is most illuminating. The response of most males equal stop whining, "Who told you to have kids?" or "Who told you to want to be a parent and have a good career." So, in short, if you want to be a mom, plan on having some stupid secretarial job and stop complaining. It's a wonder why women even bother.

Women need to wake up. Men aren't going to "give" us a damn thing. We have to take it. Thanks for clarifying just how we women are in it all by ourselves.

wow, why do you feel so entitiled? if you CHOOSE to have children, then its up to YOU and your SPOUSE ensure the offspring have what they need, if you CHOOSE to go it alone, then thats your CHOICE..its all about a womens RIGHT to CHOOSE....`right?

While I have agreed with some posts that talk about personal responsibility and that don't support government mandates and more taxes to take care of the situation,

I AGREE with you on this point. I really really hate that answer: well, don't have kids.

So my choice to have kids is really no choice at all: have kids, and work a lower-paying dead end job vs. have no kids and be able to devote yourself to some job so you can get promotions and make more money.

Yes, one can choose to have kids or not. But let's face it, most of us do (at least in America). And if we all decided not to, in order to be able to make a decent living, then there would be no future workforce and we'd go the way of the European (at least in about 50 years).

The answer is not "don't have kids". The answer is to realize that the workforce has changed and has men and women in it who have kids and ones that don't. The answer is to consider "quality of life" into the equation. Is it really necessary for every higher paying position to have to work more than 40 hours per week? Really? To me, if you are working that many more hours, then you aren't being productive in the first place. 8 hours in a day; 40 hours in a week, is not enough to get the job done? Something is wrong?

For lawyers (and I am one), there should be a change regarding the "billable" hours. That's the crux of their problem.

For others, it's just bullshit that you have to work more than 40 hours to get a job done. Okay, doctors and nurses maybe (that's something I can't comment on). But really? Anything else?

I mean if someone were working that kind of job making say $150,000 or more a year - sit down and figure out how much you are actually getting paid by the hour and you'd realize that you were getting SCREWED.

Men and women, with or without children, should stand up against this nonsense. This is not the "old days". Times change. "Quality of life" is becoming more important to both men and women and needs to be acknowledged by the business world.

This in no way means that I am a communist or a socialist or a liberal (no offense to liberals :) ). I'm not asking for government mandates or anything. I'm asking for organic change so that we can give everyone a better quality of life, regardless of gender, marital status or parental status.

Science in particular has some requirements that make it particularly tricky for women. I think industry is more family-friendly now that it has been in the past. But there are still some expectations for scientists that make things difficult. (I'm a chemist, so I can only really speak about requirements in chemistry.)

Chemistry requires a long period in graduate school. The average time to a PhD is 7-8 years, and it's now become almost a job requirement to spend another 2-3 years as a postdoc. (Kind of like going to med school, except chemists don't get paid nearly as well.) By this time, you're close to 30, but a newly minted PhD is an entry level position. This is a bigger problem in academia, where you have the tenure issue, but even in industry, those early years as a new PhD are important - and they're also the years when you need to start having kids, if you want them. However, science still has a very rigid idea of a career path - even in industry, there's still the expectation that you will work steadily and never have a break in your career trajectory. There's not a lot of leeway for taking time off and then coming back - it marks you as "not serious". This isn't a necessity of science, but it's a mindset that's still entrenched.

I think this was changing and companies were realizing that they could retain good people if they were more flexible - but then the job market became a lot more cutthroat, with heavy layoffs, outsourcing more research to biotechs where there's enormous pressure to produce results fast, competing with scientists in other countries who work for much less. In that environment, family friendly is a luxury.

differnetEllen:

is most illuminating. The response of most males equal stop whining, "Who told you to have kids?" or "Who told you to want to be a parent and have a good career." So, in short, if you want to be a mom, plan on having some stupid secretarial job and stop complaining. It's a wonder why women even bother.

Women need to wake up. Men aren't going to "give" us a damn thing. We have to take it. Thanks for clarifying just how we women are in it all by ourselves.

So...uh....it's the eunics who should be secretaries? Just asking.

Having and raising children requires SACRIFICING the time that could be spent doing other things if the children didn't exist. This means that those responsible for the children will not have as much "for themselves" as they would without the children.

Apparently, what you want men to "give you" is a absolution from the simple laws of cause and effect, and arithmetic.

Having and raising children requires SACRIFICING the time that could be spent doing other things if the children didn't exist. This means that those responsible for the children will not have as much "for themselves" as they would without the children.

Many of us with children understand the SACRIFICE. Does that mean we have to work minimum wage jobs, or have lousy jobs with no hope of promotion because we decided to have children? Which makes no sense really because part of providing for children is having the money to do so. Not obscene amounts of money, but money, nonetheless.

And not so we can live in McMansions and drive luxury SUVs. I do neither and don't necessarily want to do either anyway. I'd just like to be able to provide my children with a life that was at least as decent as mine (a middle-middle class upbringing; pretty much no frills) in a decent neighborhood with decent schools. That takes money.

Now if the answer is to not have kids, then you tell that to people who really want to have them. Really. Look them in the face and say it because that is the most ridiculous response to the problem that I've ever heard.

In that case, only really really rich people should be having kids and while I don't think you are an advocate of making that a law, you might as well ask for that.

"If you can't stay home, don't have kids; if you can't sacrifice your life so you never see your kids, don't have kids."

"For themselves" - what does that mean actually? Is it selfish to want a career AND a family? Why? Again, one decides to have kids and that means working shitty jobs for shitty pay and you just have to deal with it?

*shakes head*

Those are inane responses to a real societal problem.

And again, I'm not asking for government help. I'm asking that the business world catch up with the 21st century. That's all.

"And again, I'm not asking for government help. I'm asking that the business world catch up with the 21st century. That's all."

Is that a purposely vague statement? What you're "asking" is for the business world to GIVE something to you. Why should they if they don't have to? I suppose, actually, what you're asking is that the business world hire YOU, under terms determined by you, rather than someone else who would work under terms more favorable to the business.

Aren't you exaggerating just a bit? Do you actually mean to suggest that it's impossible for middle class people to have children?

Are you suggesting, perhaps, that American is currently UNINHABITABLE? Reproduction cannot occur unless others somehow "pay" for the reproduction?

"Is it selfish to want a career AND a family?" I wouldn't know. If it's simply not available then, I suppose I would say it is.

It's quite amazing to me that people can feel they should be able to "demand" from their environment an easy life that is amenable to them :)

Always, in one way or another, someone must PAY for things.

I would be satisfied if feminists would admit the TRUTH of what they're trying to promote: socialism. If they were to say "Life can be fair for women only under a socialst system" then that would be fine--it's out in the open. Otherwise, it's difficult to listen to those who want to live in a free economic environment but want others, in one way or another, to pay for their ease.

No, I'm not asking for socialism. But women have been in the workforce in great numbers, with and without families, for years. The sane thing for businesses to do is to figure out how to get the best workers and keep them, whether they be women, men, whether they have children or don't. I wonder how many good workers have been lost to the business world because they were operating their business like it was the 1950s when the little woman stayed home and the man worked all kinds of hours.

That model is no longer around, at least not in the same kind of numbers.

And the fact that many corporations have developed flex-time, telecommuting, shared time, etc. etc. etc. means that many of them have realized that instead of losing a great percentage of workers from a certain segment of the population (women with children mostly), they've decided to change their business model to "accommodate" them. If any of them have gone out of business because of it, I haven't heard about.

I'm just asking that all businsses take a look at the model and see if it works for them (they can still make a profit). If it doesn't, fine, keep the same model. If it does, why not do it? See how many wonderful people you can hire. What's the harm?

Again, I'm "asking", not necessarily demanding. It's an idea, a suggestion. And I don't see how I'm asking for anyone to "pay" for something. Again, if a business can't make it with that model, then it shouldn't do it (small businesses, probably; certain professions - like doctors). If it's still making a profit, what are they actually paying for; and if it does cost something, wouldn't they be getting something back on that investment - better workers?

NOTHING IS FREE, right? Well, then it's not free for businesses, just like it's not free for me. It's a give and take.

Cheers.

BTW, don't so easily try to label people. I am not what some would call a feminist. I believe that women should have the same opportunities as men. Simple as that.

If a woman can carry a combat pack and do all the other things infantry soldiers and the like have to do, then she should be allowed in combat.

She shouldn't be allowed to do less push-ups, less miles on the run, less sit-ups. Equal means equal.

I know the biology of having babies is quite unique in this respect. I do understand that you shouldn't be just moved up a notch after being out of the workforce for a year or more while you stayed home with the kids, while others have stayed at the job, women and men alike. But I think some creative things can be done so that it doesn't have to be an automatic negative.

Questions to ask: Why is it a negative? Is there any way to make it more positive?

To say: well that's just the way it is, is not a very good answer to a problem.

This is not socialism. This is not government mandates. This is businesses EVOLVING OVER TIME to be better and more competitive in the global marketplace.

Shouldn't we educate our children better so that they are ready for 21st century jobs? Is the answer no because the schools are public and paid for by taxpayers? That parents should somehow figure out what is needed and teach their own children?

That would make no sense; parents have neither the time nor the resources to do so in any meaningful way.

As an industrialized nation, our children's education is the laughing stock of the world. Scandanavian kids start school at 7, but they are years ahead of our kids. We have to compete.

Look at L.A. - a study recently came out that said that 50% of the workforce in the area is functionally illiterate. Jesus Christ! And we wonder why there are no good jobs in L.A., no new businesses coming in. We don't have a competitive workforce.

I liked to hear when businesses had Charter Schools because they would teach the kids they skills they would need in the future. Yes, liberal arts is okay. The basics are obviously needed in math and writing, etc. But what about what people need to get into the workforce. Our university system is USELESS. 4 years of a liberal art is MEANINGLESS and a waste of money. I went for 4 years to liberal arts that did nothing really to help me for 3 years of law school. It's a different mind set. I should have skipped undergrad and just went right to Law School. No, I had to spend 4 years "broadening my mind" and learning little bits of useless information that's only helpful when playing Trivial Pursuit, instead of learning something that would help me get a job. A B.A. just means "you are trainable". But then when you look for work, they tell you that they need you to have experience! How the fuck can someone get experience while they are stuck in a classroom for 4 years?!?!?

Yes, I believe in the free-market. I believe that even with its flaws, capitalism is better than socialism in the long run.

But everything is run by HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE FLAWED. All ideas are great on paper. But once humans get their hands on it, it can all go to pot rather quickly.

So we, as a society (not government), should reassess it and make the necessary changes as time goes on.

Proper real-world education is what we need for our children. Yes, learning the classics and the history is fine, but at some point, they need to be taught something practical. Internships and externships. Real world experience.

And a business world that molds to the changes in society, not acting like it's still 1950, or God forbid, 1900, where we are just automatons.

Again, times change, people change and the business world needs to change with it.

To say that we have no right to demand the change means that the business world is more important than anything else. Well, the business world would not exist without the lowly workers to make the widgets, who then get paid to make the widgets so they have money to go out and buy the widgets.

It's the Circle of Life, man. It's all connected. Not in a weirdo socialistic way, but it is connected and should be treated as such.

OK, first I'd like to point out that you both complain that things haven't changed but need to AND say that the old model (that needs to be changed) is "not around anymore."

I'm all for changes that work. Who wouldn't be?

I do think though that, honestly, the MAIN change that many women are looking for is the ability to "keep" their job even through periods of low participation (and, to keep it simple, I'll say that they won't require compensation as though their participation was at full level--just the ability to keep the "career," i.e., the seniority/pay level/chances for advancement).

There are major difficulties for companies trying to do that, obviously (I hope I don't have to waste pixels spelling them out).

So called "flextime" is related to that scenario of less than maximum participation: it can work fine in certain sorts of jobs (and I imagine it's becomming more available in those sorts of jobs)--but works less well in other jobs.

So, I'm all for good sense. But I'm doubtful about the ability of companies to offer serious positions to those who aren't able to seriously complete the tasks. I see that being possible only by government order--which will invariably greatly raise costs...which then makes it a variant socialist process.

I AGREE that people should be able to have lives somewhat less depressing than the citizens of Metropolis. Today they CAN have such lives--but not if they want to climb the corporate ladder ahead of those who ARE willing to sacrifice almost everything. Today you can have all the benefits of living in a first-world country, while living in a cheap apartment and driving a six year old car (and sending your kids to public school). It's not an AMBITIOUS life, it's not a "get ahead" life, it's not a "one-up the Joneses" life. But it's a FAR better life (by many objective measures) than ANYONE'S life a hundred years ago.

I question anyone's "right" to live in a certain "class" or to a certain level of comfort. So far in this world we have simply NOT FIGURED OUT how to raise anyone's or everyone's standard of living without X amount of work/productivity. There's simply no economic/physical way around that. Perhaps there will be when we create artificial intelligence and find better sources of energy.

We do have to DEMAND and we have to be willing to fight to get what we want. We need to start looking seriously at politicians who will legislate that this bullshit of salaried position meaning working 80 hours a week. We need to demand 40 hours as the standard and fight for it. In Europe, they manage to have a sane work week and far more benefits for working women. We've been asking for 2 decades no and what's been the answer... They ignore us.

differnetEllen:

Women need to wake up. Men aren't going to "give" us a damn thing. We have to take it. Thanks for clarifying just how we women are in it all by ourselves.

I'm a man, and no one ever gave me anything...why the hell should I give you anything? Frankly, what could I give you?

sorry, didn't mean to hit "post" so quickly. Seriously, though, I have nothing to offer you. If you want to stay at home with the kids, your career has to be put on hold. If you want a top-of-the-food-chain position in a career, your home time suffers. That's how life works. How can you change that? That's not sexism, it's just common sense.

Besides, that paragraph says it all about living in a free country. You don't get a free ride, because you're free to make your own decisions. Decide...long hours in a demanding job with little home time or "normal" hours in an average job with more home time. Risk vs. reward. That's the name of the game.

Actually, from the perspective of a guy I completely agree with you, but I really don't think the idea of a sane work week and benefits for "mothers" should be limited to women.

I'm approaching starting a family and frankly I'd much prefer to be home with them and my wife as much as possible. Thankfully, my current job allows for some telecommuting and 40 hour weeks, but it is NOT the norm in my field (computer programming). I imagine it gets even worse in other fields. And I happen to work for a European company.

Of course, I do believe there are certain jobs that you just can't do if you want your family to know what you look like (and I don't intend to do any of them). You want to be a 30 year old VP of a major financial firm? Don't have kids, or make sure your husband/wife is ok with staying home. I feel like you do have to partially sacrifice some careers for your family, but it shouldn't be nearly the norm it's become now, and you certaintly shouldn't need to get some part-time secretarial job just to see your kids.

that married men, even of working spouses who make more money don't do more work. The truth is men have been trained to be lazy when it comes to housework and childcare. It's not something they do cognitively and it's not something that's going to change in the next 20 years even. It's a long cultural process. Having said that, I still think the whole salary thing is crap.