What made you go WTF today?

[GGT]

wiggin, I just don't think having children (or not) should be framed as good (or bad) "monetary investments". Using statistics and data to guide life decisions can't begin to weigh benefits or losses, because humans simply don't operate like computers or calculators. The same is true for the values or costs of a college education....including debts, unemployment rates, type of degree, etc. that can't measure all the other benefits or losses.

The "reality" is that since women have become half the workforce, and almost half of all professional fields....the wage gaps and family leave policies haven't kept up. It's also a fact that women still dominate early education, teaching, child care and day care, but without being "valued" with professional salaries (or even skilled wages). US culture still has an attitude that those who can, do; those who can't, teach, and seems to treat raising kids the same way.

I didn't intend to bark at you, but you hit some hot buttons when talking about "careers delayed" for stay-at-home parents (translation: mostly mothers). Those temporary delays aren't proven to be detrimental to a "career"....especially since children eventually attend school most of their day, as you said. Careers can include part-time work, working from home, job sharing, tele-conferencing, things women have done for decades, even generations. Besides, modern careers can last more than 60 years, with many changes and detours along the way.

If Einstein were alive today, he'd probably be amenable to changing a few diapers while "work" continues in his head, multi-tasking, having a Daddy Day that allows his partner to have a "work day". He likely wouldn't view a care-taker as a wetnurse that simply feeds a child, changes diapers, and does menial housework. His research assistants might be parents too, and they'd figure out a way to make it work without losing talent, whether that's from a mother or father. In other words, he'd be living with current definitions of parenting, and would know the importance of fathers doing more than bringing home the bacon.

[Flixy]

If Einstein were alive today, he'd probably be amenable to changing a few diapers while "work" continues in his head, multi-tasking, having a Daddy Day that allows his partner to have a "work day". He likely wouldn't view a care-taker as a wetnurse that simply feeds a child, changes diapers, and does menial housework. His research assistants might be parents too, and they'd figure out a way to make it work without losing talent, whether that's from a mother or father. In other words, he'd be living with current definitions of parenting, and would know the importance of fathers doing more than bringing home the bacon.

You must have known him quite well back in the days, if you know this so accurately.

[wiggin]

wiggin, I just don't think having children (or not) should be framed as good (or bad) "monetary investments". Using statistics and data to guide life decisions can't begin to weigh benefits or losses, because humans simply don't operate like computers or calculators. The same is true for the values or costs of a college education....including debts, unemployment rates, type of degree, etc. that can't measure all the other benefits or losses.

Money and statistics aren't the only thing driving a life decision, but they're certainly important parts of one, no?

The "reality" is that since women have become half the workforce, and almost half of all professional fields....the wage gaps and family leave policies haven't kept up. It's also a fact that women still dominate early education, teaching, child care and day care, but without being "valued" with professional salaries (or even skilled wages). US culture still has an attitude that those who can, do; those who can't, teach, and seems to treat raising kids the same way.

I agree that persistent wage gaps are a problem, but I can guarantee that taking 2-3 years off of a career for each child is going to make it worse... and that such a 'wage gap' would not be a result of sexism or anything else but a reasonable assessment of that employee's potential productivity and skills. Wage gaps (for same-skill and same-qualification work) need to be closed, of course, but that has nothing to do with whether parents should stay home to raise their children.

I didn't intend to bark at you, but you hit some hot buttons when talking about "careers delayed" for stay-at-home parents (translation: mostly mothers). Those temporary delays aren't proven to be detrimental to a "career"....especially since children eventually attend school most of their day, as you said. Careers can include part-time work, working from home, job sharing, tele-conferencing, things women have done for decades, even generations. Besides, modern careers can last more than 60 years, with many changes and detours along the way.

They are proven to be detrimental to a career. At least if you define career like most of the world - opportunities for advancement in position, responsibility, and pay. Parents who take off a lot of time to raise kids materially damage their future career prospects. This is not an opinion.

If Einstein were alive today, he'd probably be amenable to changing a few diapers while "work" continues in his head, multi-tasking, having a Daddy Day that allows his partner to have a "work day". He likely wouldn't view a care-taker as a wetnurse that simply feeds a child, changes diapers, and does menial housework. His research assistants might be parents too, and they'd figure out a way to make it work without losing talent, whether that's from a mother or father. In other words, he'd be living with current definitions of parenting, and would know the importance of fathers doing more than bringing home the bacon.

I'm skeptical this is true, but even if it were it's besides the point. Nearly all parents perform some childcare (evenings, weekends, etc.), but the question is should they perform stay-at-home childcare if their 'working' time is better spent on their own specialization.



You're making this into a father vs. mother thing when it simply isn't. It's a career vs. stay-at-home thing. It's perfectly fine to choose stay-at-home over career if one can manage it, of course, but that doesn't mean there aren't real costs.

[GGT]

Money and statistics aren't the only thing driving a life decision, but they're certainly important parts of one, no?

Sure they are! IMO, saying kids are either too expensive, or too costly to a career, are really crappy metrics for making a life decision to have children. Unlike many posters here, I don't believe that parenthood and starting a family should be limited to certain socio-economic groups, married couples or heterosexuals, etc.

I agree that persistent wage gaps are a problem, but I can guarantee that taking 2-3 years off of a career for each child is going to make it worse... and that such a 'wage gap' would not be a result of sexism or anything else but a reasonable assessment of that employee's potential productivity and skills. Wage gaps (for same-skill and same-qualification work) need to be closed, of course, but that has nothing to do with whether parents should stay home to raise their children.

It probably depends on the career, how many children and their spacing, and age of the parent. I've never said a parent should stay home to raise their kids....just that it should be an option and choice, even for fathers.

They are proven to be detrimental to a career. At least if you define career like most of the world - opportunities for advancement in position, responsibility, and pay. Parents who take off a lot of time to raise kids materially damage their future career prospects. This is not an opinion.

Again, it depends on the career path and philosophy of the employer. Having an upwardly mobile career shouldn't require anyone to ignore their family responsibilities or obligations, or make an either-or-decision. Eventually, even childless people might have elder parents who need them during declining years....for decades to come. That's infinitely more complicated than raising kids who grow and need less time, over time.

I'm skeptical this is true, but even if it were it's besides the point. Nearly all parents perform some childcare (evenings, weekends, etc.), but the question is should they perform stay-at-home childcare if their 'working' time is better spent on their own specialization.

Maybe you're skeptical because you're using an outdated model of parenting? You keep framing this in a way that ignores what children might need in bonding, and time spent with at least one parent, and that it can be "time well spent" by any parent. The first few years of a child's life aren't something that can be a Do-Over. But careers, even specialized and highly technical careers, never have a closed time-frame. In fact, we're encouraged to look at careers as ever-changing events on our lifespan timeline continuum, that we'll have at least three, and work until we're in our mid-late 70s. Right?

You're making this into a father vs. mother thing when it simply isn't. It's a career vs. stay-at-home thing. It's perfectly fine to choose stay-at-home over career if one can manage it, of course, but that doesn't mean there aren't real costs.

I've been trying to make this a Family thing, and suggesting that both men and women/fathers and mothers should have the same choices and options. Whether it's to "stay home" with infants, toddlers or teenagers....or sick, elderly, infirm parents....and being a primary care-taker. It expands into service-sector employment and wages, when those industries are still dominated by women.....

I heard there's a new and controversial article about this. When I find it, maybe it'll be thread worthy.

[Catgrrl]

This one GGT? Saw it on my parenting forum the other day:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...e-it-all/9020/

[Veldan Rath]

Sure they are! IMO, saying kids are either too expensive, or too costly to a career, are really crappy metrics for making a life decision to have children. Unlike many posters here, I don't believe that parenthood and starting a family should be limited to certain socio-economic groups, married couples or heterosexuals, etc.

Where the HELL did this come from?

I'm not sure even Lewk (who is in the damn minority on this forum and thus a piss poor example) would say that having kids should be limited as you describe.

At best (worst?) some of might suggest that:
1. If you don't have enough scratch to feed yourself, then downloading another biological unit might be a wee bit...DUMB?
2. Being single and raising kids is DAMN TOUGH thus not optimal either
3. And here I'm obviously biased...but there are plenty of noodninks out there that are APPALLED that some damn rich crackers are raising children of color...so you can own your share of idiot racists on your side of the aisle.

[wiggin]

Sure they are! IMO, saying kids are either too expensive, or too costly to a career, are really crappy metrics for making a life decision to have children. Unlike many posters here, I don't believe that parenthood and starting a family should be limited to certain socio-economic groups, married couples or heterosexuals, etc.

I never said kids are too expensive/costly. I just said they are very expensive, and if one stays at home for years to raise them, it will hurt your career. These are descriptive, not normative statements.

It probably depends on the career, how many children and their spacing, and age of the parent. I've never said a parent should stay home to raise their kids....just that it should be an option and choice, even for fathers.

It's always an option, just not a very wise one for the career minded. So what?

Again, it depends on the career path and philosophy of the employer. Having an upwardly mobile career shouldn't require anyone to ignore their family responsibilities or obligations, or make an either-or-decision. Eventually, even childless people might have elder parents who need them during declining years....for decades to come. That's infinitely more complicated than raising kids who grow and need less time, over time.

You're wrong. People who take significant time off from a job (more than a few months) will lose skills over time and need significant retraining/time to get back up to speed. This is expensive and time consuming, and it hurts your career.

Maybe you're skeptical because you're using an outdated model of parenting? You keep framing this in a way that ignores what children might need in bonding, and time spent with at least one parent, and that it can be "time well spent" by any parent. The first few years of a child's life aren't something that can be a Do-Over. But careers, even specialized and highly technical careers, never have a closed time-frame. In fact, we're encouraged to look at careers as ever-changing events on our lifespan timeline continuum, that we'll have at least three, and work until we're in our mid-late 70s. Right?

I'm using an outdated model of parenting? Dude, stay-at-home parenting is the outdated model.

[Catgrrl]

I had a really long response typed out, but this is really all a big WTF anyway so why bother.

I'm perfectly fine with being outdated, and cutting my career short. That choice is something personal for everyone. Not everyone has that choice financially. In the end, it's all in your priorities and timing too. Something has to be sacrificed on the way to the top. Often that is family. Kids usually turn out fine, it's usually the parents that look back with regret. Missed opportunities no matter which way you go.

(Note this is a female perspective: often we feel guilty for such things. "Mommy is always working", missing special events , feeling that the babysitter is loved more than you, etc. I'm not a man so I have no idea if the same feelings arise when juggling career and family.)

[wiggin]

Cat, I think your choices are perfectly fine - and, for many circumstances, admirable.

[Ominous Gamer]

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

PDF warning: http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre...form_Final.pdf

Thing is full of WTFs; abstinence, creationism, citing "God’s biblical promise" to support Isreal...

[GGT]

This one GGT? Saw it on my parenting forum the other day:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...e-it-all/9020/

Yeah, that's the one! Great article.

I never said kids are too expensive/costly. I just said they are very expensive, and if one stays at home for years to raise them, it will hurt your career. These are descriptive, not normative statements.

It's always an option, just not a very wise one for the career minded. So what?

Read the article Cat linked. Some people want both family and career, trying to balance things without hurting (or sacrificing) one for the other. That doesn't deserve a "so what" response.

You're wrong. People who take significant time off from a job (more than a few months) will lose skills over time and need significant retraining/time to get back up to speed. This is expensive and time consuming, and it hurts your career.

I'm using an outdated model of parenting? Dude, stay-at-home parenting is the outdated model.

Then you're using an out-dated model of what a career path means in today's societies. (The article mentions the career arc. Did you read the article?) AND you're using an out-dated perception of what stay-at-home-parenting entails. Yes, it depends on the field, but even taking two years "off" of formal employment often means Continuing Education, CEUs, professional certification and seminars, volunteer or charitable involvements, computer conferences..... that keep skills (and networking) updated. Sometimes that translates into an even more updated and diverse knowledge and skills base, because there isn't a 40-60 hour work week to interfere. Sometimes it leads to a second career, having found a new interest that couldn't be honed with that full time job.

I don't know how many stay-home parents you know personally, but it's not just feeding, diapering, doing menial housework. If that's how you view it, no wonder you stated you wanted your wife to work

The other interesting tidbit from the article was how women from the 50s and 60s thought they had to be more "man-like" when men dominated the workforce. Today's men are more comfortable with once traditional "woman-like" behaviors (as care-takers, nurturers, active parenting, etc.) These evolutions in attitude are a good thing, for every family. I only wish the US would make the same family-friendly employment policies that Europeans (Scandinavians in particular) have adopted, that have equity for dads as much as moms, and value kids as much as careers.

[GGT]

I had a really long response typed out, but this is really all a big WTF anyway so why bother.

I'm perfectly fine with being outdated, and cutting my career short. That choice is something personal for everyone. Not everyone has that choice financially. In the end, it's all in your priorities and timing too. Something has to be sacrificed on the way to the top. Often that is family. Kids usually turn out fine, it's usually the parents that look back with regret. Missed opportunities no matter which way you go.

(Note this is a female perspective: often we feel guilty for such things. "Mommy is always working", missing special events , feeling that the babysitter is loved more than you, etc. I'm not a man so I have no idea if the same feelings arise when juggling career and family.)

True, divorced and single parents don't usually have the financial choice, and guilt (or second-guessing) is a constant companion. Women have a different emotional perspective, but we've also been "allowed" to be more emotional than men that way. I know a few grown men who can talk straight-up about their childhoods, and their experiences as latch-key kids or being shipped off to boarding school or military school....left some scars.

[Nessus]

I only wish the US would make the same family-friendly employment policies that Europeans (Scandinavians in particular) have adopted, that have equity for dads as much as moms, and value kids as much as careers.

If wishes were fishes, we'd all be casting nets!

Given that it's germane to Andrew's life (and his wife's, I think?), I'll point out that even in blissful Scandahoovia the budding scientists who choose to spend a couple of years at home with the kiddy-winks are effectively choosing a career path outside academia. Or, at best, a rather stunted half-way academic career in which one never leads a team etc. The competition is fierce, and staying at home with little Kaarina doesn't upgrade your CV or grow your list of publications and talks...

[Veldan Rath]

Yer trying to communicate with someone who has digitinearcanal disease...it's tragic...but now that she is has automatic access to health care now, she could be in luck!

[Flixy]

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6019140

In christian science books from Louisiana high schools, the Loch Ness monster is apparently real, and disproves evolution!

Also, apartheid was a good thing, communists are the cause of illiteracy in Africa, and the sun isn't a big fusion reactor. Oh, and no transitional fossils have ever been found (except they have).

[GGT]

If wishes were fishes, we'd all be casting nets!

Given that it's germane to Andrew's life (and his wife's, I think?), I'll point out that even in blissful Scandahoovia the budding scientists who choose to spend a couple of years at home with the kiddy-winks are effectively choosing a career path outside academia. Or, at best, a rather stunted half-way academic career in which one never leads a team etc. The competition is fierce, and staying at home with little Kaarina doesn't upgrade your CV or grow your list of publications and talks...

The difference being that Scandahoovia also pays decent stipends to those budding scientists. They have generous subsidized housing and transportation. For those with little ones....there's professional, quality, public-subsidized childcare available. Those budding scientists also get days off/vacations, paid travel to seminars or conferences, don't have to work minimum wage jobs to make ends meet (or pay off thousands of dollars of student loans), or need parents able/willing to bridge the financial gaps.

Whether having children is a choice or an "accident", the US doesn't have the same Family-Friendly, Child-Centered, or Future-Oriented policies as SSSSocialist Europe. Ironically, in the thread about our Healthcare Bill, Dread (and others) said as much, but posed those values as negatives.

[wiggin]

Read the article Cat linked. Some people want both family and career, trying to balance things without hurting (or sacrificing) one for the other. That doesn't deserve a "so what" response.

I read it. Did you? The article explicitly says this:

We may not have choices about whether to do paid work, as dual incomes have become indispensable.

That's what I've been saying. She also explicitly recognizes that choosing a lower tempo job or taking off significant time early on can hurt your career. In fact, she agrees with pretty much every statement I've made here.

Now, I personally found her article kinda offensive - because she's seeing this whole conundrum through a feminist lens. Somehow, she claims, if she doesn't make an incredibly high-stress career work with effective parenting, she's seen as abandoning the feminist cause. Yet every problem she mentions is not gender specific - guys with high profile careers have just as many challenges. In fact, I'd hazard a guess they face even more problems in some respects - if a female higher-up makes some ironclad rule about her leaving work at 5:30 to have dinner with her family (even if she continues work from home later), there may be some grumbles about her choices, but people will give her her due. If a man does it, he'll be faced with incredulity. (This isn't always the case, I recognize, and I don't want to get into an argument about it.)

Furthermore, she makes a bit of a strawman here. She tried to draw a connection between her specific high octane job at the State Department and all high achieving professional careers. That's bullshit, and she even acknowledges it - her fantastic professional career at Princeton allowed her to manage work-life balance much better, and I'd say the balance of professional careers (outside of some business and government careers) afford the same opportunities.

She makes one reasonable point - it's about perception, though, not reality. Her points about how family-oriented workers are perceived compared to, say, the marathon runner, or the Orthodox Jew, are reasonable. But two points - first, this is a matter of perception, and perception can be managed. It's already far easier to manage work-life balance than it used to be 50 years ago, and I think we can make progress on this. Second, I'm betting that when push came the shove, the marathon runner or the Orthodox Jew would face a lot of pushback on their choices if it affected their work... just like the parent. Perceptions are one thing, but actual performance is another. A parent who turns out stellar work will be respected for their choices (and, often are - just look at the workaholic examples she writes about throughout) - just like the runner or Jew.

Look, people can have a modicum of family life while having a career. For those people who are really driven (a tiny fraction of the total professionals), they will have to make serious sacrifices. Nothing has changed about this, irrespective of gender.

Then you're using an out-dated model of what a career path means in today's societies. (The article mentions the career arc. Did you read the article?) AND you're using an out-dated perception of what stay-at-home-parenting entails. Yes, it depends on the field, but even taking two years "off" of formal employment often means Continuing Education, CEUs, professional certification and seminars, volunteer or charitable involvements, computer conferences..... that keep skills (and networking) updated. Sometimes that translates into an even more updated and diverse knowledge and skills base, because there isn't a 40-60 hour work week to interfere. Sometimes it leads to a second career, having found a new interest that couldn't be honed with that full time job.

First of all, the point she made about tailoring your career path for so-called 'investments' and turning down promotions early on was laughable. She complains that all of the women raised up as role models are superheroes, and it's hard to match their accomplishments... yet then turns around and proposes a career path that would only work for the truly extraordinary. Someone who's incredibly good at what they do can turn down the prestigious promotion, clerkship, or fellowship, because they know more opportunities will come down their way. Most people don't have that luxury.

Secondly, if you think that taking two years off in your early career can be compensated for with some seminars and conferences, you're dreaming.

I don't know how many stay-home parents you know personally, but it's not just feeding, diapering, doing menial housework. If that's how you view it, no wonder you stated you wanted your wife to work

Dude, my entire peer group is currently dealing with the sticky issues of work-life balance. Obviously it's not just menial work, but frankly a lot of it is, and can be done by someone less skilled. A successful career can still have weekend and evening time for the actual parenting.

Also, what's so crazy about wanting my wife to work? She's a bright, highly educated, incredibly capable woman. Why wouldn't I want her to put all of that training and skill to good use?

The other interesting tidbit from the article was how women from the 50s and 60s thought they had to be more "man-like" when men dominated the workforce. Today's men are more comfortable with once traditional "woman-like" behaviors (as care-takers, nurturers, active parenting, etc.) These evolutions in attitude are a good thing, for every family. I only wish the US would make the same family-friendly employment policies that Europeans (Scandinavians in particular) have adopted, that have equity for dads as much as moms, and value kids as much as careers.

Probably the most generous provisions for mothers are made in Germany, where women get unprecedented maternity benefits and are in fact encouraged (by very generous subsidies) to raise their toddlers at home even after maternity leave expires. Germany clearly favors women raising their children at home during their first few years of life, and has structured their day care and employment system to match.

Do you know the result? Huge numbers of women never go back to work after they take off their time. That, I'm afraid, is not a solution I find workable or desirable.

The difference being that Scandahoovia also pays decent stipends to those budding scientists. They have generous subsidized housing and transportation. For those with little ones....there's professional, quality, public-subsidized childcare available. Those budding scientists also get days off/vacations, paid travel to seminars or conferences, don't have to work minimum wage jobs to make ends meet (or pay off thousands of dollars of student loans), or need parents able/willing to bridge the financial gaps.

You do realize that budding scientists in the US are paid quite decent stipends, have subsidized transportation (and often housing), get plenty of vacation, and are paid for travel to conferences?

[Loki]

Why do you dignify her consistent judgementalism, ignorance, and hostility with a response?

[GGT]

I read it. Did you? The article explicitly says this:

That's what I've been saying. She also explicitly recognizes that choosing a lower tempo job or taking off significant time early on can hurt your career. In fact, she agrees with pretty much every statement I've made here.

Depends on the perspective. Lots of things "can" hurt a career, delay its progress, or even kill it. Including things we can't control, like personal illness/injury, a family crisis, a changing economy, a recession/depression, a War.....it also depends on the career, how it fits in a culture's values, and if the society has Family Friendly policies.

Now, I personally found her article kinda offensive - because she's seeing this whole conundrum through a feminist lens. Somehow, she claims, if she doesn't make an incredibly high-stress career work with effective parenting, she's seen as abandoning the feminist cause. Yet every problem she mentions is not gender specific - guys with high profile careers have just as many challenges. In fact, I'd hazard a guess they face even more problems in some respects - if a female higher-up makes some ironclad rule about her leaving work at 5:30 to have dinner with her family (even if she continues work from home later), there may be some grumbles about her choices, but people will give her her due. If a man does it, he'll be faced with incredulity. (This isn't always the case, I recognize, and I don't want to get into an argument about it.)

Offensive? Where you see "feminist" I see "female". She wrote an opinion piece from a woman's perspective, including her age and experiences over time. Her male contemporaries had different expectations (and experiences) than many men would today. It's irritating when people play the "feminist" card any time a woman writes or talks from the gut, expresses challenges or frustrations with culturally engrained conflicts, trying to do their best while being pulled in so many different directions. If anything, that female "higher-up" would support a man's rule to leave work at 5:30 to have dinner with his family, because a "feminist" usually wants gender equity, not different sets of rules. (Not always the case, but I don't want to argue about that, either. )

Furthermore, she makes a bit of a strawman here. She tried to draw a connection between her specific high octane job at the State Department and all high achieving professional careers. That's bullshit, and she even acknowledges it - her fantastic professional career at Princeton allowed her to manage work-life balance much better, and I'd say the balance of professional careers (outside of some business and government careers) afford the same opportunities.

Didn't you make the same strawman? You claimed your professional career didn't allow for much flexibility and taking time off would be detrimental....but now you're saying that, on balance, most professional careers DO afford the same opportunities?

She makes one reasonable point - it's about perception, though, not reality. Her points about how family-oriented workers are perceived compared to, say, the marathon runner, or the Orthodox Jew, are reasonable. But two points - first, this is a matter of perception, and perception can be managed. It's already far easier to manage work-life balance than it used to be 50 years ago, and I think we can make progress on this. Second, I'm betting that when push came the shove, the marathon runner or the Orthodox Jew would face a lot of pushback on their choices if it affected their work... just like the parent. Perceptions are one thing, but actual performance is another. A parent who turns out stellar work will be respected for their choices (and, often are - just look at the workaholic examples she writes about throughout) - just like the runner or Jew.

Look, people can have a modicum of family life while having a career. For those people who are really driven (a tiny fraction of the total professionals), they will have to make serious sacrifices. Nothing has changed about this, irrespective of gender.

I've said as much, but we started talking over one another....when I suggested that if you are in that tiny fraction of total professionals whose sacrifices would be on the career-side, you can't say the same for others. What has changed over time is the higher number of women in the total work force, and in professional careers.

First of all, the point she made about tailoring your career path for so-called 'investments' and turning down promotions early on was laughable. She complains that all of the women raised up as role models are superheroes, and it's hard to match their accomplishments... yet then turns around and proposes a career path that would only work for the truly extraordinary. Someone who's incredibly good at what they do can turn down the prestigious promotion, clerkship, or fellowship, because they know more opportunities will come down their way. Most people don't have that luxury.

Secondly, if you think that taking two years off in your early career can be compensated for with some seminars and conferences, you're dreaming.

*sigh* She's not a 20-something writer. Her experiences (and perspective) reflects truly big changes over a few decades of time. And again, it depends on the career. Yes, it's possible to be a highly skilled physician, take a year (or two) "off" to stay home with baby (or a terminal spouse, or elderly parent), maintain skills and professional networks, and return to practice as an even more valuable professional.

Dude, my entire peer group is currently dealing with the sticky issues of work-life balance. Obviously it's not just menial work, but frankly a lot of it is, and can be done by someone less skilled. A successful career can still have weekend and evening time for the actual parenting.

Also, what's so crazy about wanting my wife to work? She's a bright, highly educated, incredibly capable woman. Why wouldn't I want her to put all of that training and skill to good use?

Probably the most generous provisions for mothers are made in Germany, where women get unprecedented maternity benefits and are in fact encouraged (by very generous subsidies) to raise their toddlers at home even after maternity leave expires. Germany clearly favors women raising their children at home during their first few years of life, and has structured their day care and employment system to match.

Do you know the result? Huge numbers of women never go back to work after they take off their time. That, I'm afraid, is not a solution I find workable or desirable.

You do realize that budding scientists in the US are paid quite decent stipends, have subsidized transportation (and often housing), get plenty of vacation, and are paid for travel to conferences?

We had a thread about German attitudes toward parenting young children, but it was mostly about Kindergarten and early-ed. I'm not saying the US should adopt Germany's policies that discourage women to re-enter the work force. But I do favor policies that are Family-Friendly and Child-Friendly. Yeah, these issues about work-life balance are messy and sticky. And they come at a time when understanding how babies bond and children develop isn't just nature vs nurture, but the kind of nurturing, done by whom and how.

After this nice long discussion, wiggin, there's one question remaining. When you said you wanted your wife to work, I assumed you meant during/after pregnancy. That you'd prefer she returned to work ASAP, delegating the 'menial and less skilled' tasks of raising your child to someone else. Why?

[earthJoker]

Apple wins court order blocking U.S. sale of Samsung Galaxy Nexus

A U.S. District Court has handed Apple a victory against one of its biggest competitors in the smartphone market by blocking U.S. sales of the Samsung Galaxy Nexus.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted Apple a preliminary injunction against the Galaxy Nexus phone, which went on sale in the United States in mid-December.

This is the second Samsung Galaxy product blocked by Koh this week: On Tuesday, she granted Apple a preliminary injunction against U.S. sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer.

Koh granted the injunction after Apple argued that the Galaxy Nexus phone caused it irreparable harm due to long-term market-share loss and "losses of downstream sales," according to The Next Web.

Reuters reporter Dan Levine described the scene in the courtroom after the injunction was granted: The lawyer representing Samsung, John Quinn, had a long face, and Apple's attorney Mike Jacobs was smiling.

"It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging," an Apple spokeswoman said in an email. "This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas."

Neither Samsung nor Google responded to a request for comment.

http://www.latimes.com/business/tech...,5421074.story

Those crazy Germans.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm not quite sure what the Nexus and an iPhone have in common. The design is quite different, the UI is different, handling is different. Really begins to resemble a Kindergarten.

I'm also not sure that it's a good idea of Apple to begin shoving Google around - what with their acquisition of Motorola Mobile and the corresponding patents.

[wiggin]

This is starting to get pointless, so unless I'm particularly exercised to respond to your response, I'll probably leave it at this.

Offensive? Where you see "feminist" I see "female". She wrote an opinion piece from a woman's perspective, including her age and experiences over time. Her male contemporaries had different expectations (and experiences) than many men would today. It's irritating when people play the "feminist" card any time a woman writes or talks from the gut, expresses challenges or frustrations with culturally engrained conflicts, trying to do their best while being pulled in so many different directions. If anything, that female "higher-up" would support a man's rule to leave work at 5:30 to have dinner with his family, because a "feminist" usually wants gender equity, not different sets of rules. (Not always the case, but I don't want to argue about that, either. )

The author explicitly made the connection to feminism - and how her position is seen by other 'career women' as being a betrayal of the feminist ideal. So, you're wrong.

Didn't you make the same strawman? You claimed your professional career didn't allow for much flexibility and taking time off would be detrimental....but now you're saying that, on balance, most professional careers DO afford the same opportunities?

Uh, no. Most professional careers allow you to spend evenings and weekends with your family. Hers barely allowed her to see her kids at all. There's a huge difference between 'evenings and weekends' and 'taking 2-3 years off'.

*sigh* She's not a 20-something writer. Her experiences (and perspective) reflects truly big changes over a few decades of time. And again, it depends on the career. Yes, it's possible to be a highly skilled physician, take a year (or two) "off" to stay home with baby (or a terminal spouse, or elderly parent), maintain skills and professional networks, and return to practice as an even more valuable professional.

Uhm, doubtful. Some physician careers might allow it (essentially, if you're a hospitalist and don't have a practice), but most don't. Certainly most other professional careers don't allow that kind of flexibility.

After this nice long discussion, wiggin, there's one question remaining. When you said you wanted your wife to work, I assumed you meant during/after pregnancy. That you'd prefer she returned to work ASAP, delegating the 'menial and less skilled' tasks of raising your child to someone else. Why?

I've already answered this, but here goes:
1. My wife is incredibly skilled and well-educated; her time and effort is far more productive and effective when applied to the very real problems she handles at work. (In case you're wondering, she works on medical device development, something I'm sure you and I can agree is a rather important societal role that is quite specialized.) Paying someone to do the far less specialized work of childcare is a more efficient allocation of resources and skills.

2. Whether you believe it or not, taking a significant amount of time off (beyond a few months post-pregnancy) will hurt her career and professional standing (both she and I have seen it happen frequently). I am not so selfish as to expect her to stay at home for longer (and make my life easier) if it means that she will lose significant opportunities for career advancement. She is quite career oriented and has every intention of continuing her already-excellent professional growth - why should I deprive her of the same career opportunities I have?

3. It is my understanding that my wife enjoys the intellectual challenge and adult interaction of her work. I have heard from numerous stay-at-home mothers that they crave specifically that kind of interaction, and I think my wife would find being a stay-at-home parent very frustrating after the fairly rigorous work environment she's used to.

Look, if we can swing it financially and my wife finds she loves the stay-at-home thing, I have no problem with her doing so. But given the realities of needing a two-income household and my wife's own preferences and skills, I don't see why it's surprising or scandalous that I support her desire to have a career even while she has children.

[GGT]

This is starting to get pointless, so unless I'm particularly exercised to respond to your response, I'll probably leave it at this.

Yeah, probably shouldn't have a thread within-a-thread anyway. I don't even remember how it started now.... but it piqued my curiosity about people's attitudes toward careers/income/families. How they make those life decisions and balance things, with changes in workforce and cultural attitudes. Not just from gender roles or stereotypes, expectations and definitions of "success"....but how we view and value children, figuring out what they need, whether from parents, families, corporate or gov't policies.

IMO the US hasn't done a very good job, as a society, but we hear constant lip-service about think of the children! or children are our future!. It occurred to me most posters here are post Title IV kids, and gender-equity in education and employment are your norm (although that's relatively 'new'). We have more women in the workforce, more professional women, the wage gap is shrinking some, women are heads of household and often the only income earner....but baby didn't come along in the bathwater. We still don't have comprehensive, quality childcare or daycare, women are still tasked with most child-raising, politicians want to slash Head Start and early-ed programs, summer youth programs, on and on.

We've got a conflicted societal attitude toward children, and it's become a Tale of Two Worlds: those in high income brackets can "buy" the best schools, hire a nanny--or "afford" one parent staying home, while affording extra-curricular activities for little Johnny; those very service providers struggle to support a family, require two incomes to keep up, single parents can't afford costs of childcare or youth sports/activities. Seems to me if we truly valued children, and thriving families, we'd be paying those caretakers and educators wages that give them an opportunity to rise into higher income brackets! Instead of treating those fields as inferior, or the people as menial, low-skilled, replaceable 'domestic workers'....or kids as adaptable blobs that just need an adult in the room. Strange cycle of dichotomies. WTF

Will leave it at that, too many moving parts. You and Cat were the only real 'takers' in the discussion, guess it'd only be thread-worthy when specific political policies are being dissected. Then people can sarcastically say Won't someone think of the children!

[Aimless]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=25070

[Ominous Gamer]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=25070

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

PDF warning: http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre...form_Final.pdf

Thing is full of WTFs; abstinence, creationism, citing "God’s biblical promise" to support Isreal...

[Aimless]

Needed corroboration

[Loki]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ected-son.html (ignore the source)

[Aimless]

Jesus, that is certainly one of the most dysfunctional teams I've ever heard of

[Loki]

Taking bets on how many will get fired because of this? I'm going to say 0-1. The usual refrain is "lessons learned", until there's another horrific homicide perpetrated by a "lazy and incompetent" staff.

[termite]

Apparently the carbon tax wasn't terrifying enough, they decided to send our idiot Minister for Trade out to talk to the media and he gave us this....