Hacker News Reader

>I love learning, I'm highly qualified in the academic space and enjoy picking at problems. I've written papers, patents, well paid, etc. Highly successful by most metrics.

Right - so imagine that you didn't have that opportunity to do that academic work because you have an elderly parent at home who needs care. You've got two little kids at home who aren't yet school age and thus needs care. You wouldn't be content with your work situation in that case, right? Sure, it might just be for a few years - but what if those few years block you from key promotions or research opportunities? Do you get it? I'm certainly not saying that everyone should be focused on their careers, I'm just observing that sometimes people are making tradeoffs between their careers and their personal life, and more often than not it is the female in the heterosexual relationship that is making more of those tradeoffs.

Women can get pregnant and breast feed. Men can't. That is the primary reason women end up making more tradeoffs in terms of career vs. family. Sure, there are some cultural and political things that can be changed. But there are some fundamental biological realities that cannot.

> Right - so imagine that you didn't have that opportunity to do that academic work because you have an elderly parent at home who needs care. You've got two little kids at home who aren't yet school age and thus needs care.

Many people will choose the elderly parents and little kids over academic work and promotions, given they have enough money to support themselves.

The academic work and promotions are just a means to an end, which for many is the ability to support and raise a family.

Making that choice doesn't mean that they have to be completely happy with the choice. If someone's partner became sick/disabled, many people would adjust their life to care for them rather than abandoning them, but many of those people would becomes resentful and ponder what their life would be without that situation - whether they voice that resentment or not.

>Women can get pregnant and breast feed. Men can't.

So that's 9 months + some amount of months breast feeding. What's the excuse after that? Couples of all types need to find the balance that is right for them, but the comments in this thread trying to use biology as an excuse to make 18 years (or life, as I see it) worth of child-rearing strictly a "women's issue" are living in the past.

>Many people will choose the elderly parents and little kids over academic work and promotions, given they have enough money to support themselves. The academic work and promotions are just a means to an end, which for many is the ability to support and raise a family.

Must be nice. Meanwhile, the people in my area have shitty low paying jobs and can't afford housing, and are still trying to support their kids and elderly parents, all while having eff-all in the way of access to quality, affordable health care.

Yeah I'm floored by these takes. God forbid society rewards child rearing with decent parental leave and accepting small resume gaps. Can't even consider things like government or job sponsored child-care or benefits to make things like breastfeeding easier while working. Changing to part-time for a period of time with a newborn, etc.

The possibilities are endless to make having a child easier for both mothers and fathers and people are stuck on "women have to breastfeed so they have to sacrifice their careers".

Why not something like a GI-bills structure to reward having children? Blows my damn mind people think sacrifice is a necessary part of having a child from society's point of view.

Except for surrogates and wet nurses, you cannot delegate pregnancy and breast feeding.

You can make things more equal between men and women. But some unescapable biological realities still exist.

> Why not something like a GI-bills structure to reward having children? Blows my damn mind people think sacrifice is a necessary part of having a child from society's point of view.

Sounds something that Mitt Romney and moderate Republicans (if there are any other ones left) would be all in favor of. Would be a popular bi-partisan policy proposal in a sane US political environment.

Exclusive breast feeding takes 6 months maximum. It is not that much time actually. The pregnancy can be difficult, but most of them are not and most contemporary job are not affected by pregnancy all that much. Even if all families had 3 kids (more then they have) the time spend by breastfeeding is 18 months total.

It is insignificant. What does matter waaay more are years and years after pregnancy and breastfeeding. How the care is split during those years, how much the parent going to pick up kids is penalized in the workplace.

>So that's 9 months + some amount of months breast feeding.

Times how ever many children they decide to have. Generally during prime years of career development. That is not a trivial commitment.

> but the comments in this thread trying to use biology as an excuse to make 18 years (or life, as I see it) worth of child-rearing strictly a "women's issue" are living in the past.

Yes, that is why I did not make that claim.

> Meanwhile, the people in my area have shitty low paying jobs and can't afford housing, and are still trying to support their kids and elderly parents, all while having eff-all in the way of access to quality, affordable health care.

Yes, that's the part about money being a means to an end. Being able to commit one parent to child raising is a privilege requiring having basic economic needs met on one income. That used to be the reality in the US, but no longer.

>"why you want a career?"

Financial independence.

Anyone who thinks SAH parents can free themselves of this worry is naive. You never get the time back, you never get the experience back, you never get the training or the raises or the bonuses. You never get the retirement savings. If you are unfortunate enough to live in the US you are entirely dependent on your spouse for healthcare.

It's an unfathomably vulnerable situation to be in but it gets brushed off. There is still an attitude that SAH is a 'gift' given to a parent, see how often a working spouse will say they 'let' their partner stay at home, that the working partner 'supports' the family. A SAH spouse is not an equal partner with a 50% contribution. More of an oldest child with extra responsibilities and a higher allowance.

Pre-nups are often advocated as a way to ensure fairness if the relationship falls apart. I'd rather see pre-SAH legal documents. The SAH spouse gets half the earnings, gets half the purchases, gets half the retirement savings. A working spouse who isn't willing to sign it is a working spouse who doesn't believe that being home and watching children is a 'real' job.

> A SAH spouse is not an equal partner with a 50% contribution. More of an oldest child with extra responsibilities and a higher allowance.

This is a really depressing way of looking at things.

Spend any amount of time among ( let's be honest ) men and you see this attitude over and over again. They "let" their spouse stay at home. The SAH spouse spends all "their" money. The working spouse "supports" the family. There's a constant stream of posts on reddit about how how a working spouse should be able to come home and play video games for hours - they work so hard and deserve a break. Does the SAH spouse work hard deserve a break? What a ridiculous idea. See how often someone complains that they come home and the house is a mess and the laundry isn't done and dinner isn't ready. This isn't the attitude of an equal partner, this is the attitude of a boss. Does the SAH spouse get to review the working spouse's productivity each day? Give them access to the JIRA board and let them start asking why it's taking a week to support a minor version change.

The attitude some have of a SAH spouse does not make the definition of a SAH spouse.

Now spend time with career women and realize that a stay at home dad is not even considered a man worth talking. Women want their vake and eat it too but the one baking it should always be the man.

>> A SAH spouse is not an equal partner with a 50% contribution. More of an oldest child with extra responsibilities and a higher allowance.

> This is a really depressing way of looking at things.

No, it's not depressing, it's total BS. Anyone who's ever been in a remotely serious relationship knows keeping score like "percent contribution" leads to the end of that relationship.

It is not BS. Financial independence is real freedom. See any and all societies where women do not have financial freedom. People may not keep score, but the women will act differently based on the fact that at the end of the day, they are dependents. And men will act differently, because they know they are independent.

So given the fact that financially independent women do not have kids at similar rates as financially dependent women, perhaps it is an important part of a relationship.

But very very common and very very strong reason to not be SAH. Because a lot of partners will have exactly that attitude, no matter how nice they were previously. And it will rub on your self-esteem.

> More of an oldest child with extra responsibilities and a higher allowance.

And a disposable one at that!

The last 30 years women have had it drilled into their minds that if they don't have a powerful career then they're a failure. The reply to a woman saying they want to be a mother instead of a CEO starts with "oh you poor dear..."

Among women I know, I don't see this attitude. Women I know who want careers actually want it because they don't want to be dependent on other people. Every woman I know either has personal experience or knows another woman with personal experience of being in an abusive domestic household and being unable to leave because of no personal income. That's a huge motivator not to be SAH.

my point still stands that a woman saying they want to be a "mom" and not have a career is looked down on by their peers due to the last 30 years of career propaganda. Fear of being abused is something else entirely.

I repeat that I don't know what you're talking about and it doesn't reflect my experience with women. Do you have sources or something?

It's not about career, it's about independence. Anyone without the financial ability to leave has no power in a relationship and will be exploited or abused.

That's not an edge case, it's an inevitable consequence of being financially dependent. It happens 100% of the time.

"will be" and 100% of the time sounds, pardon me, very sad a point of view. What about those that don't abuse their position of power and responsibility? There's even a popular cultural saying, "with great power comes great responsibility". Is there really no one out there with, well, good in their hearts in your world?

Excepting the exceptions, only men care about legacy and purpose. Women care about a well socialized easy life. A family can provide that, but it does restrict you in significant ways. An air conditioned office where you're tippy typing on a keyboard, making calls, joking around the water cooler, and have a bunch of disposable income at the end of the month is a fantastic deal.