i'm just trying to figure out how we know that women tend to rationalize
more and be less prideful...what's this based on exactly?
how many women have you worked with exactly? i've found women that
i've worked for to be just as bull headed and stubborn... and women that
are in equal positions to me that have tried to treat me like their underling
rather than work with me on an equal level. but this is just my experience...
i wouldn't try to make a generalization about the entire profession based
solely on that.
YES, I would and do gladly contribute money so that new parents can stay at home with their kids. It's called TAXES. The money doesn't come from the employer. I'm not sure where you got that idea.
And along those lines, it's not 45 people supporting the 5 new parents in an office, it's every tax paying citizen. So, millions of people.
Guess where taxes come from in America? Working people's wages. So yes, if you were in America (and even in France), if the government is dishing out cash, it is cash that came out of your pocket. So even if it was the government who decided to pick up the tab, guess who's take home pay would shrink?
By the way, I do pay short term and long term disabiltiy insurance for my employees (includes maternity), health, vision, dental insurance, a very generous pension plan, cash bonuses, etc. etc. I also go out of my way to make sure pay is based on performance not gender.
I think I was more caught off-guard about the sheer length and depth of your post! Haha! No doubt you know what you're doing, you've lasted this long in this profession.
What I was getting at is that I pay taxes to the government so that they can then redistribute those taxes to pay new parents to be at home with their children. I'm happy to do that, even if I'm basically poor, because I'd appreciate the same thing being done for me. Not everybody can afford to take six months or a year off to be with their child, but my belief is that five weeks of maternity leave is simply abuse. I'm not a parent, but the bonding that happens between a newborn and its parents is critical to every type of development.
Can you honestly tell me that you'd be happy to go back to work full-time with a six-week old being babysat by somebody other than your husband? You're already high-strung enough. I think it would wreck you with worry.
Now, maybe by your 4th kid, you worry a little less. But if it's your first, you can't tell me that you wouldn't want to be there every step of the way for your child. And again, not everybody (in fact, most) can't afford the financial hit of not working.
There are certainly abuses of the system that take place, but that's no unique to maternity leave situations. All in all, I think it's a great idea, and one that I support.
Actually, I agree with you that I would not want to go back to work after 6 weeks. I happened to take six months off after each of my kids, and then returned to work part time. It was a financially difficult time, but not one that I regret. My husband and I saved money in order to do this (on two architects's salaries!), we lived modestly but were happy anyway. I did not get one day of paid maternity leave. I did some moonlighting at home when I could for my old firm to earn some extra cash, but mostl is was just no income
I never would have dreamed of expecting someone else to pay for me to stay home. Strange, I am a liberal Democrat, but it just seems wrong to me. Would I then pay to have someone stay home and take care of their aging parent? How about paying someone to stay home and take care of their alcoholic brother? Its just what you do- you take care of your family.
BTW, my kids are grown and either in college or just graduated. THey are happy, smart, have tons of friends and good relationships, and are independent, funny, give back to the community and the still talk to me on a regular basis. (Actually, they are both home for the summer- think I will leave now and make them dinner!)
archie, it is nice to know you take care of your employees as, unfortunately, many arch firms do not. I don't believe it should be for a year, but I think three months is reasonable. I am conflicted as I do believe that baring children is a choice, not a requirement, and so the rest of us should not be punished for others procreating. I think there is a difference between burdening your fellows and a reasonable expectation of care.
Comparing how programs have been set up to elevate marginalized groups is interesting. Whether its affirmative action based on race, socio-economic classes, or gender, programs are set in place to hopefully empower the underserved. Do certain groups need special systems in order to allow for equal opportunity? Or is that just an oxymoron as "equal" opportunity, by its very definition, should not promote extra care/ help for anyone?
back to the age old adage...can women have it all?
will we have the same opportunities or is the assumption that we just want to get married and have babies going to prevent employers from giving us as much of a chance as our male counterparts. I have no desire to get married or have babies anytime in the near future, if at all. I would hope that it wouldn't be assumed, but is it? Simply based on my age? Can you have children and focus on your career? Some women can, some can't...
and there is just as much stigma if you don't want to settle down and have kids. People act like there is something wrong with you if you are breeding age and dont act on it.
archie, thanks for weighing in. I totally see your points and I really value your contribution to this discussion....
...but, I'm going to have to go with slantsix on this one. Your statement "I never would have dreamed of expecting someone else to pay for me to stay home" leads me to believe that maybe you are viewing this from a different perspective than myself. It's not somebody else, it's everybody else. And if you're lamenting the taxes that are taken out of everyone's paycheck that would pay for parents to be off for 6 months, can I ask you where your children went to elementary school? If they went to a private school, guess what....you, and your husband, were paying for somebody else's kids to go to school the whole time you were working. And if they went to private school? Well, then I'd say you were getting the most out of your tax contributions then.....
I guess my thought is, if we can do it for the public school system, why can't we do it for maternity/paternity leave?
I realize that it's hard to make ends meet when you are working in this profession and trying to raise a family, but wouldn't we all be better off if we had a system that provided for us a little bit more.....to bring it full circle, the fact that we have a system that does NOT provide for us more, I believe is a function of how women are still discriminated against in our country's society.
the fact that we have a system that does NOT provide for us more, I believe is a function of how women are still discriminated against in our country's society.
from my exposure to the world of public health (thanks to my wife), there are many studies the show the value of maternity/paternity leave in preventing future developmental problems that society has to deal with and pay for. So a year of paid maternity leave is far cheaper then a year of prison (in the worst case scenario).
But that brings up a point (and I'll sound like a eugenicist), that certain people should never be parents or allowed to inflict their sick and twisted judgment on a child. If we could just prevent all the abusive, narcissistic, addicted, and other misfunctional people from having kids - the world would be a better place.
But woman should have it all and we (men) should do what we can to enable them getting it!
I like working with women, I've never understood the sexist attitude of older generations in keeping them out of the office. If women or gay men aren't hired, then there would be no flowers in the conference room ~:-)
wk.
we have a system that doesn't really provide for anyone that has to
be out longterm. i just don't see your case for discrimination here.
neither parent gets a lot of time off for the birth of a child. of
course the woman has to recover physically...and obviously needs
time for that...
but i think this is more of an example of how our country doesn't
value personal health/ vacation time and values people working
over those things...not seeing that the two are interrelated.
i guess the point is this...if it's a case of discrimination there has
to be a similar circumstance for men that women aren't getting.
i don't see where men are being treated favorably here. can you
enlighten me?
archie's long post sounds completely realistic but! it is also in many ways the total opposite of what my experience as a woman/mother/architect has been. We all only have anecdotal evidence, at this point.
I've never been treated unfairly due to my gender. My old firm paid full family health insurance to associates, and the rest of the office certainly didn't rise up in mutiny over it, although it did cost several thousand a year extra. That was one of many reasons the firm inspired immense loyalty - it understood family being important right along with expecting one to work their ass off if needed during a crunch time. A major point perhaps: one of the four partners is a woman.
I agree with following posters that it is not the firm paying you for a year off (which I think is too much - six months of leave would be fine, with unpaid for the following six months), it is tax dollars, and that better family/work arrangements for EVERYONE would lead to less social problems in our society as a whole. (I took three months off, and got paid 11 weeks of disability coverage for that time - three months really wasn't enough, but we make things work as best we can given our circumstances).
I've posted here before and will say it again: the employment policies that are seen as "pro-women" are truly "pro-family" and wouldn't it be nice if we could all benefit from a happier, more balanced society? One bit of evidence that is not anecdotal and backs up this point is this: there was a study done maybe ten years ago - and I'm not going to go look for it now - that found that a disproportionately high number of female CEO-types (highly successful in their field) had stay-at-home husbands dealing with all the family stuff. Families take time, resources, and effort, and I don't think anyone is interested in finding an alternative way to propagate the species (though significantly less propagation would be extremely welcome by all).
I'm ready to move to Iceland, but I'm afraid I'd just be one more of thousands coming along and ruining the place.
I want to post more on the violence against women thing, but this post is already too long.
I think it's more the fact that there IS no similar situation for men, and that the situation puts women at a disadvantage in the workplace. When a man becomes a father, people congratulate him, if he's lucky he maybe even gets a raise because his boss recognizes that he has more responsibilities financially now... when a woman becomes a mother, her entire career, not to mention her health, is thrown into jeopardy in a way in which men's simply isn't. It's more the fact that there is a natural inequity that we have not yet found a good social solution for, than outright intentional discrimination.
Ah yes, rationalist's comment about women's health during/because of pregnancy reminded me of something I forgot to post:
I did a semester abroad in Vienna, Austria in 1991. At that time Austrian males were required to do a eyar of military service at age 19 - or do public work if they were committed objectots to military activity, but it was a hard thing to prove. When I asked my Viennese classmate/girl-pal if she thought it was fair that only men had to do the service, she said very matter-of-factly "Women have to have babies."
r-
i can kind of see your point..but i don't know about your example
of a father being given a raise or anything after the birth of a child.
the firm i work for currently does its best to allow the mothers that
have come through the office to spend time with their children. and
they make the same or more money than myself for similar experience
levels. i can't imagine a woman wouldn't be congratulated for the
birth of their child or considered for a raise. if anything their firms
probably become more acomodating to their new mother's schedules.
i think when you say a women's entire career is thrown in jeaopardy
and the fathers isn't is semi true..but just in the early months. as has
been expressed above there are a lot of examples of stay at home dads.
until we find alternative ways of having children it is true that women
will put their health and bodies through physical trauma in order to
bear/give birth to children. and that they are most likely the primary
care giver and most likely to stay at home. although i see this as
something fairly natural rather than discriminatory. if you look at any
other species the females are typically the ones that take care of the
children. aren't humans the only species that questions this?
Not entirely true, lars.... male and female penguins take turns caring for their eggs and newborns while the other goes hunting for food.
Male seahorses are the ones that get pregnant and give birth, but then subsequently abandon their children. Apparently, many seahorses are also monogamous, too.
Anyway, GREAT conversation! I like the silly youtube videos as much as the next guy, but sometimes it's also nice to voice opinions that otherwise don't get aired in such a concrete way.
namby, I wasn't going to dignify that with a comment as its I really didn't get the point.
are the only strong women in power lesbians?
are lesbians more masculine so they can have typically male-occupied positions?
its ridiculous. what was his point?
I know several lesbians that want or have children and are extremely feminine. I wear the same shoes as 12 y/o boys, don't think I want kids and I'm straight. what one has to do with the other...I don't know.
It always amazes me, the stereotypes that come out. Most people don't correctly assume my orientations from my physical appearance. As someone who can't identify at all with wanting children, this argument is interesting to me... I do think that parents should get paid time off. But I also think that the woman who carries and births the child deserves the most time off - such a strain on the body. Both before and after the birth.
I'm surprised that childCARE hasn't come up in this conversation yet. In-office daycares [in big enough companies], subsidized drop-off centres and babysitting... could help mothers, fathers.
I'm surprised that menses and routine fluctuations in wellness and comfort haven't been disscused (some of us can be debilitated... and while that can be controlled reasonably well with hormones... not everyone is willing to pump who knows what synthetic hormones into her body to control the cramping diarrhea and vomiting just to make sure to work for those otherwise lost 3 days a month...)
I just realized I screwed up my post above and probably confused some people in the process. My comparison was supposed to be private vs. public school. D'oh! Where's that edit button!?!
lars....I guess the word "discrimination" is the wrong word. I think that it's more accurate to say that the typical work environment isn't conducive for women to have a family and continue their career. However, I think the American workplace is extremely rigid and needs some serious change as well....
Which brings me to the point that namby brought up. How many women have ever had days where they just feel like such sh*t that work becomes laborious.....our hormones wreak havoc on our bodies regularly, and many experience some wicked bad side effects from it. Yet most of us still have workplaces where we have to get up, day in and day out, and go into work like everyone else. Wouldn't it make more sense if we had a flexible work week, where it's like, "ok, I need 40 hours but I just don't feel good so I'll just work later/tomorrow".....we talked about this a while ago with the story about BestBuy's corporate headquarters and the people that work on totally flexible schedules. Doesn't this make sense? Our bodies are not machines.....
And for those of you who already work like this....well, I envy you.
well, the good news for all of us archinectors is that very few of the stereotypical attitudes posted on this thread so far are as simplistic as the ones offered in the 'study' posted in the news item about women designing our urban environments. 'nectors are much more nuanced and thoughtful.
seems in the uk a 'study' is the same as a poll and if enough people say 'women are better at ___ and men better at ___' then it must be so.
"- You can't complain about sexual harassment and show up to work dressed like a slut. I recently had a young female architect come to my office for an interview, a Cornell grad, a school I also attended."
How long 'til I will have to wear a burqa in public?
I think your Cornell alumna was brave, go Big Red! I would do similarly but I can't take the cat calls. When I worked in an office I would dress like my grandmother, but you know what, it makes no difference. The guys who will stare at your chest still do it and you just get to feel even more helpless. What kind of world is this? They're just boobs, really not that exciting. Maybe if they were on display more, rather than less, men wouldn't be so freaked out by them. Ahem.
"I do appreciate professional attire - it's hard to concentrate on the issues in a meeting when somebody is showing too much cleavage - men are just wired that way."
Men are people, not robots. Maybe you need counseling if you can't concentrate when breasts are in the room. Either way, it's your issue and not "somebody's". Sing with the family, "They're just breasts. Really not that exciting."
I step away from a thread for a few days and boom! it explodes - nice. I wanted to share a few
Alot of the young women I know who graduated from arch school in 90s chose to work in larger/commercial arch practices vs. smaller design outfits/boutiques because of a believe that the larger one was likely to take care of them when they wanted to have a family (all were thinking within 3 yrs). Funny perception...it turned out not to be so rosy
in this island paradise that I live with only 4500 people, women get maternal leave for 3 months paid. And up to an additional 6 months at half pay. They can also apply for further assistance that pays about U$500 a month up to a year after the child is born. The fathers well they get jack -
I run the architects dept in a larger govt office. I about 40% of my staff is female (fluctuates), every now and then I would get calls to say they couldn't come in due to "ladies trouble" <- a supposed gentle way of saying their time of the month. It doesn't bother me.
I would give them the time and not dock it from their sick or vacation leave (unofficially ofc). At one point my boss was female, and she hollered at me for this practice, telling me to account for the time to make sure it was actually a cycle <- I thought she was such a pie hole (excuse me but she was).
Anyhow I did what she said because she was my boss recording the times but never reported the information. I felt it was something between manager and employee and treated it as such.
It is not an easy bridge to thread, but treat everyone as individuals because that is the only way we can be equals
On the comment of dress in the work place. Ah this one gets me.
I was once told I looked inappropriate for the office. I was wearing a solid button down, not tucked in, ragged but clean jeans with an unbuckled belt and a pair of decent NB (that had a little mud from the site visit). I was told this in the open and the person next to me was in a mini skirt that was mid thigh standing up, and well unimaginable sitting down, a partially see-through top (that if i stared I could of been more personal with her), and high heels made of perspex (if they were sand blasted they would of been hooker shoes) - and it hit me; men's clothes in the workplace is so boring
archie, re: your point about whether we should all "pay" for someone else to take care of their aging parents, alcoholic brother, etc --
YES, I do agree that we should. You argue that this is the job of the family--but how many people do not have a family? How many people's families cannot support them? I live in a part of Chicago that is filled with "homes" for the elderly, which are largely barely subsisting on donations and paltry tax income. The seniors there are not well treated, and they are the lucky ones--many of our elderly and our sick who cannot continue working (due to health problems, etc) end up HOMELESS. I cannot abide this. What other country treats its poor and its elderly as we do? It is shameful. I believe, as libertybell put it so well above, that it's better to help bring up the level of all of society as essentially a rising tide floats all boats. My tax money is an investment in making my own life better--someday I may be elderly without someone to care for me. I want the cashier at my supermarket to be able to count. I also want to know that her child is in good, caring hands during its first 3 years of life while she is at work because an early start in life has been proven to reap enormous rewards in later development. Investing in prenatal care for mothers will serve all of society. Investing in motherhood training in the first 6 months, instead of shoving the mom right back at work, benefits us all. And so on and so forth. A system that provides care for the unfortunate is a system that provides care for all of us.
A lot of people correctly identify society's ills but are not willing to pay the nominal amount required to rectify them.
Of course, paying more in taxes would have a much greater impact were we assured that our government wasn't a) wasting the money or b) embezzling it, etc. That's the second part of the problem...
Anyway off the soapbox for now.
About your point about discrimination in hiring -- I definitely agree with you on that one and have noticed that one a LOT in recent years. Women who are newly married or in a long-term relationship are definitely at a disadvantage for employment--everyone's afraid they're going to have a kid. On the other hand, I've also seen single people discriminated against as opposed to married people, which is also odd. Seems like single people are seen as way less stable than married people. So there's a lot of weird prejudices in hiring practices.
On many interviews I've been on, I've noticed a distinctly more warm reaction to my candidature as soon as I mentioned my long-term stable boyfriend relationship. The effect was so noticeable I started playing a weird game with it--testing it out. I'd bring it up at different points and just watch a change come over the interviewer's attitude. In not a single interview did I get a bad reaction to my mention of my boyfriend.
I want to write a novel on this thread right now but I have to keep it short and sweet. I have out-of-town guest at my house right now and they are awakening from their slumbers.
Pay discrimination: It exists, and it ridiculous.
Personal discrimination: I was taken off two projects on the basis of my gender while working in China. The first project's client was a private developer. My boss sent him the list of names of the project team and he asked that I be taken off because he was scared I would make the project 'too feminine.' The other project's client was the government. My coworker (a Czech woman) and I walked into the meeting with our male Chinese boss. The government officials perked up when we walked in and exchanged whispers amongst themselves. A few minutes later, after endless rounds of Mandarin banter back and forth with my boss and the government officials, our boss looked at us with pure embarrassment and said:
"I am terribly embarrased to tell you that the government doesn't want two Western women to work on any project affiliated with the Chinese government. They ask that you leave the meeting. You can go to the car and wait for me."
We were shocked but knew we had no fight in the matter against the Party. I started to gather our belongings and my Czech coworker looked at our boss and said: "Tell them to fuck off. Do you know how to say 'fuck' in Chinese? Well if don't, I'll tell them." She then yelled to the table while flicking her middle finger in the air "FUCK YOU, you ignorant misogynist." They had the look of pure shock in their eyes. That moment was priceless. She grabbed me and we ran out of the conference room. While running out of the building she kept saying, "Did I say the right word in English? Misogynist? Is that the right word? I think it is." I assured her it was. She and I have remained extraordinarily close since I left Shanghai and we close most of our emails to each other with this "Fuck you, you ignorant misogynist."
Oops, thisn't as short and sweet as I had intended.
[satire]I do appreciate professional attire - it's hard to concentrate on the issues in a meeting when somebody is showing too much cleavage - men are just wired that way.[/satire]
gender roles are complex and ever shifting.
not to distract from this great topic about women...
i'm thinking its time to start an 'american male' thread- opps, not a gay porn discussion or a robert bligh chest thumping, but an deep, provocative and interesting discussion of what masculinity means today. it is much easier to define feminism and female gender roles (as complex as they are) then what being a man means - there is lots of confusion that I experience/observe between the caveman/sportsman pole to the sophisticated gentleman, with the entire metrosexualization and objectification, mannys, and stay-at-home-dads confusing life. So what does it mean to be a provider when women are now our equals or betters, and you marry somebody with more education and the possibility that they will earn more money?
If we take as a given that women and men should be paid the same for the same work (and aren't) I just want to offer this up for discussion:
Why should their be any financial incentive for people to have kids and stay home to raise them? Nowadays, the decision to have kids is more of a choice then ever. I'm not sure what benefit to society there is in encouraging people to have kids with paid maternity and paternity leave. If you want kids, save up and pay for it like you do a car or home.
Without getting too Malthus, I think it is agreed that global population is exploding, resources are finite, and the US doesn't have a negative birth rate like many European countries.
I would like to point out that the US birth rate is indeed slightly below replacement level and has been since the 70s. (citation)
The birth rate has been steadily declining since the 70s, apart from a slight increase from 2000-2002. "Now, the average number of children born to women over a lifetime is at 2.03 - slightly below replacement level."
So if you choose to jump on the "overcrowded Earth" bandwagon--which is a red herring in itself--be aware that the US birth rate is not contributing to said phenomenon.
You and your partner have just finished off your education. You, having a master's degree, owe $100,000 in loans. Your partner has a bachelor's and is in debt $40,000. You're 29, your partner is 26.
Realistically, you have about 5 to 8 years to save enough money to have a baby. But you also owe $140,000 in school debt, $300,000 for your mortgage, etc.
With one continent constantly teetering on the brink of starvation and South Asian approaching the same fate, I don't think you can call overpopulation a red herring. The US birth rate of 2.03 is for practical purposes even.
Slantsix... it's a good point. Maybe people should take out baby loans and amortize the cost over the twenty years until the kid is out of the house. I mean, it's already what we do for education in this country.
The problems that plague developing nations are not necessarily due to having too many babies but in fact more directly related to poor distribution of resources. For example, there could be no children at all in the DRC and people will starve to death anyway, because of despotic warlords continuing to kill others and burn productive fields and destroy the distribution of resources, etc. It is similar to the argument that "illegals are taking our jobs"... the temptation is to point the finger at the wrong cause. Point to Robert Mugabe, not to "too many children in Zimbabwe." The reality of developing countries with functioning food cultivation and distribution lines is that having progeny is required to support that economy and is in fact vital to continued sustenance of growth. If people are starving in a developing country it is typically due to a change in climate, increased warfare, or despotic rulers. Bearing children is not the problem. Breaking up the supply chain of nourishment is.
And to respond further to your odd coupling of starvation and overpopulation... the densest continent by far is Europe. Much starving going on there? Not that I've heard of.
It is a complicated combination of population density, political difficulties and poverty. While Mugabe is a dick and uses population as an alibi for the suffering of his people, that fact does not mean that population isn't a contributing factor towards mass starvation. Overpopulation simply means more people die when there is (the inevitable) political unrest or agricultural failure. Both the US State Department and the United Nations are in agreement on this point. The CIA considers overpopulation and resource scarcity the greatest threats to political stability.
You are correct in the fact that sufficient resources exist in the world to feed every starving person, and it is insufficient distribution that is killing people. Indeed, this has always been true. But more to the point: there is no reason to think that a world that hasn't given a shit up to this point is going to suddenly change directions and reform resource allocation. It is politically and economically unfeasible save for a total change in world view. I'm not that optimistic, and the world only has one Bono.
But back to my first point: why subsidize births at all?
n_ thats just great. When I just started out there were similar occurances when architects would send out the female architects to the site meetings - they'd rag on them for hours not making decisions. I worked for a women who loved to encounter such situations to personally change men's minds....similar to the actions of your friend, I once experienced her jumping on top of the top pointing at the contractor telling him, "over her dead body" - I was 16 shocked the fuck out me. I miss working for her.
My point is that overpopulation is not a condition arising from too much competition for naturally restricted resources; it is a condition of too much competition for unnaturally restricted resources. As it is therefore a condition imposed by man it is silly to say that people shouldn't give birth because of "world overpopulation"; instead, people should fight the causes of the unnaturally restricted resources. eh? This is why "overpopulation" is used as a red herring. It is a false path that leads to people blaming the sufferers of a bad situation instead of those that are causing. In my obvious, clear example, it is not the Zimbabweans procreating that is causing a problem. It is Mugabe. See what I mean?
I'm just really tired of hearing a silly line like "people shouldn't have kids because of overpopulation" trotted out time and again.
"Subsidizing" births as you call it isn't the issue. Nobody is paying money to people who pop out a kid. However subsidizing maternity leave and initial home care for an infant is the question. Why would you do that? Because it's proven that that time is extremely important in the development of a child's life. Early intervention and proper care at that age directly leads to a more well-adjusted citizen later forming a part of your society.
It's the same reason preventative care is important in a national health system.
If you don't want to have a kid, fine. If you're asking why anybody needs to have kids at all, well that is neatly answered by evolution my friend. Survival of the species depends on it. If you don't want the species to survive, then fine, but in that case you probably shouldn't bother paying taxes at all, since they are merely going to support the species. You should probably quit architecture, too. Why make buildings for a population you don't want to exist? Why does anyone do anything, Janosh?
I agree with you that population in isolation does not cause disease and starvation. But the combination of excessive population, lack of arable land, and political instability/malfeasance does cause starvation. And I am not optimistic the latter two causes will be solved.
Back to maternity leave: there are already plenty of incentives for folks that want to have kids. Tax breaks. The joy of bringing up a child. In the US, these alone are sufficient to essentially keep the country's population stable. But I'm not convinced however that people that want to have a child should ask others for money to help do it. I've never said that people shouldn't have children. Of course they should and must. But on an economic level, why is it necessary? Having children is a privilege that demands that the parents bear great responsibilty.
But lest it be again mischaracterized, what I'm saying is this: Parents have always and will sacrifice a lot to bring up kids. They pay for college tuition. They pay for food and medical insurance. Their social lives and professions suffer. They pay for summer camp and pre-school. These are all sacrifices that are important (critical?) to a child's success, but none of them are reimbursed or compensated for by the government or by insurance. Why make maternity/paternity leave any different?
I'm sorry, didn't intend to get mean, seems I got overly sarcastic.
I guess I look at it the same way you look at the problem of starvation:
People are going to have kids anyway, and I'd rather we as a society help to ensure those kids grow up to be good, healthy, productive citizens instead of mass-murdering fuckheads (to quote one of my fave comedians). I don't think people should get money for popping out a baby. In fact that's one of the weirdest (and worst, in some ways) quirks of welfare. But I do believe that once a baby is born, it is in all of our best interest to make sure it gets the proper and best care available. That includes bonding and nurturing time one-on-one with a devoted caregiver.
Ma/Paternity leave is a great, cheap way to get a new human on the right path to growth. And we do subsidize many aspects of human life; why not subsidize proper infantile growth as well, when it is proven that the rewards are so disproportionately great in the end? The same arguement of allocation of taxpayer money can be made both ways.
If you truly want to look at the grand picture I would be shocked if you chose to question family support over many of the other outstanding wastes of taxpayer money. There are far worse federal subsidies that go unnoticed... how about ending payouts to energy companies for mismanagement of their own capital resources? Etc. etc. etc....
Lastly, on an economic level, the need for continued new humans being born is sort of obvious. I'm guessing you don't really need to see a justification of that.
Ok anyhow I've made all the points I have to make. :) Time to let others come along and make their own. Best to you Janosh.
we sort of left the professional dress issue behind for a while there and i want to pipe in and say that i'm going to come down on the conservative side of that one. i don't know that it's about cleavage vs burqas so much as it's about communicating professionalism.
it's not a double standard. if men have one button open why is it too much to ask that women not have three (wonderbra or not). i've seen women get away with sleeveless tanks that i would probably call t-shirts at best in an office where i was required to wear a tie. i'm unlikely to get away with wearing sandals of any sort, so those glorified leather flipflops are probably not a good choice, either. and i'm not sure why a mini-skirt is ok when i'm not coming in with shorts. some of these things have begun to be accepted standards in some professional environments. i'm just not sure why.
[i should qualify those statements by saying if your office is a shorts and flipflops kind of place, all of the above can be disregarded. i've just not been lucky enough to work in such a place while apparently some of my female coworkers have]
that would solve the problem of clothes equity! I agree with SW- why do women have the priveledge of being comfortably dressed when I have to suffer in with a noose around my neck and sweaty feet?
Steven, I understand your concerns, and have indeed had to edit my personal choices of footwear accordingly, as I am partial to the "glorified flipflop." But comparing the dress of men and women can sometimes be like comparing apples and bananas... it's hard to make the skin for one fit the other in the same way. I take issue with things like trying to standardize the number of buttons one can have unbuttoned, because frankly if I buttoned all the way up or only undid one button, I'd look like a fat slob. Clothes are just built differently, and the fashion designers build womens shirts to be undone further- in fact many even don't bother to put on buttons all the way to the top. You can say that we get to be more comfortable when it's warm, but men aren't required to put on makeup before work, and most don't style their hair. I'd liken the tie-discomfort to the high-heel discomfort that we experience. The standards of dress are simply different in a way that it's hard to compare directly. In fact, many women have a lot of trouble dressing "business casual", because most womens clothes are business or casual, but that specific level of professionalism that is mandated by so many offices is for some reason hard to achieve with women's dress. So you'll see many women in 'business casual' offices underdressed, and you'll see some overdressed, and they're almost all trying to come off as professional as the men and just missing the mark.
good answer, rationalist! and i agree with some of that already, but to dissemble might not have provoked any response.
i buy some of the clothes arguments. clothes are put together differently. but i'm not sure i buy the makeup, hairstyles, and heels as equivalents because i think they're choices - and i've seen many women do just fine without them and still appear professional. sometimes moreso.
American woman.....
i'm just trying to figure out how we know that women tend to rationalize
more and be less prideful...what's this based on exactly?
how many women have you worked with exactly? i've found women that
i've worked for to be just as bull headed and stubborn... and women that
are in equal positions to me that have tried to treat me like their underling
rather than work with me on an equal level. but this is just my experience...
i wouldn't try to make a generalization about the entire profession based
solely on that.
archie, you need a weekend off. Holy shit.
YES, I would and do gladly contribute money so that new parents can stay at home with their kids. It's called TAXES. The money doesn't come from the employer. I'm not sure where you got that idea.
And along those lines, it's not 45 people supporting the 5 new parents in an office, it's every tax paying citizen. So, millions of people.
Remind me never to apply to your firm. Yikes.
What is this, Slantsix? Tax increases to support citizens who need it? This thread titled "AMERICAN women" not "wasteful socialist FRENCH women!"
slantix, yes I do need a weekend off.
Guess where taxes come from in America? Working people's wages. So yes, if you were in America (and even in France), if the government is dishing out cash, it is cash that came out of your pocket. So even if it was the government who decided to pick up the tab, guess who's take home pay would shrink?
By the way, I do pay short term and long term disabiltiy insurance for my employees (includes maternity), health, vision, dental insurance, a very generous pension plan, cash bonuses, etc. etc. I also go out of my way to make sure pay is based on performance not gender.
I think I was more caught off-guard about the sheer length and depth of your post! Haha! No doubt you know what you're doing, you've lasted this long in this profession.
What I was getting at is that I pay taxes to the government so that they can then redistribute those taxes to pay new parents to be at home with their children. I'm happy to do that, even if I'm basically poor, because I'd appreciate the same thing being done for me. Not everybody can afford to take six months or a year off to be with their child, but my belief is that five weeks of maternity leave is simply abuse. I'm not a parent, but the bonding that happens between a newborn and its parents is critical to every type of development.
Can you honestly tell me that you'd be happy to go back to work full-time with a six-week old being babysat by somebody other than your husband? You're already high-strung enough. I think it would wreck you with worry.
Now, maybe by your 4th kid, you worry a little less. But if it's your first, you can't tell me that you wouldn't want to be there every step of the way for your child. And again, not everybody (in fact, most) can't afford the financial hit of not working.
There are certainly abuses of the system that take place, but that's no unique to maternity leave situations. All in all, I think it's a great idea, and one that I support.
Actually, I agree with you that I would not want to go back to work after 6 weeks. I happened to take six months off after each of my kids, and then returned to work part time. It was a financially difficult time, but not one that I regret. My husband and I saved money in order to do this (on two architects's salaries!), we lived modestly but were happy anyway. I did not get one day of paid maternity leave. I did some moonlighting at home when I could for my old firm to earn some extra cash, but mostl is was just no income
I never would have dreamed of expecting someone else to pay for me to stay home. Strange, I am a liberal Democrat, but it just seems wrong to me. Would I then pay to have someone stay home and take care of their aging parent? How about paying someone to stay home and take care of their alcoholic brother? Its just what you do- you take care of your family.
BTW, my kids are grown and either in college or just graduated. THey are happy, smart, have tons of friends and good relationships, and are independent, funny, give back to the community and the still talk to me on a regular basis. (Actually, they are both home for the summer- think I will leave now and make them dinner!)
Hey, how did you know I'm high strung?
:)
archie, it is nice to know you take care of your employees as, unfortunately, many arch firms do not. I don't believe it should be for a year, but I think three months is reasonable. I am conflicted as I do believe that baring children is a choice, not a requirement, and so the rest of us should not be punished for others procreating. I think there is a difference between burdening your fellows and a reasonable expectation of care.
Comparing how programs have been set up to elevate marginalized groups is interesting. Whether its affirmative action based on race, socio-economic classes, or gender, programs are set in place to hopefully empower the underserved. Do certain groups need special systems in order to allow for equal opportunity? Or is that just an oxymoron as "equal" opportunity, by its very definition, should not promote extra care/ help for anyone?
back to the age old adage...can women have it all?
will we have the same opportunities or is the assumption that we just want to get married and have babies going to prevent employers from giving us as much of a chance as our male counterparts. I have no desire to get married or have babies anytime in the near future, if at all. I would hope that it wouldn't be assumed, but is it? Simply based on my age? Can you have children and focus on your career? Some women can, some can't...
and there is just as much stigma if you don't want to settle down and have kids. People act like there is something wrong with you if you are breeding age and dont act on it.
sigh....we can't win ;)
archie, thanks for weighing in. I totally see your points and I really value your contribution to this discussion....
...but, I'm going to have to go with slantsix on this one. Your statement "I never would have dreamed of expecting someone else to pay for me to stay home" leads me to believe that maybe you are viewing this from a different perspective than myself. It's not somebody else, it's everybody else. And if you're lamenting the taxes that are taken out of everyone's paycheck that would pay for parents to be off for 6 months, can I ask you where your children went to elementary school? If they went to a private school, guess what....you, and your husband, were paying for somebody else's kids to go to school the whole time you were working. And if they went to private school? Well, then I'd say you were getting the most out of your tax contributions then.....
I guess my thought is, if we can do it for the public school system, why can't we do it for maternity/paternity leave?
I realize that it's hard to make ends meet when you are working in this profession and trying to raise a family, but wouldn't we all be better off if we had a system that provided for us a little bit more.....to bring it full circle, the fact that we have a system that does NOT provide for us more, I believe is a function of how women are still discriminated against in our country's society.
bravo, WK
from my exposure to the world of public health (thanks to my wife), there are many studies the show the value of maternity/paternity leave in preventing future developmental problems that society has to deal with and pay for. So a year of paid maternity leave is far cheaper then a year of prison (in the worst case scenario).
But that brings up a point (and I'll sound like a eugenicist), that certain people should never be parents or allowed to inflict their sick and twisted judgment on a child. If we could just prevent all the abusive, narcissistic, addicted, and other misfunctional people from having kids - the world would be a better place.
But woman should have it all and we (men) should do what we can to enable them getting it!
I like working with women, I've never understood the sexist attitude of older generations in keeping them out of the office. If women or gay men aren't hired, then there would be no flowers in the conference room ~:-)
wk.
we have a system that doesn't really provide for anyone that has to
be out longterm. i just don't see your case for discrimination here.
neither parent gets a lot of time off for the birth of a child. of
course the woman has to recover physically...and obviously needs
time for that...
but i think this is more of an example of how our country doesn't
value personal health/ vacation time and values people working
over those things...not seeing that the two are interrelated.
i guess the point is this...if it's a case of discrimination there has
to be a similar circumstance for men that women aren't getting.
i don't see where men are being treated favorably here. can you
enlighten me?
archie's long post sounds completely realistic but! it is also in many ways the total opposite of what my experience as a woman/mother/architect has been. We all only have anecdotal evidence, at this point.
I've never been treated unfairly due to my gender. My old firm paid full family health insurance to associates, and the rest of the office certainly didn't rise up in mutiny over it, although it did cost several thousand a year extra. That was one of many reasons the firm inspired immense loyalty - it understood family being important right along with expecting one to work their ass off if needed during a crunch time. A major point perhaps: one of the four partners is a woman.
I agree with following posters that it is not the firm paying you for a year off (which I think is too much - six months of leave would be fine, with unpaid for the following six months), it is tax dollars, and that better family/work arrangements for EVERYONE would lead to less social problems in our society as a whole. (I took three months off, and got paid 11 weeks of disability coverage for that time - three months really wasn't enough, but we make things work as best we can given our circumstances).
I've posted here before and will say it again: the employment policies that are seen as "pro-women" are truly "pro-family" and wouldn't it be nice if we could all benefit from a happier, more balanced society? One bit of evidence that is not anecdotal and backs up this point is this: there was a study done maybe ten years ago - and I'm not going to go look for it now - that found that a disproportionately high number of female CEO-types (highly successful in their field) had stay-at-home husbands dealing with all the family stuff. Families take time, resources, and effort, and I don't think anyone is interested in finding an alternative way to propagate the species (though significantly less propagation would be extremely welcome by all).
I'm ready to move to Iceland, but I'm afraid I'd just be one more of thousands coming along and ruining the place.
I want to post more on the violence against women thing, but this post is already too long.
I think it's more the fact that there IS no similar situation for men, and that the situation puts women at a disadvantage in the workplace. When a man becomes a father, people congratulate him, if he's lucky he maybe even gets a raise because his boss recognizes that he has more responsibilities financially now... when a woman becomes a mother, her entire career, not to mention her health, is thrown into jeopardy in a way in which men's simply isn't. It's more the fact that there is a natural inequity that we have not yet found a good social solution for, than outright intentional discrimination.
Ah yes, rationalist's comment about women's health during/because of pregnancy reminded me of something I forgot to post:
I did a semester abroad in Vienna, Austria in 1991. At that time Austrian males were required to do a eyar of military service at age 19 - or do public work if they were committed objectots to military activity, but it was a hard thing to prove. When I asked my Viennese classmate/girl-pal if she thought it was fair that only men had to do the service, she said very matter-of-factly "Women have to have babies."
Which I think covers the question quite well.
r-
i can kind of see your point..but i don't know about your example
of a father being given a raise or anything after the birth of a child.
the firm i work for currently does its best to allow the mothers that
have come through the office to spend time with their children. and
they make the same or more money than myself for similar experience
levels. i can't imagine a woman wouldn't be congratulated for the
birth of their child or considered for a raise. if anything their firms
probably become more acomodating to their new mother's schedules.
i think when you say a women's entire career is thrown in jeaopardy
and the fathers isn't is semi true..but just in the early months. as has
been expressed above there are a lot of examples of stay at home dads.
until we find alternative ways of having children it is true that women
will put their health and bodies through physical trauma in order to
bear/give birth to children. and that they are most likely the primary
care giver and most likely to stay at home. although i see this as
something fairly natural rather than discriminatory. if you look at any
other species the females are typically the ones that take care of the
children. aren't humans the only species that questions this?
Not entirely true, lars.... male and female penguins take turns caring for their eggs and newborns while the other goes hunting for food.
Male seahorses are the ones that get pregnant and give birth, but then subsequently abandon their children. Apparently, many seahorses are also monogamous, too.
Anyway, GREAT conversation! I like the silly youtube videos as much as the next guy, but sometimes it's also nice to voice opinions that otherwise don't get aired in such a concrete way.
"I had a female boss in architecture but she was a lesbian."
BUT?
WTF. As if that negates the femaleness?
namby, I wasn't going to dignify that with a comment as its I really didn't get the point.
are the only strong women in power lesbians?
are lesbians more masculine so they can have typically male-occupied positions?
its ridiculous. what was his point?
I know several lesbians that want or have children and are extremely feminine. I wear the same shoes as 12 y/o boys, don't think I want kids and I'm straight. what one has to do with the other...I don't know.
It always amazes me, the stereotypes that come out. Most people don't correctly assume my orientations from my physical appearance. As someone who can't identify at all with wanting children, this argument is interesting to me... I do think that parents should get paid time off. But I also think that the woman who carries and births the child deserves the most time off - such a strain on the body. Both before and after the birth.
I'm surprised that childCARE hasn't come up in this conversation yet. In-office daycares [in big enough companies], subsidized drop-off centres and babysitting... could help mothers, fathers.
I'm surprised that menses and routine fluctuations in wellness and comfort haven't been disscused (some of us can be debilitated... and while that can be controlled reasonably well with hormones... not everyone is willing to pump who knows what synthetic hormones into her body to control the cramping diarrhea and vomiting just to make sure to work for those otherwise lost 3 days a month...)
I just realized I screwed up my post above and probably confused some people in the process. My comparison was supposed to be private vs. public school. D'oh! Where's that edit button!?!
lars....I guess the word "discrimination" is the wrong word. I think that it's more accurate to say that the typical work environment isn't conducive for women to have a family and continue their career. However, I think the American workplace is extremely rigid and needs some serious change as well....
Which brings me to the point that namby brought up. How many women have ever had days where they just feel like such sh*t that work becomes laborious.....our hormones wreak havoc on our bodies regularly, and many experience some wicked bad side effects from it. Yet most of us still have workplaces where we have to get up, day in and day out, and go into work like everyone else. Wouldn't it make more sense if we had a flexible work week, where it's like, "ok, I need 40 hours but I just don't feel good so I'll just work later/tomorrow".....we talked about this a while ago with the story about BestBuy's corporate headquarters and the people that work on totally flexible schedules. Doesn't this make sense? Our bodies are not machines.....
And for those of you who already work like this....well, I envy you.
well, the good news for all of us archinectors is that very few of the stereotypical attitudes posted on this thread so far are as simplistic as the ones offered in the 'study' posted in the news item about women designing our urban environments. 'nectors are much more nuanced and thoughtful.
seems in the uk a 'study' is the same as a poll and if enough people say 'women are better at ___ and men better at ___' then it must be so.
"- You can't complain about sexual harassment and show up to work dressed like a slut. I recently had a young female architect come to my office for an interview, a Cornell grad, a school I also attended."
How long 'til I will have to wear a burqa in public?
I think your Cornell alumna was brave, go Big Red! I would do similarly but I can't take the cat calls. When I worked in an office I would dress like my grandmother, but you know what, it makes no difference. The guys who will stare at your chest still do it and you just get to feel even more helpless. What kind of world is this? They're just boobs, really not that exciting. Maybe if they were on display more, rather than less, men wouldn't be so freaked out by them. Ahem.
"I do appreciate professional attire - it's hard to concentrate on the issues in a meeting when somebody is showing too much cleavage - men are just wired that way."
Men are people, not robots. Maybe you need counseling if you can't concentrate when breasts are in the room. Either way, it's your issue and not "somebody's". Sing with the family, "They're just breasts. Really not that exciting."
I step away from a thread for a few days and boom! it explodes - nice. I wanted to share a few
Alot of the young women I know who graduated from arch school in 90s chose to work in larger/commercial arch practices vs. smaller design outfits/boutiques because of a believe that the larger one was likely to take care of them when they wanted to have a family (all were thinking within 3 yrs). Funny perception...it turned out not to be so rosy
in this island paradise that I live with only 4500 people, women get maternal leave for 3 months paid. And up to an additional 6 months at half pay. They can also apply for further assistance that pays about U$500 a month up to a year after the child is born. The fathers well they get jack -
namby raised a brilliant point re: menses
I run the architects dept in a larger govt office. I about 40% of my staff is female (fluctuates), every now and then I would get calls to say they couldn't come in due to "ladies trouble" <- a supposed gentle way of saying their time of the month. It doesn't bother me.
I would give them the time and not dock it from their sick or vacation leave (unofficially ofc). At one point my boss was female, and she hollered at me for this practice, telling me to account for the time to make sure it was actually a cycle <- I thought she was such a pie hole (excuse me but she was).
Anyhow I did what she said because she was my boss recording the times but never reported the information. I felt it was something between manager and employee and treated it as such.
It is not an easy bridge to thread, but treat everyone as individuals because that is the only way we can be equals
On the comment of dress in the work place. Ah this one gets me.
I was once told I looked inappropriate for the office. I was wearing a solid button down, not tucked in, ragged but clean jeans with an unbuckled belt and a pair of decent NB (that had a little mud from the site visit). I was told this in the open and the person next to me was in a mini skirt that was mid thigh standing up, and well unimaginable sitting down, a partially see-through top (that if i stared I could of been more personal with her), and high heels made of perspex (if they were sand blasted they would of been hooker shoes) - and it hit me; men's clothes in the workplace is so boring
archie, re: your point about whether we should all "pay" for someone else to take care of their aging parents, alcoholic brother, etc --
YES, I do agree that we should. You argue that this is the job of the family--but how many people do not have a family? How many people's families cannot support them? I live in a part of Chicago that is filled with "homes" for the elderly, which are largely barely subsisting on donations and paltry tax income. The seniors there are not well treated, and they are the lucky ones--many of our elderly and our sick who cannot continue working (due to health problems, etc) end up HOMELESS. I cannot abide this. What other country treats its poor and its elderly as we do? It is shameful. I believe, as libertybell put it so well above, that it's better to help bring up the level of all of society as essentially a rising tide floats all boats. My tax money is an investment in making my own life better--someday I may be elderly without someone to care for me. I want the cashier at my supermarket to be able to count. I also want to know that her child is in good, caring hands during its first 3 years of life while she is at work because an early start in life has been proven to reap enormous rewards in later development. Investing in prenatal care for mothers will serve all of society. Investing in motherhood training in the first 6 months, instead of shoving the mom right back at work, benefits us all. And so on and so forth. A system that provides care for the unfortunate is a system that provides care for all of us.
A lot of people correctly identify society's ills but are not willing to pay the nominal amount required to rectify them.
Of course, paying more in taxes would have a much greater impact were we assured that our government wasn't a) wasting the money or b) embezzling it, etc. That's the second part of the problem...
Anyway off the soapbox for now.
About your point about discrimination in hiring -- I definitely agree with you on that one and have noticed that one a LOT in recent years. Women who are newly married or in a long-term relationship are definitely at a disadvantage for employment--everyone's afraid they're going to have a kid. On the other hand, I've also seen single people discriminated against as opposed to married people, which is also odd. Seems like single people are seen as way less stable than married people. So there's a lot of weird prejudices in hiring practices.
On many interviews I've been on, I've noticed a distinctly more warm reaction to my candidature as soon as I mentioned my long-term stable boyfriend relationship. The effect was so noticeable I started playing a weird game with it--testing it out. I'd bring it up at different points and just watch a change come over the interviewer's attitude. In not a single interview did I get a bad reaction to my mention of my boyfriend.
What do y'all think of that? Crazy, huh?
I want to write a novel on this thread right now but I have to keep it short and sweet. I have out-of-town guest at my house right now and they are awakening from their slumbers.
Pay discrimination: It exists, and it ridiculous.
Personal discrimination: I was taken off two projects on the basis of my gender while working in China. The first project's client was a private developer. My boss sent him the list of names of the project team and he asked that I be taken off because he was scared I would make the project 'too feminine.' The other project's client was the government. My coworker (a Czech woman) and I walked into the meeting with our male Chinese boss. The government officials perked up when we walked in and exchanged whispers amongst themselves. A few minutes later, after endless rounds of Mandarin banter back and forth with my boss and the government officials, our boss looked at us with pure embarrassment and said:
"I am terribly embarrased to tell you that the government doesn't want two Western women to work on any project affiliated with the Chinese government. They ask that you leave the meeting. You can go to the car and wait for me."
We were shocked but knew we had no fight in the matter against the Party. I started to gather our belongings and my Czech coworker looked at our boss and said: "Tell them to fuck off. Do you know how to say 'fuck' in Chinese? Well if don't, I'll tell them." She then yelled to the table while flicking her middle finger in the air "FUCK YOU, you ignorant misogynist." They had the look of pure shock in their eyes. That moment was priceless. She grabbed me and we ran out of the conference room. While running out of the building she kept saying, "Did I say the right word in English? Misogynist? Is that the right word? I think it is." I assured her it was. She and I have remained extraordinarily close since I left Shanghai and we close most of our emails to each other with this "Fuck you, you ignorant misogynist."
Oops, thisn't as short and sweet as I had intended.
[satire]I do appreciate professional attire - it's hard to concentrate on the issues in a meeting when somebody is showing too much cleavage - men are just wired that way.[/satire]
gender roles are complex and ever shifting.
not to distract from this great topic about women...
i'm thinking its time to start an 'american male' thread- opps, not a gay porn discussion or a robert bligh chest thumping, but an deep, provocative and interesting discussion of what masculinity means today. it is much easier to define feminism and female gender roles (as complex as they are) then what being a man means - there is lots of confusion that I experience/observe between the caveman/sportsman pole to the sophisticated gentleman, with the entire metrosexualization and objectification, mannys, and stay-at-home-dads confusing life. So what does it mean to be a provider when women are now our equals or betters, and you marry somebody with more education and the possibility that they will earn more money?
If we take as a given that women and men should be paid the same for the same work (and aren't) I just want to offer this up for discussion:
Why should their be any financial incentive for people to have kids and stay home to raise them? Nowadays, the decision to have kids is more of a choice then ever. I'm not sure what benefit to society there is in encouraging people to have kids with paid maternity and paternity leave. If you want kids, save up and pay for it like you do a car or home.
Without getting too Malthus, I think it is agreed that global population is exploding, resources are finite, and the US doesn't have a negative birth rate like many European countries.
I would like to point out that the US birth rate is indeed slightly below replacement level and has been since the 70s. (citation)
The birth rate has been steadily declining since the 70s, apart from a slight increase from 2000-2002. "Now, the average number of children born to women over a lifetime is at 2.03 - slightly below replacement level."
So if you choose to jump on the "overcrowded Earth" bandwagon--which is a red herring in itself--be aware that the US birth rate is not contributing to said phenomenon.
Janosh, for argument's sake....
You and your partner have just finished off your education. You, having a master's degree, owe $100,000 in loans. Your partner has a bachelor's and is in debt $40,000. You're 29, your partner is 26.
Realistically, you have about 5 to 8 years to save enough money to have a baby. But you also owe $140,000 in school debt, $300,000 for your mortgage, etc.
Now, saving doesn't seem so easy to me.
With one continent constantly teetering on the brink of starvation and South Asian approaching the same fate, I don't think you can call overpopulation a red herring. The US birth rate of 2.03 is for practical purposes even.
Slantsix... it's a good point. Maybe people should take out baby loans and amortize the cost over the twenty years until the kid is out of the house. I mean, it's already what we do for education in this country.
The problems that plague developing nations are not necessarily due to having too many babies but in fact more directly related to poor distribution of resources. For example, there could be no children at all in the DRC and people will starve to death anyway, because of despotic warlords continuing to kill others and burn productive fields and destroy the distribution of resources, etc. It is similar to the argument that "illegals are taking our jobs"... the temptation is to point the finger at the wrong cause. Point to Robert Mugabe, not to "too many children in Zimbabwe." The reality of developing countries with functioning food cultivation and distribution lines is that having progeny is required to support that economy and is in fact vital to continued sustenance of growth. If people are starving in a developing country it is typically due to a change in climate, increased warfare, or despotic rulers. Bearing children is not the problem. Breaking up the supply chain of nourishment is.
And to respond further to your odd coupling of starvation and overpopulation... the densest continent by far is Europe. Much starving going on there? Not that I've heard of.
Hey Myriam...
It is a complicated combination of population density, political difficulties and poverty. While Mugabe is a dick and uses population as an alibi for the suffering of his people, that fact does not mean that population isn't a contributing factor towards mass starvation. Overpopulation simply means more people die when there is (the inevitable) political unrest or agricultural failure. Both the US State Department and the United Nations are in agreement on this point. The CIA considers overpopulation and resource scarcity the greatest threats to political stability.
You are correct in the fact that sufficient resources exist in the world to feed every starving person, and it is insufficient distribution that is killing people. Indeed, this has always been true. But more to the point: there is no reason to think that a world that hasn't given a shit up to this point is going to suddenly change directions and reform resource allocation. It is politically and economically unfeasible save for a total change in world view. I'm not that optimistic, and the world only has one Bono.
But back to my first point: why subsidize births at all?
n_ thats just great. When I just started out there were similar occurances when architects would send out the female architects to the site meetings - they'd rag on them for hours not making decisions. I worked for a women who loved to encounter such situations to personally change men's minds....similar to the actions of your friend, I once experienced her jumping on top of the top pointing at the contractor telling him, "over her dead body" - I was 16 shocked the fuck out me. I miss working for her.
My point is that overpopulation is not a condition arising from too much competition for naturally restricted resources; it is a condition of too much competition for unnaturally restricted resources. As it is therefore a condition imposed by man it is silly to say that people shouldn't give birth because of "world overpopulation"; instead, people should fight the causes of the unnaturally restricted resources. eh? This is why "overpopulation" is used as a red herring. It is a false path that leads to people blaming the sufferers of a bad situation instead of those that are causing. In my obvious, clear example, it is not the Zimbabweans procreating that is causing a problem. It is Mugabe. See what I mean?
I'm just really tired of hearing a silly line like "people shouldn't have kids because of overpopulation" trotted out time and again.
"Subsidizing" births as you call it isn't the issue. Nobody is paying money to people who pop out a kid. However subsidizing maternity leave and initial home care for an infant is the question. Why would you do that? Because it's proven that that time is extremely important in the development of a child's life. Early intervention and proper care at that age directly leads to a more well-adjusted citizen later forming a part of your society.
It's the same reason preventative care is important in a national health system.
If you don't want to have a kid, fine. If you're asking why anybody needs to have kids at all, well that is neatly answered by evolution my friend. Survival of the species depends on it. If you don't want the species to survive, then fine, but in that case you probably shouldn't bother paying taxes at all, since they are merely going to support the species. You should probably quit architecture, too. Why make buildings for a population you don't want to exist? Why does anyone do anything, Janosh?
Let's not get mean.
I agree with you that population in isolation does not cause disease and starvation. But the combination of excessive population, lack of arable land, and political instability/malfeasance does cause starvation. And I am not optimistic the latter two causes will be solved.
Back to maternity leave: there are already plenty of incentives for folks that want to have kids. Tax breaks. The joy of bringing up a child. In the US, these alone are sufficient to essentially keep the country's population stable. But I'm not convinced however that people that want to have a child should ask others for money to help do it. I've never said that people shouldn't have children. Of course they should and must. But on an economic level, why is it necessary? Having children is a privilege that demands that the parents bear great responsibilty.
But lest it be again mischaracterized, what I'm saying is this: Parents have always and will sacrifice a lot to bring up kids. They pay for college tuition. They pay for food and medical insurance. Their social lives and professions suffer. They pay for summer camp and pre-school. These are all sacrifices that are important (critical?) to a child's success, but none of them are reimbursed or compensated for by the government or by insurance. Why make maternity/paternity leave any different?
I'm sorry, didn't intend to get mean, seems I got overly sarcastic.
I guess I look at it the same way you look at the problem of starvation:
People are going to have kids anyway, and I'd rather we as a society help to ensure those kids grow up to be good, healthy, productive citizens instead of mass-murdering fuckheads (to quote one of my fave comedians). I don't think people should get money for popping out a baby. In fact that's one of the weirdest (and worst, in some ways) quirks of welfare. But I do believe that once a baby is born, it is in all of our best interest to make sure it gets the proper and best care available. That includes bonding and nurturing time one-on-one with a devoted caregiver.
Ma/Paternity leave is a great, cheap way to get a new human on the right path to growth. And we do subsidize many aspects of human life; why not subsidize proper infantile growth as well, when it is proven that the rewards are so disproportionately great in the end? The same arguement of allocation of taxpayer money can be made both ways.
If you truly want to look at the grand picture I would be shocked if you chose to question family support over many of the other outstanding wastes of taxpayer money. There are far worse federal subsidies that go unnoticed... how about ending payouts to energy companies for mismanagement of their own capital resources? Etc. etc. etc....
Lastly, on an economic level, the need for continued new humans being born is sort of obvious. I'm guessing you don't really need to see a justification of that.
Ok anyhow I've made all the points I have to make. :) Time to let others come along and make their own. Best to you Janosh.
we sort of left the professional dress issue behind for a while there and i want to pipe in and say that i'm going to come down on the conservative side of that one. i don't know that it's about cleavage vs burqas so much as it's about communicating professionalism.
it's not a double standard. if men have one button open why is it too much to ask that women not have three (wonderbra or not). i've seen women get away with sleeveless tanks that i would probably call t-shirts at best in an office where i was required to wear a tie. i'm unlikely to get away with wearing sandals of any sort, so those glorified leather flipflops are probably not a good choice, either. and i'm not sure why a mini-skirt is ok when i'm not coming in with shorts. some of these things have begun to be accepted standards in some professional environments. i'm just not sure why.
[i should qualify those statements by saying if your office is a shorts and flipflops kind of place, all of the above can be disregarded. i've just not been lucky enough to work in such a place while apparently some of my female coworkers have]
everybody wear suits!!
that would solve the problem of clothes equity! I agree with SW- why do women have the priveledge of being comfortably dressed when I have to suffer in with a noose around my neck and sweaty feet?
over in the news, thanks to quilian.
Steven, I understand your concerns, and have indeed had to edit my personal choices of footwear accordingly, as I am partial to the "glorified flipflop." But comparing the dress of men and women can sometimes be like comparing apples and bananas... it's hard to make the skin for one fit the other in the same way. I take issue with things like trying to standardize the number of buttons one can have unbuttoned, because frankly if I buttoned all the way up or only undid one button, I'd look like a fat slob. Clothes are just built differently, and the fashion designers build womens shirts to be undone further- in fact many even don't bother to put on buttons all the way to the top. You can say that we get to be more comfortable when it's warm, but men aren't required to put on makeup before work, and most don't style their hair. I'd liken the tie-discomfort to the high-heel discomfort that we experience. The standards of dress are simply different in a way that it's hard to compare directly. In fact, many women have a lot of trouble dressing "business casual", because most womens clothes are business or casual, but that specific level of professionalism that is mandated by so many offices is for some reason hard to achieve with women's dress. So you'll see many women in 'business casual' offices underdressed, and you'll see some overdressed, and they're almost all trying to come off as professional as the men and just missing the mark.
good answer, rationalist! and i agree with some of that already, but to dissemble might not have provoked any response.
i buy some of the clothes arguments. clothes are put together differently. but i'm not sure i buy the makeup, hairstyles, and heels as equivalents because i think they're choices - and i've seen many women do just fine without them and still appear professional. sometimes moreso.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.