"...so that they can have their children later after they have laid the groundwork for their career. It is absolutely true [that egg-freezing as a job benefit] is giving women options and it’s making it economically feasible. And it’s probably the most realistic thing for some women. But it is a shame that we haven’t started a better conversation, not only about the fixes like the day care that was just mentioned, but a deeper conversation about how to reorganize the work world, so you don’t need to be a superwoman at work and a superwoman at home at the same time. That’s never been realistic. And I think the egg freezing is a somewhat extreme response to it."
Said my law school colleague Alta Charo on PBS "Newshour" last night.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६८ टिप्पण्या:
"But it is a shame that we haven’t started a better conversation,"
Perhaps that's because, like the "national conversation on race", it's not a conversation, or a dialog, it's a monologue or a dictation.
If all a woman does is bear and raise children and die, then her other talents go to waste. OK, So the talented women freeze their eggs at age 30 so they can can inseminate themselves at age 55 and take early retirement.
This is a brave new world.
But it is a shame that we haven’t started a better conversation, not only about the fixes like the day care that was just mentioned, but a deeper conversation about how to reorganize the work world, so you don’t need to be a superwoman at work and a superwoman at home at the same time.
The implicit assumption in any such conversation is that you have the right to use the force of government to impose these changes on other people.
it’s not fair because a lot of women don’t get access to it
Ah yes. The push to make life fair for everyone.
Except, of course, for the people who have to pay for other people's choices. That's not fair either, but that doesn't matter.
At some point women will notice that you cannot have it all -- something men have known forever. In the meantime, buy the books that are published!!!
a deeper conversation about how to reorganize the work world
The implicit idea being we need to reorganize the workday to make it more convenient for women, damn efficiency and what is convenient for men.
We've gone from "We want to play too!" to "We want to change the rules so we can win without trying very hard."
RecChief said...
"But it is a shame that we haven’t started a better conversation,"
Perhaps that's because, like the "national conversation on race", it's not a conversation, or a dialog, it's a monologue or a dictation.
And the dictation is along the lines of "give me everything I want and you won't get hurt - maybe."
Why not free day care? If women can't be expected to pay $10 a month for contraception, how can they be expected to pay hundreds a week for day care? Add in paid time off for family leave, not just for childbirth but just because. What other economic wet dreams can we think of to transfer even more money to from men to women?
By the way, how long until women are entitled to free egg freezing, and later implantation?
My guess is that Alta has never had to run a business or employ anyone with a long-term horizon. I think she'd have a different perspective if she had.
Freezing eggs is the woman's choice. Or does Alta want people to believe this isn't a legitimate choice, that no woman should have to choose to postpone childbirth over the precise career she wants, when she wants it?
This is no different than it's always been. Technology is simply allowing more time to postpone the biological clock.
In The Vagina as Fascist State the need to "reorganize the work world" is an integral part of reorienting Society away from what men do best, to accommodate that at which women are less successful. Notice that -- for a woman to do the same job as a man -- she must be a "superwoman": The Vagina as Fascist State requires the average for females to be elevated, and weaknesses inverted to be strengths. Indeed, The Vagina as Fascist State exalts abortion above all else because it is the one thing where women will always outperform men.
The men who succumb to The Vagina as Fascist State have little problem with this: if the average is lowered, they, too, can feel accomplishment when there is little actually accomplished. The ideal man in The Vagina as Fascist State is one who gratefully accepts less expectations, and thus has less pressure to meaningfully contribute. The inherent shame for the male in this situation is to project the blame on Capitalism as a whole, so as not to acknowledge their abandonment of biology and self-determination.
Is it any surprise then that the hard-working male --after spending a day in the office trying to navigate women's sensitive toes -- wants nothing more than a beer and a porn video of a woman in glasses posing as a boss while bent over a desk, skirt above her waist, receiving anal sex? In The Vagina as Fascist State this is half the battle: in the porn the woman at least portrays a boss.
Slippery slope, first you give women Drivers Licenses, then allow them to vote...see it has been all down hill since then
Nobody needs to be a "superwoman" unless they insist on a high status position in life.
This all strikes me as putting the cart before the horse. We live in a new normal where most of the new jobs created are low wage, part time and often seasonal. Having a full time, good paying job is gradually becoming a privilege only for an elite few. Instead of talking about how we can make work more comfortable for our existing workers perhaps more effort and dialog should be had about getting decent jobs for everyone else.
wow betamax...you've been dead on lately.
Women will be more like a man when they get a sense of humor.
What scientific ("Reliable and valid" and "With a high level of confidence") evidences is there, if any, as to any, if any, genetic damage to frozen human "eggs"?
"But Mommy, why can't I just have it all?"
Can't we just repeal biology?
Well, no, you can't. To get more of this you're going to give up some of that.
"That's not fair ..."
I am woman, hear me whine?
. . . a deeper conversation about how to reorganize the work world
Right, because the Chinese, Indians et al are not already eating our lunch? Sure, in wildly high-margin firms like Google or Apply (not the retail part) you can give generous benefits until the cows come home, but most businesses couldn't do that and survive. Sorry ladies, life involves trade-offs and compromise. If you want to have kids, find a life-partner of some unspecified gender and learn to share the load and prioritize. I already pay for the care of my kids - I am not paying for yours.
holdfast said...
I already pay for the care of my kids - I am not paying for yours.
Remember, government is just the name we have for the things we do together, under threat of fines or imprisonment.
"We've gone from "We want to play too!" to "We want to change the rules so we can win without trying very hard.""
This goes back to Popehat's gamer gate post.
The entryism is of the usual type: people with blue/pink ideals join red / gray groups and try to achieve social status with in those groups, then use that social status to push for the admission of – and promotion of – more blue/pink members. Once the blue/pink members achieve a majority they then change the rules of admission to create a lock on their new conquest (in the case of academia, for example, even blue researchers in the Netherlands of all places, were shocked by how blatant the process was).
The status shaming is also of the usual type: high status blue / pinks follow Alinksy's battle plan.
See, let us work and have careers then we change YOUR career path.
What we need to do is develop the technology to freeze the working world on days a woman feels like staying home with the kids and to freeze the family on the days she feels like working. And it should be easily done from her smart phone.
Why not free day care? If women can't be expected to pay $10 a month for contraception, how can they be expected to pay hundreds a week for day care? Add in paid time off for family leave, not just for childbirth but just because. What other economic wet dreams can we think of to transfer even more money to from men to women?
Progressives and court justices will discover that these things are basic human rights.
If you're freezing eggs for later, then your priorities are all wrong. No job is worth that.
There is also some scintilla of evidence that sperm from older men may not be robust.
I imagine that men now have sex-discrimination grounds for suing for the right to have their sperm frozen.
There are many great things about the trend of women to have their eggs frozen, not the least of which is that they will be relieved of baby talk, thoughts of marriage and ever bigger houses, and so on until their 30s or even later. By then they may get wise enough not to add to global warming and other catastrophes by breeding.
Egg freezing will also relieve the conscience of the wise man who gets an early vasectomy without telling his mate.
By the way, when the local tv stations changed to digital signals, they brought back a lot of old tv shows to run on their secondary channels. My kids have been getting a steady diet, in the limited time they get in front of a TV, of "Father knows best"; "Mayberry RFD"; "The Rifleman"; "Make Room for Daddy"; and "The Dick Van Dayke show". Guess where all of the female leads work?
Megan McArdle has pointed out (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-16/will-freezing-your-eggs-help-your-career) that energy level declines significantly when people get older. I can verify that. These ladies may find that they are not able to raise a child later, or may not want to.
Leave it to old one-note jimbino to connect frozen eggs to his global warming and anti-breeding jihad.
Must be a lonely world.
And get off my yard!
Here's the message:
Girls, work hard in school so you can get a good job with a good company that will pay for the freezing of your eggs.
That way, you can work hard at your job and not worry about having a family because your fertile years have been extended.
Now, you can put in 30 years at your job, retire, and have babies later!
You should have no trouble finding a man to help with all the work because you are soooo successful.
And don't worry that your dating pool will be limited to men much older than you, since younger men that want babies will probably choose someone their own age. Remember... You had a career!
And don't worry that those older men may be well past wanting kids. What decent man doesn't want to change diapers every day in his 70's?
Besides, you don't need a man! You are successful!
I used to think they just wanted to steal people's youth.
Now I see they want to steal their whole life.
"Megan McArdle has pointed out (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-10-16/will-freezing-your-eggs-help-your-career) that energy level declines significantly when people get older. I can verify that. These ladies may find that they are not able to raise a child later, or may not want to."
I don't think McArdle has children. I think the energy you have depends on your health and your emotions, and also that dealing with children isn't about energy per se. It's much more about emotions. You could say emotional energy, but the declining-with-age physical ability is pretty irrelevant in my view, and I'm saying that as a woman in my 60s. I would find it easier to deal with children now than in my 30s when I had them because I felt a lot of pressure to get too many things done before it's too late. Spending time supervising play, for example, in a playground made me feel anxious about other things I was supposed to be doing. That was emotionally difficult in a way that would be easy now, when I'm not roiled by ambition and a sense that I'm getting behind in something else that I'm supposed to be doing. It's really the opposite of physical work that is required raising children.
As a dad in his 50's with a 4 and a 5 year old, Ann is right that Emotional Energy is a huge part of child raising.
I am blessed with good health and an above average fitness level, and that sure helps, but being able to focus on my kids without wondering about everything I'm missing is an asset too.
I agree with the Professor. I think that older parents (in their 50s and 60s) would probably be a bit better at raising young kids in a number of ways, not the least of which is due to probable financial stability as well as the emotional stability that improves with age. I'm not sure how much the "energy" factor plays into it either.
Whenever someone suggests that we start a "conversation", watch out. They want your money.
Genetic material from older men is linked to developmental delays and disabilities.
Yes, modern women, you have freely given away your womanhood, and you don't even recognize the loss. You feel better off. It's all working out as planned… by idiots.
Why is it the assumption that women be catered to in the workplace? Seems like female supremacy to me.
The matriarchy is normalizing a stereotype of men that is divorced from reality, that serves the purpose of a minority ruling elite. Women should become "men" and focus on money, sex, ego gratification, taxable activities, and harvesting clumps of cells.
The new religious fundamentalists are actually a cult without a moral foundation. It seems that we are returning to a feudal state, where aliens do the work that Americans have been taught to avoid. So, that's that "Dream".
"These ladies may find that they are not able to raise a child later, or may not want to."
That's what illegal alien women are for.
When Tony Randall was in his 70s he married a much younger woman who bore him a child for which he took a lot of heat. It was irresponsible said some. I remember some saying he wouldn't be able to bend over and pick the child up. He famously shot back, "It's none of your business what I do with my life." And then he died, leaving a young widow and a child behind.
poker1one:
Everyone dies. Most people die later, than sooner. Well, at least those men and women who survive planned parenthood. Still, the risk is clear, defined, and ultimately immutable. The risk of dying is lower at a younger age. There is also a progressive risk of genetic corruption during reproduction. A risk not unlike that associated with freezing and reconstituting genetic material.
"Think of the children" should be about more than children as accessories or union funding.
Seems like female supremacy to me.
Honest feminists will admit that the ultimate goal is to subordinate men and reduce the male population down to the smallest amount possible. When science has advanced far enough, men will be eliminated and women will just clone themselves.
as a feminist in good standing, i'm surprised that Althouse didn't have anything to say about Bristol Palin's assault and liberal reaction to it.
I guess it's just like a night at a standup act when it happens to someone outside of a favored group. This is the problem I have with all the SJW causes, they aren't really universal. Janay Rice gets knocked and we have to end the NFL because domestic violence. Bristol Palin gets dragged through the yard, beaten and robbed, and not only is it confirmation that America really did do the right thing in electing Obama, but it's a laugh fest too.
Good to know.
men will be eliminated and women will just clone themselves
You are not Morg. You are not imorg.
(I point out that a man's brain was stolen in that episode)
That’s never been realistic.
HERETIC!
" i'm surprised that Althouse didn't have anything to say about Bristol Palin's assault and liberal reaction to it."
My guess is, she doesn't know about it yet, or hasn't had time to write about it since finding out.
I bet she will write about it though, because this is her interest. It would be like Crack not writing about an instance of White Cop violence against a black youth. He just couldn't resist.
Our hostess won't be able to resist this either.
The solution to avoid the "burden" and genetic corruption: womb banks and sperm depositors. There is no need for exotic treatments and technologies that have high risk and fiscal profiles.
I think there are some examples of women earning less due to their sex. For example, years ago my wife did not get an advancement specifically because her boss thought she would follow me to my next job when I graduated. And I know women juggling raising their kids will face a burden (which is a choice to make a sacrifice, and I do not think an injustice).
But there are other examples of sexism in our society. Men are by far more likely to die on the job than women. Why aren't these kids cussing about that? A crippled or dead father is a much better justification than money is. Cancer research for 'women' diseases like breast cancer radically outpaces the funding for male diseases like testicular cancer or prostate cancer.
Men work physically difficult and eventually physically harmful careers far more often than women, and generally work worse hours. They live shorter lives too.
Let's address those concerns first. Show you are a feminist by treating the sexes as equals.
Women should put off child bearing until they can afford a live in nanny. But hire a nanny with sufficient maturity and wisdom to assist your infant in their journey through childhood. Also, if the nanny has weight problems, then that makes her more matronly and comforting for your child.
Ann - I think that you are minimizing the energy problem. My kid arrived when I was 40 or so, and graduated from high school as I neared 60. And, there was one kid in their school whose father was a decade and a half older. My partner, on the other hand, started her family right after college, at 21. Her ex, your age, had his last one in his later 40s, and was more a grandfather than a father to her. I remember my ex, in her early 30s at the time that my kid was born complaining about the young women a decade or so younger running down the halls at the hospital within an hour or so of giving birth. She sure couldn't. And, I have a picture of my partner hours after her second, looking like she could run a marathon. And, yes, she started working out a couple hours a day the next day.
I think that it is pretty hard keeping up esp. boys when you are in your 40s and 50s. So much energy. Worse, your 60s and 70s.
The flip side though was that we knew what we were going to do raising our kid, and did it. Much better prepared than if we had done so much earlier. A lot of older parents at the private school my kid attended, and the parents mostly tended to be overly controlling, but very involved. But, they were in their 40s and 50s, not 60s and 70s. A lot of adverse selection there - not a lot of young couples could afford the tuition.
When my partner and I got together 15 years ago, we used to joke about having more kids (we both love them). But, she couldn't, and we both knew that we wouldn't even if we could. Just not enough energy at that age. Besides, deep down, she prefers being a grandmother (with 5 grandsons). You can spoil them, and then go home and not suffer the consequences. That is for the parents to handle. Which may be one reason that we are probably only welcome at her son's house once or so a month.
"And then he died, leaving a young widow and a child behind."
Anyone can die at any time.
"Her ex, your age, had his last one in his later 40s, and was more a grandfather than a father to her. I remember my ex, in her early 30s at the time that my kid was born complaining about the young women a decade or so younger running down the halls at the hospital within an hour or so of giving birth. She sure couldn't. And, I have a picture of my partner hours after her second, looking like she could run a marathon. And, yes, she started working out a couple hours a day the next day."
Yeah? Well, I had C-sections, and believe me, it was a triumph to walk across the room a couple days later.
At age 30 and 32.
Running marathons is not what it takes to tend children. In fact, if that's you're thing, you probably aren't going to be that interested in the slow-moving activities of toddlers. It's not physically exhausting work. It is emotionally challenging, and I don't think the marathon-running type of person is going to excel at the emotional work required by children.
It isn't the toddlers who are really the problems, but a bit older. Maybe until puberty. You did have boys, which is probably worse, when it comes to energy requirements. I do remember wishing that my kid delayed walking and running a bit longer (I was the primary care giver at that point), but it didn't get worse really for a couple of years.
With my partner, it wasn't running marathons, but rather, the ability to interact with the kids intensely on a daily basis. It actually got worse, when she remarried and had 4 to take care of, all pretty close together. Until they went into their teen years, she could work out, work very part time, cook, etc., and take care of the kids when they weren't in school. (Of course, most people having kids as late as we are talking here will likely be more like you, with the societally approved one or two kids).
I do think that you are right though, that C-sections are usually worse on the mother. That second kid of my partner's came after a half an hour or so of labor (first one took better than a day). Like my mother on her fourth - the doctor grossly underestimated how fast the kid would come. That is why she could be up and out of the hospital a couple of hours after giving birth.
and nothing about Iranians throwing acid in the faces of women who are "immodest" either?
huh
""It's none of your business what I do with my life." And then he died, leaving a young widow and a child behind."
And she is probably happily remarried and spending his money. Bing Crosby's kids from his second marriage did a lot better then those from his first.
It's easy, ladies. Just marry a man who's not that ambitious, and who would be willing to be the house husband if you happen to be terribly ambitious. There are, believe it or not, plenty of men around like that, who will happily accept a life of taking care of the kids and working, maybe part time, at just some job to bring in a little extra income, while you work 70 hrs./week conquering the world and bringing home the bacon.
But, please, what makes you think you can marry an alpha male and change him?
SGT Ted said...
"Why is it the assumption that women be catered to in the workplace? Seems like female supremacy to me."
Doesn't have to be supremacy. How many sexual harassment/rape/sensitivity briefs have you been to this month?
Notice all of the physical requirement standards are slipping a bit?
There is a walk test option on the 2 mile.
Had a friend in the regular army and his unit made a deployment announcement. There were 9 women in the unit, 8 were pregnant in a month.
We had to take women out with us from other units to search the women on our raids because we don't have women in ranger battalion. They fell out constantly on movement.
There was a rumor they were going to let them into ranger school despite the physical impossibility of it. Guess the packs will be lighter. Wont be as much frost bite allowed either.
The goal is never elevating women. It is tearing the rest of us down.
I'm not against egg-freezing.
Here's why- divorce. Say a woman decides to raise children instead of pursuing a career... then her husband leaves her at say, age 39.
Then what?
Women factor this into their decisions to pursue a career over child-raising. It's rational. Who wants to get left to raise kids with no education or career?
How many mothers tell this to their daughters?
Can't say it isn't rational. In fact, because of genetic defects, men should be freezing gametes at a young age, too.
This is not the only instance where women try to make themselves like men.
But it is a shame that we haven’t started a better conversation about how to reorganize the work world, so you don’t need to be a superwoman at work and a superwoman at home at the same time.
For my part I think it a shame that we've yet to re-re-organize the workplace so that, as in the past, men can exercise their right of free association to exclude all the feminist shrews like Alta Charo.
Good points! Women have the best chance at a good pregnancy in their late teens into their twenties. What'd help them most would be an ability to flip a career cycle.
The current system expects women to start their careers young and advance up the ladder like men. The hitch comes in their late-30s, when their career may be about to take off but they also realize that it's now or never for a baby. You could almost call that the worst of all worlds—not being a mother when motherhood comes best and not being in a career when it begins to pay well.
Flipping would see women start their mommy track when mommying goes best. Then once those kids are well into high school, start a career, unhindered by difficult and often failed pregnancies.
Some men do precisely that. They have a military career that may have little to do with anything they might do in civilian life. Then, having qualified for early retirement, they shift into private life, starting a career there.
The hitch is that the man is doing something in the military, say commanding others, that does transfer into private life. That's less true of mothering unless the woman goes into something child-related.
But that only matters if full-time, on-job-site is seen as the only way to prepare for a later career. But if part-time and volunteer work counts, the work preparation can feed into a later career.
Years ago, I was walking with a college student I knew who was majoring in architecture. She told me that she was wondering why she'd picked such a difficult major when what she really wanted to do was marry and have babies.
She was quite delighted when I pointed out that, while being a mommy fit poorly with being a commercial architect working for a large firm, it'd mesh quite well with designing home remodels on her kitchen table while the kids were napping.
A system like that would, I suspect, leave more women happy than the current make-women-behave-like-men agenda of feminism.
--Michael W. Perry, co-author of Lily's Ride
"If all a woman does is bear and raise children and die, then her other talents go to waste."
Wow and double wow. This view seems to echo throughout the comments and is a cold-hearted view of women. Hey! Women have wombs from whence children come. I suppose it depends on what sort of loving supportive home that woman creates for those children, and whether or not said children turn out to be mass murderers or raging drunks or abusive in their future lives.
If you have ever met a woman who really really wanted to have a baby and couldn't, then you might have encountered deep sorrow. I believe I have seen surveys where most women would prefer to work half-time and so have time for raising a family. There are things for which we, male and female, have been hardwired.
Paging Henry Higgins...
how to reorganize the work world,
Your colleague can just stuff it. She's as misguided as the egg-freezing films; just in a different direction.
Dustin.
" ... her boss thought she would follow me to my next job when I graduated "
Well... did she???
Men and women are different. Why the assumption that a career path designed for men should work equally well for women? Men can father children well into their seventies. Women's fertility is at its peak in their late teens and twenties.
It seems to me that an optimum path for women would be to marry early, have their children, and then start a career when their kids are in school full time. If they go back to college then, they are more focused on school (not looking for a social life) and more mature.
Of course, that depends on finding husbands while they are young, which is increasingly difficult outside of conservative religious communities.
When women have a feeling the world must be reorganized. When men have a feeling they must overcome it and do what's right. often known as manning up.
I know a secular woman, who brought her first child during graduate studies, the fourth (the last so far) immediately after getting tenure in exact sciences in a world class university. She gave invited talks as her child slept, hoping the child wouldn't wake up. And her parents immigrated when she was an infant, and lived on minimal wages. I do not think modern mainstream US woman are capable to do it, they are too weak.
Fortunately, Darwin process will take care of them.
PS: one of the main secrets of their success is that they never had cable TV
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा