Comment by danans | Hacker News Reader

Comment by danans | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I think the US desperately needs a "mommy track" for college that encourages women with young kids to go to school part-time and take 6 to 8 years to complete their degree. I think this would solve a lot of problems.

Agreed 100% + add publicly backed financial support. IMO, moms study damn hard, and don't take stuff for granted.

This (mom in longer term educational program) is what well-off people with spouses in college/grad school do today with their own funds. Most universities are already happy to accommodate those people because they are paying. I know this from my own experience.

> Historically, we resolved these conflicts by having women have babies young, but with a financially established husband who was typically older. Now, that is decried as evil patriarchy.

Evil patriarchy is forcing women into such marriages, via repressive social norms and limits to educational and career opportunity for women, instead of allowing them to have their own choice. The choice can't be marriage vs social isolation and/or destitution.

There's nothing wrong with a marriage being partly about providing financial security to someone who doesn't have it, but to make it the only option for that person... that seems evil.

EDIT: wording

>Agreed 100% + add publicly backed financial support.

That's where you go off the rails.

A girl from an impoverished background, whose only fault is that she is not a mom, has far more need of "publicly backed financial support" of her education than an upper middle class mom. Publicly backed financial support should be either restricted based on need for everyone, or it should be unrestricted and given to everyone as a matter of course. But telling a girl that she has to have a child before she gets access to this particular pot of money sets up the same restrictive environment and lack of "choice" that you decry in the "evil patriarchy".

> But telling a girl that she has to have a child before she gets access to this particular pot of money sets up the same restrictive environment and lack of "choice" that you decry in the "evil patriarchy".

I never said that financial support should be restricted to moms. There's no reason why we can't help both types of individuals in the situation that they are in. More help for girls before they have kids means they have lower needs later when they have children, and children of financially stable, educated moms are probably not going to have children before getting educated themselves. Financing both is a societal win-win.

If we manage to finance a Navy and an Air Force at the same time, we can figure out how to finance both poor girls' and moms' education.

> I never said that financial support should be restricted to moms.

Endorsing it in the specific context of a “mommy track” without an explicit expabsit does naturally lead to that conclusion.

For the record, I used quotes on "mommy track" specifically to avoid that conclusion.

It doesn't have to be gender specific. It doesn't even have to require one to be a parent per se. It would require that we set up a track that is friendly to people in that exact position, one where going to school part-time was financially feasible without having a well-heeled spouse or parents, in essence.

And I intend for this to be my last comment in this discussion. The uncharitable reading of my remark and the degree to which I am being personally attacked* and dismissed makes it nigh impossible to keep my cool and try to engage in good faith, especially given that I'm simply exhausted at the moment. So I'm just not at my best today.

Please consider the fact that I chose to respond to this comment to be an expression of my personal respect for you. Because otherwise I would likely just downvote it and flag it.

* At least one ugly remark appears to have been deleted. So if you think I'm overreacting, consider the possibility that you haven't seen some of the comments I've seen.

Why does endorsing a "mommy track" for education imply an exclusion of endorsement of other tracks (i.e. for poor children)?

Because enumerating a specific case without explicit generalization or inclusion of non-enumerated options implies (weakly; it is a natural but not necessary conclusion) the exclusion of others.

It's a fairly common way people naturally read things; in legal contexts is also one of the canons of statutory interpretation, Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

> has far more need of "publicly backed financial support" of her education than an upper middle class mom.

I never said that the benefit should be available to upper-middle class moms. It's easy enough to phase out the benefit based on income.

In fact, I gave the example of upper middle class people already having this kind of privilege (attending college paid for by their spouse).

Means testing is a time-proven method of discouraging work and stripping people of dignity.

Then make the benefit universal (like UBI), and adjust tax brackets of the wealthy to ensure they don't directly benefit.

Stripping of dignity? Don't agree with that. I think means testing has its issues but its far more fair than lottery type support such as rent control or fixed property taxes which can help the top 1% for no real reason. The big question mark over UBI - is can society afford it?

Limited educational and career opportunity for women? More women in America graduate from university than men. The split is now roughly 60% women.

Saying things like this, blindly, is not just incorrect, but actually damaging.

If you read the post again, you'll see my use of "limited educational and career opportunity for women" was referring to the reference to the "evil patriarchy" of the past, not the present, which I do believe is better.

But that being said, there are still plenty of factors working against women in parts of the education system and the workplace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com