481–490 of 748 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Women are more likely to want to be the primary caregiver to something that actually came out of them. It's biological and there's nothing sexist about it.
It is sexist because you are dismissing women being treated as lesser beings with some armchair analysis.
I think it's still a form of sexism to assume women are the ones who need to care for a child. That's something that very few diversity-in-STEM folks are really thinking about. Many years ago an ex-girlfriend, who works in STEM academia (and is otherwise a liberal, progressive feminist), expressed concerns similar to the author about having kids. When I brought up that it wasn't written in stone that she would need t…
I think it's still a form of sexism to assume women are the ones who need to care for a child. They're definitely the only ones who can breastfeed(at any practical rate anyway). One may, of course, elect not to do that, but it does make a difference for the child.
Every time there was a contractor that they needed to have someone at the house for, or every time their kid got sick and/or couldn't go to school, guess which of the two of them always took the time off work to handle it?
Now I had no insight into their family dynamics, and it felt it wasn't my place to pry. But over dozens of "time off" incidents through several years, it was very clear to me that my female employee was the "default caretaker" for anything relating to the house or the child that came up. This was despite the fact that she had a higher-paying position than what he had (based on what I can now see on levels.fyi).
The author is missing the forest for the trees. She argues that a specific kind of sexism (harrassment) is not sufficient to explain why so many women are forced out of their careers in STEM academia. She argues that the real reason is that those women want to start a family and they can't do both at once. She herself is considering leaving academia to start a family (she wants to have two or three children). Yet she…
Agreed. How many times have you heard a man say he had to choose between his career and having kids? The fact that it is predominantly women who feel they have to choose between children and career IS institutional sexism. We say we've achieved "equal opportunity" when women are allowed to participate in career fields that had originally evolved around the male workforce. Is that parity? That women can succeed in cer…
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.
Maybe some people value spending time with their children and seeing them grow up more than chasing a stupid meaningless promotion at a mundane STEM job somewhere. If you have one child then you have only one chance in life to answer all their curious questions when they are 6 years old, only one chance in life to see them learn how to swim, etc. etc. Life is about collecting wonderful memories with the people who yo…
Because if women don't participate in the industry, the men who do will continue building a world designed for men.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-w...
The author is missing the forest for the trees. She argues that a specific kind of sexism (harrassment) is not sufficient to explain why so many women are forced out of their careers in STEM academia. She argues that the real reason is that those women want to start a family and they can't do both at once. She herself is considering leaving academia to start a family (she wants to have two or three children). Yet she…
Probably going to get downvoted for this, but how exactly is this sexism? It seems to be just plain old biology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't sexism. There is a far higher likelihood that a sex offender is a man rather than a woman. While unfair it isn't unfounded fear and parents are naturally protective of their children.
That doesn't justify that sort of systematic pressure. An African American is much more likely to be a [edit: convicted] murderer than a white American, but that doesn't make it ok to cross the road whenever you see one.
If I were a parent I would be trying to mitigate the risk to my child. As I previously stated it is unfair but not unfounded.
It cannot be sexism if it is based in fact.
> An African American is much more likely to be a murderer than a white American, but that doesn't make it ok to cross the road whenever you see one.
* I don't live in the US, I am from the UK. The term African American doesn't really mean much here.
* If there was a young guy dressed in sports gear and appeared to be somewhat of a lout, no matter what the colour of his skin I would cross the road.
It is unfair. Sure. But when I was a younger man (I am almost 40 now), I used to be followed about and stopped by police and security because I was simple 1) Male 2) Under 25. People are simply mitigating the amount of risk to themselves, business and family.
Thanks, Karen Morenz, for providing a unified, panoramic view of the ways that the standard academic career progression short-changes many female scientists, even if each step along the way seems to make sense. It's worth taking a look at three other professions with long, high-intensity pathways from apprentice to master --all of which have been wrestling with the same challenges. They are management consulting, law…
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…
Flexible hours impose large costs in terms of increased difficulty of coordination and communication and if you’re really serious about them you need to completely upend the organizational structure, like changing an on premise company to a fully remote one. There’s also a hard upper limit on your career because managers are the bottleneck for communication so they almost have to be available when active else is. Arrangements to make flexibility economically profitable are also often denounced, see Uber.
> Even if you disagree that there’s a problem here (and I think you’re wrong) how would these changes cause harm? Wouldn’t it just be a better world if people were less stressed by these things?
It would be a better world but flexibility imposes large costs. Obscenely convenient childcare is also far from a panacea. Sweden has cheap to free childcare and it’s available 24/7 for those whose jobs demand it. But while Sweden’s employment rate is very high it’s among the most sex segregated in the world and fertility isn’t noticeably different from countries that aren’t so generous, suggesting the effects on family formation are minimal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've re-read your comment a few times now, and I don't see anywhere you've written something that implies you think women ought to become mothers due to some moral standard you have. So I don't think the downvotes are warranted. It sounds like you are highlighting the contradiction between the fact that women are now increasingly expected and needed to do the job of full-time motherhood while also somehow, miraculous…
While implication versus what was literally written is quite muddy with this comment, what is missing from the entire comment is why it has to be a mother and not a father. The ending part also shows a lack of understanding of how childcare actually works today as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My scientific career ended when I did a back of the envelope calculation on how much I would be paid per hour of expected work as a post doc. It was less than minimum wage.
Mine ended when I realized professors were graduating more than 1 PhD student apiece on average, and that I’d almost certainly need to wait for someone to die before I got a job. (Ok, die or retire, but profs don’t just retire at 65.)