211–220 of 748 posts
I wonder if shorter PhD programs, like they have at Oxford might give women more time in the workforce before they start becoming concerned with starting a family. Maybe starting earlier puts them in a more senior position at a younger age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whoa, 50's regression much? Why not make room for fathers to take care of their own children? Nothing wrong with that, but mother goes first for obvious biological reasons.
After pregancy and the very first months of life, I fail to see any "obvious biological reasons".
I can't speak for women, and I'm just smart enough not to try. But what I can say is that I don't hold all of the values that I did as a young man. I'm not excited about the same things, and today I find some of those ideas uncomfortably naive or even off-putting. As I've engaged in more activities, as I've socialized with more people, I've encountered many more ideas and a lot of nuance. Nothing has simple answers a…
What leads you to think primarily about "passion" & socialization? It seems almost as though we read different articles, I didn't see anything about that.
Mothers--the vast majority of mothers, not the aristocracic ones we model our current family structures off of--have always worked. They'd strap the baby on their back and go to the fields to plow or gather the harvest or cook or weave or chop firewood. Motherhood as as a full-time job is a modern invention; historically, it was a side gig. I'd love to see a startup tackle this problem: think a benefits platform that…
> Motherhood as as a full-time job is a modern invention; historically, it was a side gig Can you share any study/evidence to support that statement?
If yesterdays woman could bring her kids to work and todays cant, then we are pressuring women to have fewer children, and dumping the blame on them to boot.
What does todays idealized woman look like? Who are the role models we assign to our daughters?
This seems like a really long argument just to end up at the main point being: "It really is sexism". The light bulb moment here is that it's not necessarily sexism on an individual level but on an institutional one. I believe there is an obvious difference men and women which, on a general level, incites women to weigh family responsibilities over career prospects. However, industrialized nations exacerbate that dif…
And by “more robust programs”, you mean more related confiscatory taxation. Meaning that, again, men must surrender even more, and accept even less, to accommodate women.
I think the author buried the lede here. My biggest takeaway from the article is that you'd have to be an absolute sucker to work in academia given how poorly you'll be treated. Each person that puts up with this only makes the problem worse, giving at least tacit approval to the status quo. If folks were to start opting out of academia in larger numbers for jobs in private industry, schools would be forced to improv…
> My biggest takeaway from the article is that you'd have to be an absolute sucker to work in academia The first thing I thought as well. When you read all these horror stories about burned out phd students, why is anyone doing this? If a woman in STEM wants to combine family and work (or a man or anyone else really) there are many jobs in the industry that are actually relatively 9-5, and pay really well. I don't un…
Did not work out, since I now have an office, but at least I can show up at 2pm without being fired.
One tactical approach: a high achieving woman could prioritize finding a partner who is interested in deprioritizing his own career for the sake of supporting her and raising children. This is a strategy high achieving men have used for a long time. So, pursue men involved in "child friendly" careers. Nurses instead of doctors; teacher aides over academics; tax preparers over management consultants. Or even men who a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> STEM fields rarely pay even close to what consulting, law and medicine pay. Peers of equivalent talent in those 3 professions are generally making double to triple (if not more) by the time STEM graduates reach the same moment in their personal lives. These statements couldn't be further from the truth. You don't need to hang out on HN for long to figure out that FAANG SWEs comfortably make upwards of 400k in their…
SWE at FAANG is only a minor, frankly irrelevant, portion of STEM. Most people in STEM cannot transition to being a FAANG SWE. In fact, the OP article of this thread is about progression in an academic career, which doesn't pay well unless you become a full professor at a research uni. First time you break low 6 figures in this career is when you become assistant prof in early/mid 30s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with this and the subtlety of the OP’s argument. There is clearly a problem, there are clearly many contributors, I have personally seen The OP situation play out with my female friends/colleagues in STEM (and other “high power” sectors). This does NOT discount that sexism still is a problem nor that there may be cultural/societal norms that influence the family planning issue. It’s a complicated issue, it ne…
Lost in the modern rush for status and money, "obscenely convenient high quality daycare" used to be called "Motherhood" and was supplied by Mothers themselves. Some would argue, the most valuable contribution to society, even if not directly monetized. To sustain a healthy population, we used to need 10 children per fertile woman, which made "stay at home Mother" an obvious necessity for the vast majority of women.…
Should we force Amanda to chose? How is that empowering?