Actually we are

We're capable of transcending our biology in ways that most animals are not.

So you might get pregnant?

gender ≠ biological sex, but you're not an idiot, so you knew that.  To put it in simple terms for you - I may not get pregnant, but I might be the primary caregiver for my child.

Allons-y!

In what qualitative ways are we capable of transcending biology in ways that other animals cannot?

What has you becoming a primary caregiver got to do with the biological influence on "gender relations"?

In what qualitative ways are we capable of transcending biology in ways that other animals cannot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celibacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning (hasn't been done yet, but we probably very easily could if the ethical & legal issues were ignored)

What has you becoming a primary caregiver got to do with the biological influence on "gender relations"?

If it's not self-evident, explain to me why you though whether or not I could get pregnant was relevant to the statement "gender relations are what we make of them" so I understand where you're coming from.

Allons-y!

None of your examples of "transcending biology" have to do with gender or "gender relations." (I don't know why you cited suicide, especially when the Wikipedia page has a section on "Other Species.")

Biology imposes constraints on human behavior, including societal and interpersonal behavior. The fact that one sex can get pregnant and the other cannot is one of the strictest (and most blindingly obvious - but apparently not to you) of those constraints.

Again, gender ≠ biological sex.  If you can't or won't grasp that we've got nothing to talk about.

Allons-y!

I understand that you are using the term to mean behavior rather than physiology, is that correct?

Yes.  I think there is a useful distinction to be made by calling gender a social construct, and sex a biological reality, particularly since there is some variation across cultures in terms of what it means to be a man or a woman (gender roles), but obviously male and female biology has very little variation.

Allons-y!

Fine: gender is a social construct based on biological reality. The variation of gender roles between cultures is as insignificant as the variation in diet between cultures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch

Allons-y!

There are female eunuchs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Eunuchs

Allons-y!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_surgery

Allons-y!

Sex reassignment surgery does not grant working testicles or ovaries. Neither does it alter a body's hormone production. Unless a person has a (vanishingly rare) genetic disorder which grants functional use of both sets of sexual organs, there is no real choice in gender.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

So an infertile woman isn't a woman?  Good to know, I'll tell my wife that.

Allons-y!

Tell her? Just plug cables for a keyboard and mouse into your ears -- that will totally turn you into a computer, and she can read it for herself.

http://gizmodo.com/226406/pstoast-a-ps2-toaster-mod

Allons-y!

My grandmother grew up on a farm in the 1920s - her and her sisters all milked cows, picked potatoes and otherwise contributed to the household in a significant way.  This was not uncommon in rural areas (still isn't uncommon in rural areas).  In much of Africa women are more responsible for agricultural work than men are, actually.  Many "obvious" gender labor divisions, aren't.  I agree that most societies have created gender labor rolls for men and women, but in most cases those roles end up being somewhat equal amounts of work (or the women actually end up doing more work).  Technology took most of women's traditional labor in the West - cooking, baking, laundry, cleaning...things that were in the past very labor intensive - and made them significantly less burdensome.  Rather than finding new useful work to do to fill up that extra labor time, some subset of women seem to use it to obsess over micro-managing every aspect of their household and their kid's lives.   That is the modern "innovation" that is the biggest problem here, not women working outside the home or whatever it is you seem to be upset about.

Allons-y!

Women tend to value work which is close, routine, caregiving, and relatively risk-free. Men tend to value work that is distant, sporadic, confrontational, and with greater relative risk. Social and technological change which modifies the weighting of particular tasks may swing those tasks across the gender line, but the tendency to classify tasks as men's or women's work remains constant.

I don't necessarily disagree with that (although I think "tend" is a very important caveat there), but what does that have to do with the argument joshv and I were having?  If anything, I'd say that in today's society workers that are capable of doing routine work with close attention to detail are probably more (or at least as) valuable than (as) confrontational risk takers.  Certainly it doesn't stop women from pursuing a career, or make it physically impossible for men to engage in childcare.

Allons-y!

...I think "tend" is a very important caveat there...

Certainly it doesn't...make it physically impossible for men to engage in childcare

It is important to note that gerrymander was wrong to hedge on that: division of labor by sex is a universal human behavior, which very strongly suggests it is biologically driven.

Religious belief could have also been called a universal human behavior, not so long ago.

This is why we think you are so funny. Of course it is physically impossible for men to engage in childcare the way a woman can.

Yeah, woman have boobs, I get that Ken.  Tits tits tits.

Allons-y!

Religion is a universal human behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Europe

I wouldn't call rates of atheism that range as high as 33% "universal" in a meaningful way.  

Allons-y!

A universal human behavior is one that occurs in all cultures.

We're talking about individual level choices here, though - if 20% or 30% of individuals make choices that go against the norm, then public policy should accommodate that, no?

Allons-y!

We're talking about individual level choices here, though...

...recognizing that maybe we don't want to use technology as a means of ignoring real biological differences.

...if 20% or 30% of individuals make choices that go against the norm, then public policy should accommodate that, no?

The feminists (some of whom are angry and irrational by any reasonable standard) are arguing that social pressure to conform to the ideals of feminism is good, but social pressure to conform to more traditional roles is bad. They have a right to hold whatever opinion they wish, of course, but where feminists' ideals can be shown to conflict with reality it is reasonable to say those ideals may be detrimental to society.

There are feminists and then there are feminists - it's not exactly a monolithic group.  I don't think that social pressure to conform to either group is all that great - my desire to score some cheap points may have occasionally obscured that, but ultimately I think that people should have the option to do whatever they want within their financial means, without much social opprobrium in either direction.  From a practical economic standpoint, though, I'll stick with my assertion that it makes more economic sense right now to have two parents who are capable of being sole breadwinners than just one, and so it does bother me to see women being pressured to engage in child-rearing methods that are so intensive that this is impossible.

What public policy are you referring to?

Nothing in particular, just speaking in the abstract.

Allons-y!

I don't think the feminists that are saying women ought to work are the problem, but the feminists that think that women are entitled to a choice, either to work or not. Those feminists are dangerous because they undermine women's equality (equality in even negative situations) and because they are the caricatures for anti-feminists to use as straw men.

Women ought to work but ought to realize they have opportunity costs for making that choice, which could mean having children later => more complications with pregnancy, or having little or no relationship with their children, save for some meaningless biological relationship.

Women ought to work but ought to realize they have opportunity costs for making that choice, which could mean having children later => more complications with pregnancy, or having little or no relationship with their children, save for some meaningless biological relationship.

Why don't we, as a society, value making it possible for women to both have meaningful careers and have children at a reasonable age?  Why does anyone (male or female) with kids work at a job that requires them to spend so much time away from home that they can't both work and have a meaningful relationship with their children?

Allons-y!

Because as Americans were assholes and think that anyone that doesn't work at least 40 hours a week or more is a sloth.

And to be fair, there's a certain portion of the population that uses 'work' as an excuse to actually AVOID their families. They got suckered into marriage and kids (or maybe pressured into it from tradition) and they do everything possible to avoid that.

Why does anyone (male or female) with kids work at a job that requires them to spend so much time away from home that they can't both work and have a meaningful relationship with their children?

What kind of person values "things" more than a meaningful relationship with their kids?  

Allons-y!

I don't know.

"Things" - like a house, clothing, transportation, food, education.

"Things" - like a house, clothing, transportation, food, education.

Most people in most places can work a 40 hour work week plus or minus a few hours and take care of all those things, particularly in a dual-income household.  In my experience, most of the men and women I know that work significantly more than 40 hours a week also make a very significant salary, and live upper middle class (or upper class, period) lifestyles.  They could dial their lifestyles back, work lower compensated jobs with more free time to spend with their families, and still do very well for themselves by most peoples' standards.

Allons-y!

"Presumably because they want to make enough money to buy the things they want to buy - including things for their children. Why do you try to make the obvious things seem complicated?"

Um, in many cases, it is to make enough money to pay someone else to rais their children.  And hopefully have a few bucks left over to buy more things.

Oh, and very often (as I have a nephew and niece who do, I know of this first-hand) to get insurance benefits because one or the other of the jobs in the household doesn't provide it.

Now, if one parent focused on raising the children, and the other focused on work, some important changes would have to be in our society:

• Single-income households would have to find employment that paid a livable wage, sufficient to support a family.

• Health insurance would either have to be a universal benefit of such employment, or affordable enough to be acquired on the market, or would become paid for (or deliverd by) the Government, at some level(s).

• Since the job market would be hiring out of a much smaller pool of candidates, with mothers pretty much out of the market for much of their most productive working lives, there would either be higher rates of employment among those available, or work would get a lot more productive.

Of course, if extended families could be kept intact, a previoius generation could pitch in and care for the children once they were weaned, but that's gone the way of so much else also.  Mandatory or scheduled retirement lets that generation be much more independent, and so unavailable for the role of caregiver.  There are exceptions, yes, but the rule is that grandparents are visited, not included, for many.

Many other technological advances are responsible for this also - cars and the Interstate highway system make it so much more feasible to move away from the readily available (maybe) support system of you parents, and then they are just not handy for that childcare role.  

Just saying, technology has given us the ability to distort traditional roles fairly easily.  Along with those distortions, other such as wage devaluation have reinforced some social changes, and here we are. Women work because one income isn't enough, and pay someone to raise their kids.  Those who can afford to seem to prefer a more traditional role.  Those who can't (we call them 'poor') are forced onto the treadmill.

Oh, and our Government is more than willing than ever to fill the role of caregiver, with preschool especially.  

We can't go back.  So what do we do now?

Single-income households would have to find employment that paid a livable wage, sufficient to support a family

Health insurance would either have to be a universal benefit of such employment, or affordable enough to be acquired on the market...

Since the job market would be hiring out of a much smaller pool of candidates, with mothers pretty much out of the market for much of their most productive working lives, there would either be higher rates of employment among those available, or work would get a lot more productive

But our society is rife with dual-income familes that abet industry's willingness to pay less and less for work

Mandatory or scheduled retirement lets that generation be much more independent, and so unavailable for the role of caregiver

Why does anyone (male or female) with kids work at a job that requires them to spend so much time away from home that they can't both work and have a meaningful relationship with their children?

You appealed earlier to the right of individuals to make choices (a stance with which I agree), so I wonder if you don't think an employer should give consideration to a person willing to work 50+ hours per week (to advance their "meaningful career" but at the expense of time with their family) over someone who wants to work only 30-40 hours per week and spend more time with their family?  Or do you just think the former should be forbidden (either by social opprobrium or government fiat)?

Because as long as the former is an option, there's going to be someone who takes it, and they will beat out their competitors in the latter category when it comes to advancing their career.

I don't have a problem with people working 50+ hour weeks - I have a problem with people with kids working that much.  There are jobs out there that don't require that kind of time commitment.  They often aren't as well paid (although not always), but that's a trade-off you make to, you know, see your kids while they're still kids.  Work the long hours before you have them, or after they've graduated from high school and moving on with their own lives, but why have kids if you're not going to spend much time with them at all?  I guess that might sound strange from a guy who was just ranting about how people spend too much time micro-managing their attempts to raise perfect children, but I think there's a sweet spot to be had...and at the end of the day, I probably understand the people who stay at home and micro-manage more than I do those that have the kids and don't want to have anything to do with them.

Allons-y!

Work the long hours before you have them,

But part of your complaint was social pressure for women to delay motherhood in order to advance their career.

As for the rest, I understand that you don't think working long hours when you have kids is a good idea, but in the post I was replying to you wondered why society wasn't set up to allow women to have both a meaningful career and spend lots of time with their kids.  For purposes of discussion, I'm assuming that "meaningful" implies long hours (thus the conflict with raising kids), and I'm wondering what changes you would like made that would still allow individuals to make their own choices (as you advocated earlier).

you wondered why society wasn't set up to allow women to have both a meaningful career and spend lots of time with their kids.  For purposes of discussion, I'm assuming that "meaningful" implies long hours

I think a person can have a meaningful career working 40 hour weeks while they have children.  The main thing I'd like to see in the US is expanded maternity leave (and I'd expand it to men as well) - I'd require 6 months of mandatory leave for each parent for each child they have, and make each parent eligible to collect an equivalent amount of money from the government during that time as if they were receiving unemployment benefits (assuming they were employed before they had the kid - unemployed people who have kids wouldn't be eligible).  I'd fund this through a new payroll tax.

Allons-y!

You don't mind high unemployment?

I prefer that to a low birth rate or to forced female withdrawal from the labor force.  It's amusing that it's not counted as "unemployment" when someone like joshv's wife is forced to quit working because that's the only way they can afford to raise kids.

Allons-y!

It's amusing that your solution to any problem is a new welfare program.

Well, do you have another solution?  Or do you just reject that there's a problem?  Easy to say when you're someone that's making a salary that's high enough that you probably can support a family on one income...but do you realistically think that's going to be an option for the majority of the population, say, ever?

Allons-y!

When did it become such a problem?

When the birth-rate (excluding recent immigrants) fell below replacement level.

Allons-y!

So, what happens when someone chooses to only take six weeks of leave and they're rewarded by their employer with that next plum assignment (which comes up when their competitor is in their fifth month of leave anyway)?  Or when employers start discriminating against those they deem likely to take large quantities of leave in the hiring process?  (Yes, it wouldn't be perfect discrimination because they wouldn't be allowed to ask.  It would be worse.  A shotgun blast to everyone with a uterus between the ages of 25 and 35.)

I guess what I'm getting at is, it's not that our society doesn't allow women to have a career and kids that you're complaining about, it's that our society doesn't subsidize people (enough) who choose to have kids.

So, what happens when someone chooses to only take six weeks of leave and they're rewarded by their employer with that next plum assignment (which comes up when their competitor is in their fifth month of leave anyway)?

Then they don't get that plum assignment.  That's fine.  There are going to be consequences to having kids, I don't dispute that - but it's a hell of a lot easier to take six months of state mandated maternity leave and then come back to your job and pick up where you left off than it is to quit working for four or five years and then try to re-enter the workforce, having to explain that four or five year gap in your resume to prospective employers.  Are you trying to argue otherwise?  No system is perfect, but it's absurd to argue that six months of mandatory leave (as compared to the three months that is currently mandated) would somehow completely destroy the female labor market.  Again - I'm not saying that people who chose to have children should be guaranteed the same level of work success as someone who forgoes having kids and makes work his or her life.  I'm just saying that people who have kids should still be able to work and have a career if they choose to, and shouldn't feel like they have to postpone having children until they're in their mid-30s (and past their reproductive prime) because when they're younger there's no way they can afford to do it.

Or when employers start discriminating against those they deem likely to take large quantities of leave in the hiring process?  (Yes, it wouldn't be perfect discrimination because they wouldn't be allowed to ask.  It would be worse.  A shotgun blast to everyone with a uterus between the ages of 25 and 35.)

Employers already do this to women of childbearing age - that's why I would expand it to both men and women, which would at least equalize the discrimination somewhat.  Such discrimination is, by the way, illegal, which of course doesn't stop it entirely but it does blunt it.  Almost every other advanced country in the world has more generous maternity leave than the US does, and yet somehow they manage to get by.  Your concern-trolling about the plight of women under this new regime is touching, but not convincing.

I guess what I'm getting at is, it's not that our society doesn't allow women to have a career and kids that you're complaining about, it's that our society doesn't subsidize people (enough) who choose to have kids.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.  Children are important to society as a whole, and people who chose to have them should have that process made less difficult, unless you think it's just peachy to end up like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. - countries where the population is rapidly aging and nobody is having kids.

Allons-y!

Your concern-trolling about the plight of women under this new regime is touching, but not convincing.

Thanks, Amanda Marcotte.  I'm not "concern trolling".  I'm pointing out the perfectly predictable but unintended consequence of your suggested policy.  It's important to note it because it's the exact opposite of the effect you requested via rhetorical question originally (why doesn't society allow women to have both meaningful careers and children?).

Yes, that's what I'm saying.  Children are important to society as a whole,

Then say that, and I won't have to point out that what you are saying doesn't seem to match your argument in order to figure out what you mean.

unless you think it's just peachy to end up like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc

Yes, please stuff words in my mouth right after you accuse me of trolling.  When you're done being a dick about being asked to rectify your position, maybe you'll realize I never said a word against society's role in raising children.

I'm pointing out the perfectly predictable but unintended consequence of your suggested policy.  It's important to note it because it's the exact opposite of the effect you requested via rhetorical question originally (why doesn't society allow women to have both meaningful careers and children?).

This is where we disagree and it's why I'm being a dick to you, because I just don't understand what you're getting at.   Are you saying that my regime would be worse for women than the current regime, or not?  If so, explain why - I've already laid out why I think it would not be.  

Allons-y!

This is where we disagree . . .

Are you serious?  I've personally heard people in positions to make hiring decisions state that they wouldn't hire someone if they knew she was about to get pregnant.  And that's just the ones who consciously thought about it and were stupid enough to say it out loud (and under the current less generous system). If you don't think employers would be more leery of hiring someone who was likely to take multiple six month absences, we simply live in different worlds.

Are you saying that my regime would be worse for women than the current regime, or not?

I guess what I'm saying is that we are using different definitions of "meaningful".  Your earliest complaint was that society didn't allow women to have both a "meaningful" career and raise children.  Since it's already possible for a woman (or a man) to find employment that involves fewer work hours in order to spend more time with her family, I interpreted "meaningful" as high-powered, fast moving, and long hours.  In other words, you wanted to know why women couldn't "have it all".  My question to you, then, was how you get society to allow women to "have it all" without sacrificing the individual's ability to make choices which you earlier put forth as the ideal.

We are all of us, no matter how gifted, endowed with only 24 hours per day.  Hours spent on one activity cannot be spent on another, and the person who chooses to spend more hours on career advancement is generally going to be the one with the "meaningful" career.  The only way to allow the person who wanted to spend more time with their kids to compete with the person who didn't for a "meaningful" career would be to take away that choice to spend more time on the career.

Instead, it seems that by "meaningful" you meant "fulfilling" and all I can say is we are already there (see ms sue's comment below) and what you are actually arguing for is childcare subsidies, (to which I am not ideologically opposed though I find six months of maternity or paternity leave a bit much) not choice.

Are you serious?  I've personally heard people in positions to make hiring decisions state that they wouldn't hire someone if they knew she was about to get pregnant.  And that's just the ones who consciously thought about it and were stupid enough to say it out loud (and under the current less generous system). If you don't think employers would be more leery of hiring someone who was likely to take multiple six month absences, we simply live in different worlds.

Exactly, this happens already with the three months mandated unpaid leave.  To summarize my previous arguments - first, do you really think doubling it from three months to six months is going to have that much more impact?  If you're a business that won't hire women who might have kids, then three months or six months, doesn't matter, you won't hire them.  Second, if we expand this to men as well, that creates such a large pool of people who might potentially take leave that it makes it harder for businesses to figure out who will and who won't, and so eventually they'll just have to write it off as a cost of doing business and stop distinguishing.  

Instead, it seems that by "meaningful" you meant "fulfilling" and all I can say is we are already there (see ms sue's comment below) and what you are actually arguing for is childcare subsidies, (to which I am not ideologically opposed though I find six months of maternity or paternity leave a bit much) not choice.

I feel like we're parsing hairs here - as you said, people are "endowed with only 24 hours per day.  Hours spent on one activity cannot be spent on another" - so yes, childcare subsidies in one form or another are going to be an important part of that, because those basic childcare functions ("caring" for a child as opposed to "raising" it, to use the distinction I outlined below in my response to joshv) are one thing that a person can "outsource" to get some time back.  I disagree with you that we're "already there" in terms of the balance between choice and subsidy - it's not that easy to move between jobs or find jobs that allow you to work flexible hours.  Mandating that employers give employees of childbearing age some flexibility would do a lot to alleviate that.

Allons-y!

Second, if we expand this to men as well,

Under the Family Medical Leave Act, men have the same right to the leave as women.  Men don't take it as much as women now.  What makes you think they'll take it more if the benefit is expanded?

I disagree with you that we're "already there" in terms of the balance between choice and subsidy - it's not that easy to move between jobs or find jobs that allow you to work flexible hours.  Mandating that employers give employees of childbearing age some flexibility would do a lot to alleviate that.

Ok . . . what do you mean by "meaningful career"?  It sounds to me like you mean "society doesn't allow for work-life balance" not "society forces women to choose between a high powered career or spending time with kids".  The latter is true.  It's true for men, too, and I don't see how anything you've suggested would change that (because people who choose not to avail themselves of those benefits are always going to out-compete people who do use them in career terms).

The former is true, too, but it has nothing to do with having kids and everything to do with education, skill level, and choice of industry.  Work-life balance is available, regardless of whether you have kids, if you have the right combination of those three, but exercising it will still likely entail a career sacrifice (you might have flexible hours that allow you to cut out early to see your kid's play or go rock climbing with your other single friends, but if the next guy over chooses to stay and produces 30% more, chances are he's getting the next promotion).

Under the Family Medical Leave Act, men have the same right to the leave as women.  Men don't take it as much as women now.  What makes you think they'll take it more if the benefit is expanded?

FMLA is unpaid - women do often receive at least some paid time off, though (my wife, for example, can receive a full paycheck for her entire three months off as long as she has enough sick time and vacation time save up to cover 50% of the three months), but men almost never do.

Ok . . . what do you mean by "meaningful career"?  It sounds to me like you mean "society doesn't allow for work-life balance"

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.  I can understand why you were initially confused, but I honestly thought I had made that clear quite a few posts ago at this point.

Work-life balance is available, regardless of whether you have kids, if you have the right combination of those three

I think that it is far less available than you are claiming.  Even if you have the right combination of those three, it still takes at least some luck to fall into a situation where you can make it all work.  Mandated leave and more government support for childcare would make it much easier to strike that balance.  

Allons-y!

I can understand why you were initially confused, but I honestly thought I had made that clear quite a few posts ago at this point.

You'll have to pardon me for my extended confusion, but honestly, "meaningful career" is a horribly ambiguous term to use when you meant "full time job with flexible hours".  It would have been easier for me to understand if you had explicitly stated I was mistaken when I first broached the high-powered job definition (especially because there is clearly a greater conflict between "high-powered job" and "spending time with kids" than "generic full-time job" and "spending time with kids").

Even if you have the right combination of those three, it still takes at least some luck to fall into a situation where you can make it all work.

It takes some luck and / or a decision that it's important to you.  I turned down one position because the HR person's actual words on work-life balance were, "We're big on work-life balance.  I mean, you need to pick up your kids from school?  That's no problem.  Come in at 8, leave at 3 to pick up your kids, come back at 4, and just work until 8."  He said it without a hint of irony, so I went to the company that offered telecommuting (that I wasn't planning on using) and actual flexible hours.  I would have been paid more at the first company, but I'd rather be a human being.

Second, if we expand this to men as well, that creates such a large pool of people who might potentially take leave that it makes it harder for businesses to figure out who will and who won't, and so eventually they'll just have to write it off as a cost of doing business and stop distinguishing.

For what it's worth -- in Germany men and women are equally entitled to 12 months of total parental leave, which can be shared between the parents. If each parent takes at least two months of leave, the maximum is extended to 14 months. Even under these circumstances, according to this article (in German) only 25% of fathers choose to take any parental leave, and three quarters of those who do take only two months of leave (the minimum to get the "bonus" noted above).

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/ein-viertel-der-vaeter-geht-in-elternzeit/4196474.html

I'm pointing out the perfectly predictable but unintended consequence of your suggested policy.

That is pretty much the textbook definition of "concern trolling". You're making the mistake of thinking that verifiable truth matters more to some people than emotional truth.

"Concern trolling" implies that I don't really think the consequences I'm bringing up are going to happen or that they're not significant.  It's a standard Amanda Marcotte accusation when the "misogynist" and "patriarchy" wells have run dry.

I've always defined concern trolling as pretending to care about something you don't actually care about, to try to subvert another person's argument.  See the urban dictionary definition.

Allons-y!

Right.  I should have elaborated "don't really think the consequences are going to happen or don't care if they do (or would be happy if they did)".  Either way, you were a dick for throwing it out there when not only have I never indicated that I didn't think there was a societal role in raising children, I'm pretty sure I argued in favor of it with someone (The Plague?) not too long ago.  But I am sorry for calling you a dick.

Hey, if I'm being a dick, call me a dick.  I don't mind.

Allons-y!

You make a point about subsidizing women more to have kids. they've tried that in Europe with poor results. France offers lavish benefits, like cash grants to parents, free medical care and daycare services, and long maternity leaves. Even with this largesse, France has a birthrate of about 1.9, which is below replacement. Other EU countries offer similarly nice benefits, but even with that France has the highest birthrate in Western Europe. One wonders what the point is of a European Union if you run out of Europeans.

Subsidies aren't everything, but they help - countries that put them in place have seen improvements in their birth rates.  You need both a cultural shift towards valuing children, and subsidies to help make it possible.  I think the US still has a culture of valuing children (at least, moreso than Europe), but we're rapidly approaching the point where it's becoming economically unfeasible for most people to have kids at an ideal age.  Live with that situation long enough and eventually we'll value kids as little as the Europeans do, and be in even worse shape because we don't even have the subsidies to make childrearing attractive.

Allons-y!

How does it undermine women's equality to say they have a choice?

I got down to here and mainly I am ashamed that I mentioned this site recently to an acquaintance. does it get less basement-repressed-fury later?
are any women posting here any more?
does anyone really think sentences that start "women" or "men" that don't end in incontrovertible descriptions of genitalia are of any argumentative value?
can any of you recommend somewhere that is just a little less unprocessedly angry?

This is one of the sillier topics of late.

You call this angry? Heh. This is merely "light banter" TnT style.

[I'm not that guy.]

If you want real fireworks, post a diary entry uncomplimentary about Foreigner's music catalog.

Go ahead. I dare you.

This they did when they were children right?  Did boy children perform these roles as well?  Sure - because at that age the biological differences are small - though there are some jobs that require more strength than a girl child will have.

But I am talking about the role of their mother.  Was mother out there milking the cows and picking potatoes while dad fed the baby cow's milk from a new-fangled bottle by the hearth?

As for technological innovation, it cuts both ways, it gives both mother and father more free time to spend with the children.  The average work week has decreased significantly because we are so much more productive.  It also frees up mommy to spend more time with  Jr. during the day, and it gives Jr. more free time because his only chores are cleaning up his room, taking out the garbage and maybe running the vacuum cleaner for a few minutes.

So everybody has more free time - but your answer to this surfeit of free time is that mommy should work more outside the home, and turn over those tasks to which she is more biologically suited to the father.  Huh.  Maybe Dad should instead take up a part time job so that he doesn't use his extra time to "obsess and micromanage" using all his spare time.  Maybe Jr. should get a job to get out from under his harpy of a mother.

For some reason, you seem to have a very negative picture of the stay at home mom.  Let me give you a different one, my sister.  She had two kids, 5 and 7, and then had an oops, who is now almost 1.  Several months ago she decided that her job just didn't give her enough money to pay for child care for the new one - so she quit and now stays at home.  She doesn't rush everyone here and there in an overbooked social schedule, she doesn't take the kids on enforced "play dates".  She doesn't plop them all into the health club's day care room while she does Pilates.  She's just a normal everyday mom who does all those normal every day things that moms do.  She's not rich by any means, in fact they can barely afford to have her stay at home - though given the jobs she can find, it's cheaper than her working, at least for right now with an infant in the house.

I don't know what you think I am upset about either.

This they did when they were children right?  Did boy children perform these roles as well?  Sure - because at that age the biological differences are small - though there are some jobs that require more strength than a girl child will have.

She did this right up until she got married to my grandfather, then she kept doing it when he took over the farm.  Some of my earliest memories are helping her unload (50lb+) haybales from a wagon onto a hay elevator so my uncles could stack them in the hay mow.  This was when she was in her late 50s / early 60s.  Spend some time in a rural area and you'll be surprised by the amount of physical labor that women do (and have been doing since time immemorial).

So everybody has more free time - but your answer to this surfeit of free time is that mommy should work more outside the home, and turn over those tasks to which she is more biologically suited to the father...

What makes sense for any given family is going to vary, but do you really dispute my point that a family with two potential high income earners is more economically secure than a family with just one?  Particularly since in this economy no one has a guarantee of lifetime employment anymore?  I don't think having either parent sacrifice a career to stay at home makes sense if it can be avoided - if the least damaging option is for one parent or the other to take four or five years off, rather than each taking two, then so be it, but make that decision based on whose job will be impacted less by the off-time, not by gender.

Allons-y!

Well my income is much higher than my wife's was or could be, and my wife's support at home allows me to increase my income and gives me flexibility to take work that requires travel.  Suppose I need to get a contracting gig that requires travel?  No can do if my wife is working, at the very least it makes it much more difficult.  

I can also work more hours and work with fewer interruptions to my day than if my wife worked as well.  That increases my income over the long term.

And what happens if/when you have a heart attack, get hit by a bus, what have you?  Do you have a life insurance policy large enough to make up for 20 years or so of lost income? (I'm guessing you're in your mid-to-late-30s - adjust that plus or minus if I'm wrong)  Will your wife be able to afford individual health insurance for just her and the kids?  I'm really am curious what your strategy is to hedge against that risk - not trying to throw out a "gotcha" or anything.  

Allons-y!

Yes, 20 year term life policy that's large enough to provide for my family if I die tomorrow.

Though we are a bit exposed to the risk of a long term disability - say for example if I am brain damaged in an accident and no longer able to spend my days arguing on the Internet.

say for example if I am brain damaged in an accident and no longer able to spend my days arguing on the Internet.

Considering the general discourse level in the comments of, say, Yahoo News, I don't think that would be much of a hindrance.

Allons-y!

turn over those tasks to which she is more biologically suited to the father

Of course because all women who are mothers are excellent mothers and all fathers are horrible with their children and should avoid them by working.

I am horrible at nursing my child.  I lack the equipment.  Even when I tried with a bottle and pumped milk, the kid hated the experience.

I "avoid" my family about 40 hours each week, about half my waking hours.  And I will say, without guilt, that I enjoy the time away.  I also enjoy the heck out of spending time with my kids.  Similarly my wife enjoys time away too.  It's harder for her with the kids the age they are, but I've watched the kids while she went on a mini-vacation - I typically take care of the kids in the morning, and put them to bed at night, and she regular has her "girl's night out" with her friends.  

But she is definitely the primary care giver, and I am the only bread winner.  It works for us and gives my kids a very high quality of life.

40 hours a week isn't the kind of workload I'm critical of.  I have a family member who has three little kids that makes six figures working for a major corporation, and he's traveling probably three weeks a month (he does get to work from home the week or so that he's not traveling, so that's something, I guess).  That's kind of crazy to me - sure the money's good, but you don't get those years back.  His dad worked 50-60 hour weeks in a corporate managerial position, though, so that's what's "normal" to him, I guess.

Allons-y!

Raising children is not a choice for the species - so some of us are going to have to do it or they'll quickly be none of us left.

Oh alright, we to have to worry so much about extinct with 6 billion people on the planet and growing. Seriously, I can't even believe someone would pull such a lame ass argument.

Um, do you have any idea how quickly population extinction comes with a the reproduction rates of say Italy?  Only takes a couple generations.

My point is, reproduction isn't some sort of luxury "choice" - it's a necessity that most of us will have to undertake.  Sure, you can chose to create a society where that's not supported or valued, but that society will not last long.

I'm with joshv on this, at least - it worries me that in almost all cases, secular industrialized societies (even industrializing societies that haven't gotten there yet, like China) have very low birth rates.  Even the Arab world, which is neither secular nor particularly industrialized, is slowly falling to replacement rates or below.  Considering that the world as a whole becomes more secular and more industrialized every year, as we move along this will be more and more a pressing concern, I feel - I don't worry about species extinction, but I do worry about the economic consequences of shifting from net population growth to net population decline.

Allons-y!

Not that I am really all that worried about a population collapse, in the long term they are self correcting, as booms usually follow the busts - but my general point is that reproduction isn't some sort of luxury choice, and societal values should encode the need to reproduce, or those societies will be replaced by those that value reproduction more.

Closer to 7 billion per google.  That's what absolutely amazes me about the breeder proponents wanting to subsidize children even more than they already are:  you are paying people for doing stuff they will do anyway or, if they don't want to do it, no reasonable amount of welfare is going to be an inducement.  It's completely insane, but that's the sort of logic you get with the "conception to the grave" nanny staters.  Apparently, humans can neither breed nor not breed without government regulation.  Heh.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

The argument being made here, as far as I can tell, is that we need to use welfare to encourage more births to ensure that we have a large enough population in the future to tax for more welfare.

I never said it was hard or difficult.  It's probably much less stressful and certainly gives my wife more "free" time than she would otherwise have.

I can't think of many things more stressful than being responsible for the safety of a human life.

LingQ: the best place for learning languages.

And let me just say that of course the difficulty of the 'job' increases as you have more children but that's your choice as well. It's not 100+ years ago when you had multiple children because there was fear of losing children to disease and such early on, and as a labor force for household income. Nope you fully decide to have one child or multiple children, that's on you, so it's kind of pointless for someone to complain about that as "hard work". Yeah well I knew it was going to hard work to be a coal miner so I ain't trying to be one. I'm not going to pick coal mining as a hobby and then bitch that it is such hard work.

So the time my wife spends with my kids is worthless because it's not hard and it's not intellectually challenging.  Good to know.

Worthless? Of course not. But worth less? Yeah.

[I'm not that guy.]

And I quote: "No career. No resume. No accomplishments."  "No" not "Less".

Ok, have it your way then - worthless. Worthless in the sense that she is going to be 50 with a huge hole in her resume and nothing to show for it - other than a few (hopefully) decent kids. And that is something she could have had almost as easily without sacrificing her career.

So tell me again what the upside to staying at home is?

[I'm not that guy.]

And compare this to working your ass off for some asshole boss who never recognizes your work, sacrificing time with your kids for your career and getting layed-off at 50 after having topped out as a mid level manager.  Your kids hate you, you are now "over qualified" for every single job you might apply for, but you've got "accomplishments" of the sort you apparently value.  Yeah!

Most jobs aren't intellectually challenging, particularly ones women gravitate to.

More intellectually challenging than changing diapers and chasing toddlers, I should have specified. I'm not trying to imply that all working mothers are theoretical physicists. But I stand by my point that most jobs - that pay significantly more than minimum wage, anyway - are more intellectually challenging than childcare.

[I'm not that guy.]

If raising kids is not intellectually challenging, then you are not really doing it right

LingQ: the best place for learning languages.

Stay-at-home childcare of infants and toddlers is not the same thing as "raising kids".

I like to think I taught my kids far more than they learned in school up until mid-high school at least. I taught all three of them to read. I instilled in all of them a love for the written word. I taught them all how to read music and some basic music theory. I taught them all how to drive a car and how to consistently hit targets both stationary and moving with a variety of firearms. I taught two of them how to play poker better than most adults and one of them how to play chess. Most importantly, I'm relatively confident that I instilled in them a set of basic values that will serve them well for the rest of their lives. It has been one of the most rewarding and intellectually challenging experiences of my life.

And it was all done while working 50-70 hours per week outside the home, with spouses who worked 40-50 hours per week.

[I'm not that guy.]

"Stay-at-home childcare of infants and toddlers is not the same thing as "raising kids". "

Sorry, I do not see the distinction.

LingQ: the best place for learning languages.

I honestly don't know how to explain it any more clearly. One can "raise kids" without being a stay-at-home parent. Millions of people have done it. Changing diapers and chasing toddlers is not intellectually stimulating. Teaching your kids about the world is. You don't have to give up your life to do that, either.

[I'm not that guy.]

I am not sure how "Changing diapers and chasing toddlers" takes up more than 5-7% of the time of a caregiver.  There is quite a lot of other time during which your intellect is in play... if you so choose.

LingQ: the best place for learning languages.

So I am confused, if a mother stays at home and does the same things you did, she has no accomplishments.  You on the other hand appear to be very proud of your accomplishments with your children.  So what's the difference?  Is it that you are a man?  Is it that you did it while working full time?  Is the accomplishment of a well-trained and well-educated child somehow lessened when it's done without a full workload outside the house?

He made it perfectly clear he was talking about small children, he wasn't talking about children who are of school-going age (which would be argument against SAHMs because they don't need to be home when kids are at school). So what actual "raising" are these mothers doing as SAHMs?

Is the accomplishment of a well-trained and well-educated child somehow lessened when it's done without a full workload outside the house?

Not exactly, but you are getting closer to what I'm saying anyway.

My point is that raising kids is not a full-time job. It can be done and done right on a very part-time basis. So your wife's choice to stay home is about other things than making sure your kids are properly cared for. What those other things may be are beyond the scope of this discussion. She will not be a better parent and your kids will not be more loved or better cared for because she sits at home all day.

If your wife doesn't want to work that's between the two of you. But don't try to claim that raising your kids is a full-time job that is in any way comparable with working outside the home.

[I'm not that guy.]

"If your wife doesn't want to work that's between the two of you. But don't try to claim that raising your kids is a full-time job that is in any way comparable with working outside the home."

It can certainly be just as fullfilling as working outside the home.  I will grant that it depends on the woman and the other things that she's done in her life - but for some woman it's extremely fullfilling.  Though I imagine when they hear folks like you spouting off about how they sit around accomplishing nothing all day long, they might question their choice.

Your rather vicious denegration of the role of stay at home mother is not yours alone.  It's reflected in the modern feminist movement, and society at large, and it serves to deny woman a valid choice in their life.  Imagine a society in which both choices are equally valued and supported.  What would be so bad about that?  Instead we have a society where woman are made to feel guilty and useless no matter what they do.

2-3 kids, birthed over 5-10 years.  Are you really that unimaginative?

Who the fuck is asking for a pat on the back and a reward.  

I am merely asking that reasonable folks stop calling the choice to stay at home "worthless and vapid" and recognize it as a valid and valued path to take, either in addition to a traditional career, or to the exclusion of a traditional career.

recognize it as a valid and valued path to take, either in addition to a traditional career, or to the exclusion of a traditional career.

Would you say that if the person was, say, staying home just to keep house, with no kids?

Allons-y!

Were we talking about that?

Were we talking about that?

Well, it seems to me that TS is essentially saying that parenting contains two components - "raising your child," which amounts to instilling values, serving as an example, giving direction, discipline, etc., and "caring for you child," which would consist of what you'd expect a daycare worker to do - change diapers, make sure they're fed, and so on.  TS is saying that a person can do the former at a high level while also working full time, so really the only reason to be a SAHP is to do the latter, which is neither hard nor intellectually rewarding.  Your counter seems to be that it's okay to be a SAHP if you put extra effort into the "raising your child" activities - the things that are challenging and rewarding.  I'm honestly not sure where I fall on this - I don't think that most SAHP's are sitting around all day doing nothing but the manual chores, and I'd even go so far as to say they probably do a better job at "raising" than households that have two working parents, but I think they probably also ultimately spend more time on the "raising" things than is strictly necessary, and in some cases (but certainly not all) that can verge into being overprotective helicopter-parent types, which actually ends up being counterproductive - so being an SAHP ultimately is probably a wash, in terms of the impact it has on your kids, what matters more is how you parent within the type of parenting (SAHP or dual-income) that you choose.

So, wrapping this back to my question - if you can adequately "raise" a child while still working, then isn't the choice to stay at home ultimately very equivalent to simply staying home to keep house, without kids?  They're both choices of convenience and preference, rather than necessity.  I don't have the same level of judgmentalism about it that TS seems to, but I don't necessarily think SAHP's should be lionized either.  It's just a choice, one of many possible choices.  I think all parents end up with a great deal of their sense of self-worth wrapped up in how they raise their kids, so it's hard to see someone else making different choices than you and not feel like it's a personal attack.  Right choices are ultimately going to be situational, though, which is why I've mainly tried to stick with economic arguments for why it's wise to have a dual-income household in most cases - if you can conquer the economics of it and the SAHP is happy to stay home, and the breadwinner is happy to be a breadwinner and can be a good breadwinner while still having enough free time to spend with his or her kids, then why not?  Not everyone loves to work.

Allons-y!