES, crime rate, and cultural/ethnic makeup of your community? Didn't you plan your career partly on the basis of potential earnings, projected job growth, etc.? Those are all rooted in statistics. It's not the only factor, but it definitely helps guide a decision by appropriately informing you of the costs and benefits of a particular course of action
No amount of money promised could have lured me to start my career in places that would mean bars on the windows, security guards at the entrance, or needing five types of dead bolts on my door...while hiring a private security firm to boot. Not when I could start the same career, as a single woman, without those added worries or precautions. It's one of those conundrums not many talk about...but moving to urban hubs like NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, or LA means something totally different to single women (that didn't spend any undergrad time in those areas) than it does to single men. Finding roommates or "safe" places to live isn't quite the same, especially if there are no family members around to give advice or call up.
I didn't mean to suggest that you staying home to raise your own children was unicorn fairyland. Or that it could be done without some income from either parent. Just that you have the stereotypical attitude that the father's income is related to a "career" that can't be interrupted, even for just two years or so to be primary parent, and probably equates money and future opportunity to success in both. But neither is true.I think maternity/paternity leave is important and valuable, and it's not like I don't plan on spending time with my children. But frankly, being a stay-at-home parent may be valuable, but it ain't a career. This doesn't have anything to do with my identity - in unicorn fairyland, I'd be happy to not work and just spend time raising children. Unfortunately, my wife and I also need to provide food, shelter, education, etc. for our children, and that requires a good job.
Well, without her input here, all we have is your word. If you found yourselves at the crossroads of careers vs parenting, and what's best for the children and family.... I'd hope you'd be quite willing to be the "designated parent" that stays home for a while.(Also, I don't get where you think I said my wife's career means less than mine. She actually has a better career than mine right now, and I've been consistently advocating for the wisdom of both parents having careers.)
Glad to hear that.Actually, I have definitely considered being a stay-at-home dad. There's some obvious biological problems with this, but once you get around those I think I'd enjoy it quite a bit. But more practical considerations make stay-at-home for either parent a very challenging proposition.It's still a fairly sad commentary when those who plan and choose parenthood can't consider the value of one parent-at-home, and instead call it impractical or very challenging.
Thanks, I guess? Since this has more to do with gender than government systems, should I have called it Sexism instead?BTW, for your future edification, paternalistic does not mean paternal. Stealing from Webster, paternalism is defined as:
Paternalistic is a system (like a government) which tries to limit someone's freedom or authority 'for their own good'. It has nothing to do with male vs. female.
Uh... what missives?The "expense" of kids is by no means a strictly monetary decision. I don't understand why you'd say that, especially after your missive about the other "investments" in family that have nothing to do with money.
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. You use statistics to make important life decisions, just like me or anyone else with a brain.Sure, I planned and chose those things as a single woman. Not as half of a partnership or married woman. Distinctly different outlooks of "statistics", wouldn't you say? Crime rates (especially in unknown cities, with no family around) means an entirely different thing to a single person than it does to a couple. Being totally honest --- it means more to a single woman than it might to a single male.
No amount of money promised could have lured me to start my career in places that would mean bars on the windows, security guards at the entrance, or needing five types of dead bolts on my door...while hiring a private security firm to boot. Not when I could start the same career, as a single woman, without those added worries or precautions. It's one of those conundrums not many talk about...but moving to urban hubs like NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, or LA means something totally different to single women (that didn't spend any undergrad time in those areas) than it does to single men. Finding roommates or "safe" places to live isn't quite the same, especially if there are no family members around to give advice or call up.
Bullshit, I never espoused that attitude. It has nothing to do with father vs. mother in terms of income. It has everything to do with intelligent choices wrt careers. Both my wife and I are highly trained professionals, doing work that only a small fraction of the world has the intelligence and training to do. It's economically wasteful and a foolish (monetary) proposition for us to instead do largely unskilled labor that could be done by an untrained person for a fraction of the cost, especially because of the opportunity cost involved to one's career advancement. This has nothing to do with me being male - I feel the same way about my wife's career.I didn't mean to suggest that you staying home to raise your own children was unicorn fairyland. Or that it could be done without some income from either parent. Just that you have the stereotypical attitude that the father's income is related to a "career" that can't be interrupted, even for just two years or so to be primary parent, and probably equates money and future opportunity to success in both. But neither is true.
This has NOTHING to do with gender issues. I'm not saying a father should work while a woman stays home - I'm saying both parents should work.
You can call it whatever you want, but realize that words you make up actually have meanings that don't mean what you think they mean.Thanks, I guess? Since this has more to do with gender than government systems, should I have called it Sexism instead?
Your post in #2113
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANTThat's what I said.. You use statistics to make important life decisions, just like me or anyone else with a brain.
So fucking what? You still portray the role of raising children, even your own children, as something that can be outsourced to other people...working at lower wages you call unskilled labor. You portray the work you and your wife do as something more valuable than raising children and creating a family.....since only a "small fraction of the world" can do what you do as professionals?Bullshit, I never espoused that attitude. It has nothing to do with father vs. mother in terms of income. It has everything to do with intelligent choices wrt careers. Both my wife and I are highly trained professionals, doing work that only a small fraction of the world has the intelligence and training to do. It's economically wasteful and a foolish (monetary) proposition for us to instead do largely unskilled labor that could be done by an untrained person for a fraction of the cost, especially because of the opportunity cost involved to one's career advancement. This has nothing to do with me being male - I feel the same way about my wife's career.
Oh, I see! Anyone can procreate, and any child can be raised by a stay-home parent...who can't do a fraction of what certain "others" can do. Those special folks hire a nanny or send their kids to boarding school, and consider it the economically and monetarily "wise" decision. What matters most is the income potential of the parents.
Okay, then I'll call your posts arrogant and elitist. Better?This has NOTHING to do with gender issues. I'm not saying a father should work while a woman stays home - I'm saying both parents should work.
You can call it whatever you want, but realize that words you make up actually have meanings that don't mean what you think they mean.
Or, er, daycare and the occasional babysitter?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
...which was reasons to have children, not reasons why they're a good investment. In fact, I was specifically responding to Nessie's query about why I thought it was a good idea to have kids even if it was a bad monetary investment.
Er, you quoted my response to your shock and horror that I might use statistics to help guide life decisions. So, you concede I'm right and your judgmental post was wrong?That's what I said.
Dude, childcare while you're at work != outsourcing the raising of your own children. Do you send your kids to school? *gasp* How could you?! Letting teachers raise your kids instead of homeschooling them... for SHAME.So fucking what? You still portray the role of raising children, even your own children, as something that can be outsourced to other people...working at lower wages you call unskilled labor. You portray the work you and your wife do as something more valuable than raising children and creating a family.....since only a "small fraction of the world" can do what you do as professionals?
Oh, I see! Anyone can procreate, and any child can be raised by a stay-home parent...who can't do a fraction of what certain "others" can do. Those special folks hire a nanny or send their kids to boarding school, and consider it the economically and monetarily "wise" decision. What matters most is the income potential of the parents.
Look, the reality is that until recently women were either not in the workforce or in special niche positions that frequently ignored their many talents. We didn't have female doctors, lawyers, scientists, politicians, managers, etc. Our society was foolishly leaving half of the world's talent pool on the table - how many Newtons or Einsteins (or Aristotles or Lockes) were relegated to menial housework because of their gender? Bringing women into the workforce meant that there were some obvious tradeoffs - notably, we had to develop solutions for substituting and streamlining childcare - but the benefits are obvious. Essentially, it allows us to specialize. I don't doubt that there are people who are particularly well suited for childcare, and they should definitely be doing this - whether in a formal setting (such as a daycare or school) or in an informal one. But I would prefer that a female Erdos spend most of her time working on mathematics rather than changing diapers.
Works for me!Okay, then I'll call your posts arrogant and elitist. Better?
Ostensibly a female Erdös would be childless
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18582171
Yay for the British police state.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote