Right - so imagine that you didn't have that opportunity to do that academic work because you have an elderly parent at home who needs care. You've got two little kids at home who aren't yet school age and thus needs care. You wouldn't be content with your work situation in that case, right? Sure, it might just be for a few years - but what if those few years block you from key promotions or research opportunities? Do you get it? I'm certainly not saying that everyone should be focused on their careers, I'm just observing that sometimes people are making tradeoffs between their careers and their personal life, and more often than not it is the female in the heterosexual relationship that is making more of those tradeoffs.
> Right - so imagine that you didn't have that opportunity to do that academic work because you have an elderly parent at home who needs care. You've got two little kids at home who aren't yet school age and thus needs care.
Many people will choose the elderly parents and little kids over academic work and promotions, given they have enough money to support themselves.
The academic work and promotions are just a means to an end, which for many is the ability to support and raise a family.
So that's 9 months + some amount of months breast feeding. What's the excuse after that? Couples of all types need to find the balance that is right for them, but the comments in this thread trying to use biology as an excuse to make 18 years (or life, as I see it) worth of child-rearing strictly a "women's issue" are living in the past.
>Many people will choose the elderly parents and little kids over academic work and promotions, given they have enough money to support themselves. The academic work and promotions are just a means to an end, which for many is the ability to support and raise a family.
Must be nice. Meanwhile, the people in my area have shitty low paying jobs and can't afford housing, and are still trying to support their kids and elderly parents, all while having eff-all in the way of access to quality, affordable health care.
The possibilities are endless to make having a child easier for both mothers and fathers and people are stuck on "women have to breastfeed so they have to sacrifice their careers".
Why not something like a GI-bills structure to reward having children? Blows my damn mind people think sacrifice is a necessary part of having a child from society's point of view.
You can make things more equal between men and women. But some unescapable biological realities still exist.
> Why not something like a GI-bills structure to reward having children? Blows my damn mind people think sacrifice is a necessary part of having a child from society's point of view.
Sounds something that Mitt Romney and moderate Republicans (if there are any other ones left) would be all in favor of. Would be a popular bi-partisan policy proposal in a sane US political environment.
It is insignificant. What does matter waaay more are years and years after pregnancy and breastfeeding. How the care is split during those years, how much the parent going to pick up kids is penalized in the workplace.
Times how ever many children they decide to have. Generally during prime years of career development. That is not a trivial commitment.
> but the comments in this thread trying to use biology as an excuse to make 18 years (or life, as I see it) worth of child-rearing strictly a "women's issue" are living in the past.
Yes, that is why I did not make that claim.
> Meanwhile, the people in my area have shitty low paying jobs and can't afford housing, and are still trying to support their kids and elderly parents, all while having eff-all in the way of access to quality, affordable health care.
Yes, that's the part about money being a means to an end. Being able to commit one parent to child raising is a privilege requiring having basic economic needs met on one income. That used to be the reality in the US, but no longer.
Financial independence.
Anyone who thinks SAH parents can free themselves of this worry is naive. You never get the time back, you never get the experience back, you never get the training or the raises or the bonuses. You never get the retirement savings. If you are unfortunate enough to live in the US you are entirely dependent on your spouse for healthcare.
It's an unfathomably vulnerable situation to be in but it gets brushed off. There is still an attitude that SAH is a 'gift' given to a parent, see how often a working spouse will say they 'let' their partner stay at home, that the working partner 'supports' the family. A SAH spouse is not an equal partner with a 50% contribution. More of an oldest child with extra responsibilities and a higher allowance.
Pre-nups are often advocated as a way to ensure fairness if the relationship falls apart. I'd rather see pre-SAH legal documents. The SAH spouse gets half the earnings, gets half the purchases, gets half the retirement savings. A working spouse who isn't willing to sign it is a working spouse who doesn't believe that being home and watching children is a 'real' job.
This is a really depressing way of looking at things.
> This is a really depressing way of looking at things.
No, it's not depressing, it's total BS. Anyone who's ever been in a remotely serious relationship knows keeping score like "percent contribution" leads to the end of that relationship.
So given the fact that financially independent women do not have kids at similar rates as financially dependent women, perhaps it is an important part of a relationship.
And a disposable one at that!
That's not an edge case, it's an inevitable consequence of being financially dependent. It happens 100% of the time.
My favorite question to ask is: "why you want a career?" to pretty much anyone who speaks in this manner.
Serious question to people, I don't get it. I love learning, I'm highly qualified in the academic space and enjoy picking at problems. I've written papers, patents, well paid, etc. Highly successful by most metrics.
That said, I don't work for a "career", I work to afford me opportunity.
A family is an investment in the future, it provides you happiness, but more importantly purpose. Sure, there's a lot of stress, and you have to invest a lot of time. That said, it pays off an order of magnitude in terms of life satisfaction and having future opportunities. Who's going to take you on vacation when you're 65 and have a bad hip -- if not your children? My proudest achievement are things my children have done, not the accolades, promotions, bonuses, etc I've received in my career.
If I work hard, slave at night to get my presentation(s) done, will our product be better? Maybe, but in all likelihood that just makes me look good enough to get promoted, but 5 years later I wont have anything but a pay check to show for it. Wealth without purpose is worthless.