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.
> 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.