I might've been a rocket scientist (like my dad), but I was a girl

Is generally not a good idea to extrapolate anecdotal evidence as fact. These individual women you know might have had “no problem”, and still these be sexist societies.

There was a study a while back which I recall finding that the more equal the society the less likely women were to pursue STEM careers. The places you listed had higher rates of women in STEM fields.

No big surprise, STEM is not considered manly to varying degrees in those countries either.

The whole gender concept as socially manifested only ever made sense in a pre industry society, so quite often people in countries which are behind the curve have these attitudes.

To believe in machismo or hyper femininity is pretty backwards, and has been thought as much since the mid 20th century.

As William Gibson famously wrote, the future doesn't arrive all at once.

I would be very concerned about what this is saying. I don't think it means these women experience less harassment. I suspect it means they have a higher tolerance for it from experiencing more of it. To me, this says we have a long way to go to improve workplaces for everyone.

Yes, but what did they sacrifice to get there?

What's the reason for a career abroad and not at home?

>And yet these women seem to have no issues living alone abroad and pursuing a STEM career.

Maybe because they are abroad and not at home?

(2)

It's known that generally, as a nation becomes more wealthy (and socially/technologically advanced), fertility tends to drop. Well-off populations have fewer kids. As you wrote: the vast majority of countries have already passed this point, or are heading there.

That implies there's fewer kids to care for. And thus fewer stay-at-home parents needed. Even if classical gender roles stay the same.

What will those now-not-parenting people do? All else the same, logical expectation: a large % of them adding themselves to the job market.

Ok there's also smaller families. But juggling 1 kid & (parttime?) job is still easier than doing same with say 3..5 kids.

In short: countries moving up the wealth/development ladder will logically cause traditional gender roles to shift.

Probably no coincidence that it's usually less-developed countries where women are forced into traditional roles.

I agree, the headline should mention the Mormon factor.

So the takeaway is that Mormon teachings caused her to forego what might have been an extremely successful career by staying home full time with her children.

Having children has a huge impact on many people’s lives. Are Mormon women far more likely than the general population to stop working after children? My hunch is that they’re probably slightly more likely to stop working, without a huge statistical disparity. But we need this statistic to have a productive conversation on the subject instead of just stereotyping an entire ethnoreligious minority group based on one personal anecdote.

If it's anything like learning a second language, then old people can sometimes successfully do it but the odds of success are a lot better for younger people.

A girlfriend in high school told my dad that she was planning on becoming a mechanical engineer. She was driving her dad's car and he asked her what kind of engine was in it. She had no idea. I don't think my dad was being sexist and believing that she did not have a bent for engineering.

I'm not sure what she did after college, but failed out of her first choice with too much partying and too low test grades

I believe the article is correct to criticise the indoctrination that the LDS church targeted at her. But I also agree with you that grass is greener on the other side. Many of the comments cited in the article could be summarised as: I'm jealous that someone I knew 10 years ago is much more successful now.

I personally also know a few people from university where if I superficially look at their situation now, I'd think "that could have been me". And I'm a guy so in my case it wouldn't highlight a man/woman difference. But then, looking at the details, some of them made sacrifices that I would be unwilling to make. Or their starting position wasn't that similar, after all, e.g. I just didn't know 10 years ago that they were trust fund babies.

It's not too late for you to decide to spend more time with your daughter and less time working. You both could go part-time. If you are afraid that your career won't wait, remember that neither will your children. You might need to discuss with your wife about this, but it is a decision that you should make together, not her or you alone.

My wife and I have taken about equal share in raising our kids and honestly I am prouder to have managed to spend time with my children growing up and to be married to a woman who doesn't have to rely on me to survive than of anything I could have done in a slightly more successful career.

I once knew a couple, the man was a teacher and the woman a scientist. He could work virtually anywhere in the world. In any country. In anything from a tiny isolated town to a megalopolis. Her career would ultimately lead her to one of a handful of places. Teaching is also a career where one can pick-up their roots and reestablish themselves somewhere else at very little cost to their career. Science is usually a career where one must plan their next step carefully, else risk facing major setbacks in their career.

I bring up this story because, in the end, they ended up splitting up since he was unwilling to exploit the flexibility of his professional life to allow their relationship to flourish. I bring it up since I was to raise the question, a question that thinkski's comment triggered even though it is by no means directed their way: how often do we consider the aspirations and potential of our wife when deciding who is going to be the "breadwinner" and who is going to be the "care giver"? I am not saying that it is impossible to be both, but the reality is that compromises to a greater or lesser degree often have to be made for the sake of the family.

I don't agree that it's a case of grass being greener, the difference is that you as a family are able to make that choice, after having had the opportunity and privilege earlier in life.

> the bond invested in our children will be there forever.

It is entirely possible to bond with our children and still maintain a career. These are not mutually exclusive the way you've implied.

I’m a father and can tell you yes, there is stress, but when I look at life without children, I see mostly lives of temporary self indulgence.

Parties, skiing, Hawaii, toys, consoles, cars, motorcycles, vacation homes, etc.

Over time, most people I know grow tired of them. They have more friends yes, but even my friends know their “good time friends” wouldn’t stick around through hardship.

Kids aren’t the only way for sure. There are plenty of causes, but they are one thing that lasts longer than a few product cycles.

I don't think that's generally the case, many women put their career in parentheses in order to care for the family, which is unpaid and sometimes ungrateful work (it IS a real work).

Then if there is a dispute with the family provider, the person not working will be in a position of fragility: if he/she leaves, she has no career, no way to support herself, she has to abide by what the providing partner asks her to do, even if he is sometimes abusive

>the bond invested in our children will be there forever.

That's not guaranteed.

Yeah but if women go to work, the amount of available workers will more or less double, so if you where to apply the theory of supply and demand you'll find that this will make wages decrease, which is very good for extremely rich people ...