Kind of hard to breastfeed as a man.

You're probably right, abge. But in a typical household with children, it is nearly universally the woman who makes the lion's share of personal sacrifices to career and self-advancement. Even if that is not Invictus' intent, he's still purporting to support this system.

Not really. Plenty of babies are raised on formula. Also, even if the mother stayed at home to breast feed, a 6 month hiatus isn't going to destroy her career.

Actually, abge, it can and does destroy careers. In fact, even the possibility of potential pregnancy makes a woman seem less qualified for a job.

So you think the appropriate response is to not have kids, rather than trying to change the social norms?

I mean, I'm not blind to the fact that women get the short end of the stick in business, for a variety of reasons. But to tell women not to have kids because it'll kill their careers is, imho, just as harmful as telling women not to have careers because they're supposed to be mothers.

FMLA only protects mothers for up to 12 weeks. So there is absolutely no guarantee that a mother taking half a year off is going to be able to go back to a job afterward.

I mean think about it from the bloodsucking employers' perspective. They have to keep a hole in the staffing for the pregnant woman for 3 months. Much cheaper and more efficient just to not hire or promote such a person to begin with.

"Much cheaper and more efficient just to not hire or promote such a person to begin with."

OK, but if they have that mentality then they aren't going to hire the woman even if she's never going to have kids, so it doesn't make a difference either way.

It does in fact make a difference if charges of pregnancy discrimination with EEOC are any indication.

Source?

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/pregnancy_new.cfm

I don't understand how that relates to what I said.

Oh wait, I understand what you're saying. Sorry for being so obtuse.

Yeah, what I said was clearly wrong for hires, but I think it may be relevant for promotions.

Also, I'd suspect most of these incidences occurred in lower-income jobs. In higher income jobs, I think it may be more likely for women just to not be hired to begin with.

Lots of women actually value and seek the option to be stay-at-home mothers and do define success in terms of their pursuit of this goal. Most of this discussion continues to completely ignore and marginalize such women. For example:

"it is nearly universally the woman who makes the lion's share of personal sacrifices to career and self-advancement. Even if that is not Invictus' intent, he's still purporting to support this system."

It is, in the technical sense, a sacrifice of a career in the sense of damaging those options; but what if she doesn't view it as a sacrifice, because it's what she actually prefers?

And what if, instead of Invictus "supporting this system" he's just supporting the right of two adults to pursue together the family structure that *they both value and want*?

I see a little bit of lip service to people being able to define their own metric from you, YJ, and then a lot of implicit attacks on those who don't define it by career.

"'Well, I *think* that I would still find attractive the idea of placing myself in a position of dependence and complete trust with somebody I loved who committed to me. Hypotheticals are notoriously tricky, obviously.'

"You're more than welcome to do just that even as a man. What's stopping you then?"

Why do you think I used the word "still"?

"Why not abandon your career options, find the most promising young woman, and just hitch up to her wagon?"

At this moment, that doesn't particularly appeal to me. But even in a traditional marriage, the wife is hardly the only one who is in a position of great trust and vulnerability. That's hard for people like putin who measure everything about life in dollars to understand, because it's true that, if she's the one who stays at home, then she is in one sense in more economic vulnerability (although divorce courts generally look very disfavorably on husbands exploiting this -- but yes, she's given up a lot of career options). It would ignore a huge amount about human nature and emotions, though, as well as just history and everyday life, to suppose that such a marriage is not a relationship of *mutual* trust and vulnerability to great harm.

@putin,

"LOL @ the notion that people reproduce with 'long-term planning' in mind and not just thinking that "kiddies are cute". "

Help me out here, putin -- it's hard to keep track -- but two pages ago, weren't you complaining that Invictus wanted to reproduce to cynically help himself in his old age?

So, which is it? And are there NO valid reasons, for you?

Arguably there should be state payment for childcare (whoever does the parenting) that would drastically change the economic dependancy issue and empower mothers, but i can see it undermining the 'traditional family', and having other economic issues; if you really propose to support fecundity you should be advocating single or otherwise mothers raising children (their own or adopted)

The current existing child-benefit (at least in Ireland) is tiny compared to the wage which would be paid to an equivalent child-carer.

"if you really propose to support fecundity you should be advocating single or otherwise mothers raising children (their own or adopted) "

Definitely, orathaic. If I support fecundity, I should be arguing for a radical overhaul of society's foundations, not seeking to promote the only institution in which fecundity has ever flourished in a positive way.

"Arguably there should be state payment for childcare"

I'd say that's a bad idea for a variety of reasons.

Sorry, that is going back to a time when mos work was done in the home (by both men and women) pre-industrialisation when manufactured goods were made in the home as a cottage industry. Being a 'home-maker' was the norm, and family income was spent according to the needs of the home (though society could still massively disempower women, especially regarding property rights, and stereotypical drunk/gambling husbands)

You can't factory farm babies, so it is the last type of 'work' to be comodified. But 'traditional' family life, like this, is not something which will be seen again.

"You can't factory farm babies, so it is the last type of 'work' to be comodified. But 'traditional' family life, like this, is not something which will be seen again."

Wow, I didn't realize Ireland had changed so profoundly. I see it around me all the time, in Texas.

'If I support fecundity, I should be arguing for a radical overhaul of society's foundations, not seeking to promote the only institution in which fecundity has ever flourished in a positive way.'

That is a good point, but only up to a point; the fact is the most likely person to abuse a child is a family member, while every other system put in place to care for children also opens up for abuse.

There are certainly positives to family life, but that does not mean it is tue bes possibly system. The fact that a system of direct payments to parenting individuals could be abused or used by non-traditional families doesn't mean it would not also benefit 'the only institution in which fecundity has ever flourished in a positive way'

'Wow, I didn't realize Ireland had changed so profoundly. I see it around me all the time, in Texas.' - you see stay-at-home families where all adults stay and work in their homes? Because that was what i was defining as 'traditional', rather than more modern ideals which don't have the same tradition.

Ah, sorry orathaic -- I thought you were using "traditional family" in the traditional way.

Yes, I do see that in Texas, but not as often as what I was referring to before.

"That's hard for people like putin who measure everything about life in dollars to understand"

Excuse me? I missed the part where I compared having a child to any long-term investment.

The pronatalists on here can't decide if they want this thread to be a men's rights rally or keep up the pretension that they back women's "choice". Always humorous to hear someone like Semck, who posted a thoroughly anti-abortion article from thefederalist.com in order to bait pro-choicers, taking YJ to task for not being respectful about women's choices.

"but two pages ago, weren't you complaining that Invictus wanted to reproduce to cynically help himself in his old age?"

So?

"So, which is it? And are there NO valid reasons, for you?"

So because I think Invictus wanting to have kids to get attention is silly means I have to think having kids because kids are cute is responsible?

No there aren't any valid reasons to bring more human beings into this world.

Oh, wow i'm completely missing out on people who can work from home, thanks to the internet (saving on commute times, or only needing to go to the office once a week) - i might wonder if this manages to remove problems associate with lack of promotion and/or hiring of potentially pregnant females, but i guess it does help all concerned.

"So because I think Invictus wanting to have kids to get attention is silly means I have to think having kids because kids are cute is responsible? "

No. But you didn't just say that. You denied that there were any other reasons people did it. This is remarkably short-memoried, given that you had just accused somebody of having another reason.

"No there aren't any valid reasons to bring more human beings into this world."

Well I think that says it all. I hope that, in future conversations when you are outlining your utopian visions for a new society, people will remember that your actual desire is extinction of the human race.

@ora,

Right. Those account for most of the people I know like that.