Do you mean something else by the "it" in "It seems to be just plain old biology"?

So yes, it’s totally normal that the expectation of caring for children fall on women because it is the prolongation of their pregnancy. Actually this is not even disputed except by a minority of people in a minority of countries (the Western world).

I'm saying that it's only women who leave work to _raise_ their children and that _that_ is sexist. There is no reason to abandon your career to raise your children, there is no reason that this is never done by men (who can do it just as well as women because it does not involve special biological characteristics) and there is no reason that women are expected to do it.

In the western world of course we have such things as maternal leave and in some countries even _parental_ leave which is an attempt at a solution to exactly the problem we're discussing here: that women are expected to leave their careers _permanently_ to raise their children even though they only need at most a few months or so to recover after giving birth (a year is an absolute extreme), and that men are not expected to do the same.

EDIT: So, I say "in the western world" but it turns out that's not _all_ the western world. From wikipedia's article on parental leave:

The United States, Suriname, Papua New Guinea, and a few island countries in the Pacific Ocean are the only countries in the United Nations that do not require employers to provide paid time off for new parents.[6]

EDIT 2: "You are missing purposely the fact".

I'm not and I could assume you are wilfully misunderstanding _me_. And where would that get us?

1) This is a conversation concerning those in a relationship as to who will be raising the child (if it's not a shared effort)

2) I know a few guys that are stay at home dads, share the responsibility with their spouse of parents, or use caring services and nobody needs to be a stay at home parent.

3) If they are permanently leaving their career then it sounds like there's something completely unrelated that's affecting this other than some sexist issue.

4) How's what you're saying any different than some women expecting the man to be the bread winner and provide for the family? Or expecting them to be the one to defend the family if there's an intruder in the house? Or expecting the guy to fix things around the house or be the one to hire a contractor to do it? Or expecting the guy to take the garbage out or change a tire or talk to their son about sex, etc.

Like I say in another comment, sexism harms men too.

It really is not a matter of men-vs-women, here. My understanding is that these are traditional ideas about manhood and womanhood, that were useful in the past because they helped ensure societal stability and perhaps a sensible use of limited resources. But, in today's world, especially in the Western world, where the majority of men and women don't e.g. have to work the fields or do the washing by hand, these traditional ways of seeing each other only help to restrict our options. In the end, most women and most men have loved ones in the other sex (wives, sisters, mothers, daughters, husbands, sons, brothers and fathers) and it just doesn't make sense to stick to archaic ideas that want us to be somehow adversaries. Most women want the men they love to do well in their life and vice-versa. So why not work to maximise each other's options, rather than restrict them? We can work together rather than against each other to achieve our full potential, as individuals and as family units.

So a year off work, at most. Let's say three if you want to have three children (most women in the Western world today will have one or two).

How does that square up with giving up an entire career, that lasts considerably longer than three years?

Or would you keep looking for a solution that allows women, who have the very normal female attribute of “having breasts”, to also be catered to and be able to get work done and be compensated despite the whole “breast having” thing?

We need to--as much as we are able--change societal expectations, workforce expectations, and the way jobs are structured so that women are not at a disadvantage. These changes can also benefit men (eg, equal parental leave and other policies that it more affordable and feasible for people to have children). It hurts both sexes when workplaces are biased towards this archetype of a male breadwinner that is content putting in long hours away from his family.

You could view this as anti-family bias, which, due to society and biology, disproportionately affects women.

I agree with your sentiment, but there's a big biological difference here in terms of the fertility age. As discussed in the article, this question is very urgent for women in their 30s, but men can delay reproduction until their late 40s with no major issues. As such, men don't face an ultimatum on this, the way that women do.

But at late 40's do these men feel like they have to choose between children and early retirement?

Furthermore, most men don't just wait around until their late 40's to find a young woman to reproduce with. Human relationships aren't this calculated. You don't get to plan when you end up meeting the right person. Life happens. There are plenty of men in their 30's in committed relationships with women in their 30's. Just because he can delay reproducing doesn't mean they can. Usually this is a decision that a couple makes together. And I haven't heard a man say that he had to choose between his career and having kids because his wife's biological clock was ticking.

Or, to put it more simply: why don't men leave their careers to have children at any age?

Most men don't leave their careers at any age because they have to provide for the preganant wife which can't work and needs lots of care.

But even assuming the whole business of giving birth took a whole year (the full nine months for carrying a baby to term and another three to recover) there is no reason that this has to be the end of a woman's career for good. It's one year. People take one year sabbaticals and go and gawp at Machu Picchu. It's not the end of the world, especially if you're young and even in a fast-moving career like STEM academia. it's not like you can't ever read the latest publications again because you have to lie in bed for a few days after giving birth.

The care you say men must give to their wives lasts at best a few months of a year. After that a man is free to leave work to raise the kids and the woman can go back to work, if they so wish.

So why don't they do it?

Then there's 8 weeks of recuperation after birth, paid by the health insurance which are more or less mandatory and it would be stupid not to take them. Even if the body's not fully recovered at this point, the woman can work.

The question is, why would a mother leave her newborn in order to work, when the outcome will be worse both for the mother (weaker bonding, working through recuperation) and the baby (missing its mother during the day)? That's why it's common here that women either take one or two full years of parental leave or they stay at home N years. This can also be and is mixed with part-time work.

In any case, that would be an easy pregnancy. Childbirth over 30 becomes harder and over 35 it's classified as a high-risk pregnancy.

"After that a man is free to leave work to raise the kids and the woman can go back to work, if they so wish. So why don't they do it?"

One reason could be that by the time those months (in reality a year) are over the mother's better at caring for the child than the father.

I've also seen that women tend to like spending time with their babies(!) so they prefer working part-time or staying at home.

Finally, it's often the case that the husband earns more. Women also tend to prefer men which are successful. In the case where she earns more, it makes economical sense for the husband to work part-time or stay at home. I read an article about such a case a while ago, and being a stay at home dad looked like a sad existence: besides the social disdain and emasculation, that person wasn't even welcome to spend time with other parents (i.e. mothers), because they were looked on with suspicion.

She literally spends 25%+ of the post explaining the fertility wall that does not affect men.

That's what the author is failing to discuss. Why do women need to give up their career to _raise_ children when the business of _having_ children takes a tiny portion of the duration of a career in STEM academia.

Do you have an explanation for that?