Hey, this just isn't fair!

Those with kids get to take off early to attend their kids' sporting events.

Those with kids don't have to come in early or stay late to deal with the overseas offices because they have kids to "get ready for school" or "make dinner for."

Those with kids get to ditch the 3:00 PM meeting because they have to "call home to make sure their kids got home from school okay."

Those with kids get to work from home when their kids are home sick.

Those with kids get to work from home when their kids' school closes for a snow day.

Those with kids don't have to work weekends because weekends are "family time."

Those with kids don't have to do the overnight travel because they have "family obligations;" and the boss expects me to go out of town all the time because I'm not "chained down."

And, the boss keeps expecting those of us without kids to pick up the slack when Janie goes out on maternity leave, again!

There. How's that, do I have the whining down right?

Like they say in Texas: It isn't fair, but it's family.

My daughter had sever health problems and I never spoke of it at work or did anything other than use sick/vacation leave. I would have been "let go" otherwise since I was a white male.

Its not fair to the coworkers either, who have to pick up the slack. Now they want them to do the extra work and not get credit for it when promotions etc come around? Its bad enough childless folks have to cough up for all kinds of services via their taxes they have no use for. Most of us accept that as the cost of business. But if my wife works 60 hours a week for years busting her ass to get ahead and then gets passed over by the woman that took two maternity leaves in the past three years and is working 40 flex hours a week, I dont think thats particularly ok.
And regardless, they can try to legislate this issue away all you want but its not going to work in practice.

You got that right Mark. When you pass over your best people because of politics don't be surprised when those people start looking elsewhere to sell their labor.

I'm a stay-at-home mom, my husband is an academic. I think it really makes his life easier for me to be at home with the kids.

He is hyper focused on his research. He comes home, goes to work. We have dinner, he works some more. He reads to the kids, and goes back to work. Then we hang out for 30min-an hour and go to bed. Some nights he plays 1/2 or so with the kids.

Weekends we usually day trip some sort of physical activity or visits to relatives one day, and he does research the other day, joining us for meals and maybe an hour or so for a walk.

To stay at the top of his field, he needs to be constantly producing research. So he can't be distracted by everything else. Sure, he sometimes plays with the kids, or helps with dishes or whatever, but generally, he works, works, works. If he had to take care of the kids all the time, it just wouldn't be possible.

People think professors job is to teach a couple hours a week, but that's only part of the job. A small part. The main thing is to be published in top journals, and to be invited to speak at conferences. You can't do that? A job in academia is not for you.

He sometimes has problems with post-docs and students who take too much time off to be with sick kids, relatives, whatever. Those people are not going to make it in that field.

I keep telling him he should, you know, TELL them, but he seems to think that if they had what it takes they would naturally be doing it anyways and he is not going to waste his time chastising those who don't.

I don't know how two-income families do it. I guess they outsource it to nannies and such. Still, I think there's a reason a lot of the wives I know work part time or are at home.

I do know a few people who have it all. But most people just have it some or have it most, not all.

I can attest to this. I used to be among one of the top performers at my job. After my child was born almost three years ago, my quality of work has dropped to the point that I am now slightly above average. Thank goodness I wasn't a mediocre employee before or I'd probably be looking for another job right now.

I have almost exactly a perfect situation for me.

Both my husband and I work (we both have 35 hour/week jobs). He is walking distance to work and several family members share watching our daughter.

I rarely take time off for child care issues and I either use time or make it up.

I will stay late if needed (most of the time) and I am known to get things done and I am up for a promotion.

I come home, leave work at work (most of the time) and spend time with my daughter (who is usually happy to see me-she's 2 she can be fickle). We usually spend some time in the morning before work as well.

I realized soon after she was born when I was working from home that I needed to get out of the house. I need both the feeling of accomplishment and challenges that my work provides (and probably adult interaction that is not solely parenting related).

I would not make a very good stay at home parent.

Where we live...we both make enough money that we couldn't afford to live on a single income. We do plan to move in a couple years and will be able to live on a single income (in that case it is more likely it will be mine than my husband's).

A former employer started a management training program, rotating potential managers through every department to learn how the company operates. When our turn came, we were assigned a woman who came late, left early, and avoided taking on complicated work. Her excuse? "I have a two-year-old." That became our catchphrase after she rotated to another department. "Can't do it, boss. I have a two-year-old ... burrito in the fridge."

NicoleK: " . . . he seems to think that if they had what it takes they would naturally be doing it anyways and he is not going to waste his time chastising those who don't."

Actually, NicoleK, I agree with your husband on that.

Those who, without being prodded, pick up on the expected standards are precisely the ones who will succeed. And, on the other hand, those who need to be told . . . well, just how clueless are they? How good is their research then if they need their hands held?

Now, if he is referring to undergraduates, or even master's degree students; yea, they might need to be told. But, the others? The ones who already have master's or Ph.D.'s? Nope, they should have picked up on that a while ago.

Let them sink. Of course, many of them will go down whining about how unfair it is.

RELATED: A gender gap no woman is looking to close -- the job fatality gap.
_______________________________________

Yes, they DO want to close it - by lowering the MALE fatality rate as much as possible.

Of course women don't want to see the female fatality rate to go up. But, a lot of men also don't want to take low-paying jobs that just might be safer to work at. (Plenty of minimum-wage jobs ARE dangerous.) Very often, the way to avoid seriously dangerous jobs - if you don't ENJOY the danger, as many do - is to take school seriously while you're still young enough to be in school and benefit from it, even if it means losing all your "friends" who are really just punks. Thus, your options will be more numerous.

Besides, from what I keep hearing, more and more men who never really wanted kids anyway are daring to say so (as are many women), so that gives them an extra excuse to take a safer, lower-paying job. So the job fatality gap just might shrink anyway.

While I agree with Amy and others about the pragmatics of this...

From an evopsych/society standpoint I think it's stupid...

The problem is that many very smart people simply opt out of the gene pool entirely, to pursue the thinking life, thus impoverishing the pool. I have a number of female friends that are go-go-go in their career, especially researchers, who know that they cannot get off the main track onto the mommy track or their careers tank... So they don't even really form relationships. The guys are often the same unless they luck into a situation like NicoleK has with her hubby. That's prolly the best situation. I also know a number of female mgmt/VP types at work, who have husbands that take care of everything else, so that they can put in the 80hr weeks necessary to be at that level.

Dunno, I think the gods of the copybook headings are laughing tho. We get that education, and the big poity brain, and suddenly we forget that the purpose is to make more people, and THEN think about stuff.

Ultimately it would be better if people took their 20's off school and learned about life, got the family established, and such, and then pursued the thinking life... but I don't think any civilization has ever done that.

Perhaps someday when we have artificial wombs, it will take the physical toll of childbearing off the table, and change the calculus. Though it is just as likely that everything will implode entirely at that point. If the state itself starts raising children in that way, then people will be considered property of the state, and an ugly dystopian future follows.

meh. Just rambling.

Married men with children typically work longer hours (with or without overtime) than they did before kids because they feel responsible financially. They obviously have given up something (TV time, hanging out with the guys, sleeping, golf) to do so. No one can "have it all" and believing that you can will simply make you unhappy. Not enough hours in the day? That is the real world. And this applies to men AND women. Women jealous of men ignore that many men are working longer hours, taking the night shift (higher pay), driving the gasoline truck (hazard pay) in order to increase their income. And this is "male priviledge"? (and of course 95% of on-job fatalities are men, who work those dangerous jobs).

I'm guessing most men who take dangerous jobs are doing so to put food on the table for their wives and children. And that's heroic, they should be praised. Instead they get bashed by women who say things like 'men are dogs'.

Someone needs to do these jobs; if everyone 'took safer jobs' civilization would collapse within weeks, as we couldn't get raw materials out the ground, we couldn't get coal out the ground to generate electricity, we couldn't install or repair transmission towers or substations. Gas stations would run dry. As transport systems and power stations shut down, the entire economy would seize up; manufacturing would grind to a halt, unemployment would skyrocket, industrial agriculture, shipping and markets would collapse. It would make the Great Depression seem like a picnic. Certainly there'd be no diamonds coming out the ground for diamond rings.

Men do this kind of work because 'somebody's gotta do it' and, well, men love women so are generally willing to do it for them, as long as women appreciate and take care of men too.

I'm lucky that I work primarily with men and don't have to deal with the mommies that leave work every ten minutes to take care of their kids, then whine when they don't get promoted as fast as the ones that, you know, actually stay around and do the work.

I've had my share of that and I'm over it. Choices have consequences, period.

The problem is that many very smart people simply opt out of the gene pool entirely

Yet another reason TO opt out of the gene pool. The math is ALREADY stacked against your offspring! You aren't going to turn it around at this point.

I recommend giving the drunk/layabout option a try. If you have kids, they're only going to end up living with you forever.

The moms I work with work a lot harder than I do, because they are DESPERATE. Desperate to pay for daycare. Don't let this be you.

I work, typically, 13.5 hour shifts. In a busy hospital. Most of the other nurses are women, most are moms. You know how often one gets to leave early/call home/work from home/etc? Never. Ever. The names of people who will babysit kids home sick is traded with more security and discernment amongst RNs than drugs are by dealers.

I stayed home till my youngest started kinder, then got my (second) college degree and started my career. Despite having entered it at almost 40, I'll get about as high up as I would have entering it at 22, though with far fewer years of that management pay level. Have your kids, THEN get your education and work, is what I recommend to anyone who asks. It's just flat-out smarter than investing so many fertile, energetic years to school and career-starting, only to basically stop in your tracks for several years having babies you pay others to watch. And that's IF you can get pregnant by then.

"I recommend giving the drunk/layabout option a try. If you have kids, they're only going to end up living with you forever."

Well, aren't you a little ray of sunshine. ;)

"I have a number of female friends that are go-go-go in their career, especially researchers, who know that they cannot get off the main track onto the mommy track or their careers tank... So they don't even really form relationships."

Swiss, why can't these women find a stay at home husband to raise the kids? It's not that uncommon anymore. Though, I expect the answer is female hypergamy. That aside, there is a reason historic family structures formed. I expect those structures will start to reform. Once you end the traditional family you really reduce the number of children as well. A few generations later those with an interest in children out breed you.

The same reasons I was given for not having a child at 16 seemed just as valid at 26, 36, and 46.

I don't give a shit one way or another about being "outbred," or why family units formed in the first place. I'm an outlier and completely comfortable with it. We all make choices, and I'm cool missing out on The Most Incredible Feeling in the World.

"But you'll regret it when you get older!" Hell, I am older, and happy as a clam with my ability to use birth control.

Lobster said: I'm guessing most men who take dangerous jobs are doing so to put food on the table for their wives and children. And that's heroic, they should be praised.
____________________________________

Again, as I said, many of them ENJOY the danger, whether we're talking cops or coal miners. Yes, those jobs need to be done, so we should be very grateful for those who do enjoy their dangerous jobs.

Trouble is, those who get sick of their jobs or just plain resent them from day one are likely not to do so well at them - but they can't necessarily be fired. While that hate level might be lowered if we, as a society, taught kids that going to trade school is likely to make them more useful and valued in the long run than going to college (assuming they do SOME reading in their spare time), everyone would be happier if parents ordered their kids to take their schools and teachers a lot more seriously so that they won't have to take jobs they hate, as adults. (Not to mention parents' obligation to make their teens take the need for family planning very seriously too.)

I'm pretty sure that men don't take dangerous jobs they hate because "somebody's gotta do it," they take them because they aren't qualified for anything else, their parents won't/can't feed them anymore, and/or they have children they weren't planning on having so soon, because they didn't know that even the Pill has a real-life 5% failure rate; you MUST use condoms too if you're serious.

Pirate Jo said: Yet another reason TO opt out of the gene pool. The math is ALREADY stacked against your offspring! You aren't going to turn it around at this point.
________________________________________

Personally, I don't believe the world in "Idiocracy" is inevitable; many people who aren't that bright still have enough sense to ask their doctors for foolproof contraceptives when they want them.

But...even bright parents can be sheep when it comes to caving in to what "all the other kids" are doing. That is, even parents who send their kids to private school may not see why kids should have firm limits on their screen time or why they should not be allowed to keep screens in their bedrooms. (Any marriage counselor will tell you that even ADULTS should probably not keep screens in bedrooms.)

Which is why, if I were a fence-sitter when it comes to having kids, I could think of a few compelling reasons to think twice:

1. I wouldn’t want to be the only parent in the neighborhood who actually pushes kids to be independent and to take responsibility for their own behavior.

2. I wouldn’t want to be the only parent who understands that when you say “no” to a five year old and he cries for an hour, it does NOT mean that you did anything horribly wrong or harmful – it only means that he needs to hear “no” more often.

3. I would not want my kids to grow up surrounded by classmates who might be smart and friendly but who don't read challenging books for fun and can't really relate to kids who do - or who might even harass them. I can only imagine how much less of a reader I would have been if I’d known ANY kids like that in the 1970s or 1980s. Anyone who talked like that would have been recognized as stupid. Nowadays, what’s considered stupid and nerdy, by kids, is almost anything that kids CHOOSE to do (outside of family time) that doesn’t overlap with video games or Facebook. Or sports. If it isn’t fast-paced or screen-related, what’s the point?

lenona: "Again, as I said, many of them ENJOY the danger, whether we're talking cops or coal miners."

Do you REALLY think men enjoy working in a coal mine for the "danger" of being buried alive or getting black lung disease?

Have you ever been to Appalachia or to a coal mine area?

Do you really think that coal miners work in blackface?

[rest of comments edited - going to get some coffee - something must be bugging me to pick on this drivel]

Do you REALLY think men enjoy working in a coal mine
____________________________________

OK, maybe "enjoy" isn't quite the right word in their case, but it's easy to imagine that many men are made to feel that they're not real men unless they choose to suffer as much as most of the local men, and so they might take pride in conforming. Crabs-in-the-bucket...

Not to mention that, in theory at least, you don't have STAY a coal miner all your life...so you might escape permanent harm if you time it right.

lenona,
You are fricking clueless.

Your "easy to imagine" and "don't have to STAY" says it all.

Take a road trip to Appalachia via the library if you have the time.

The last place I worked was very much like Charles described - well for the women, not as much for the men -- special privileges to take care of the kids. The one that pissed me off the most was a team mate got leave earlier every thursday for several months to pick up her soon from school and take to soccer which meant I had to do some of her work each week.

My current company isn't as bad but still does it.

To Bob:

I HAVE, thank you, and more than one Appalachian writer made it sound as though things have changed significantly for the better for plenty of formerly poor individuals, at the very least. One writer mentioned that many of those who become doctors or lawyers still return to their neighborhoods, but "they're never good at explaining why." Other than saying that they missed their siblings.

Re the original topic: Let's not forget that if we're going to worry about the American birth rate's dropping (not that I really do), more and more women see no reason to have children in a society where the burden of childrearing is still mostly on women - and not necessarily because of the fathers' lack of cooperation or the mothers' desire to spend extra time with their babies. That will change only when society makes adjustments. As Northwestern professor Laura Kipnis (who, last year, did an interview on "How Campus Feminism Infantilizes Women") recently wrote, in effect, it used to be practically taboo for women to want or ask for sexual pleasure even within marriage, one "reason" being that since the clitoris is on the outside and not the inside, basic intercourse satisfies the man more than it does the woman, and since that's just "natural," the woman's lack of pleasure was not something to be changed or questioned. Of course, that changed in a hurry in the last half-century. See more here:

"Selfish, Shallow, and Self-Absorbed: Sixteen Writers on the Decision Not to Have Children"

https://books.google.com/books?id=oy2dBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=laura+kipnis+%22selfish+shallow%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX7v-Bvr7KAhUCGR4KHb5iCZYQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=laura%20kipnis%20%22selfish%20shallow%22&f=false

The relevant part starts on page 40. From page 41:

"My point is that women have been a lot more inventive at demanding sexual pleasure than at demanding maternity reform. When it comes to sexual pleasure, whatever inequities nature has been imposed on women can be overcome: in other words, culture overrides anatomy. Yet when it comes to maternity, somehow everyone's a raging biological determinist."

BTW, I think this is relevant too:

http://catalog.fborfw.com/indexid.php?q=1020&Submit=Search

Let's not forget that if we're going to worry about the American birth rate's dropping (not that I really do), more and more women see no reason to have children in a society where the burden of childrearing is still mostly on women

Simple solution, women could stop demanding to get married, initiating 75% of all divorces, and stop demanding sole custody.

Tell me lenona, why is it every time women suffer from entirely self inflicted situation you find a way to blame society or men?

In case you haven't noticed, more and more women AREN'T "demanding" to get married or have babies, since they'd rather do other things with their lives. (This unnerves a lot of people who don't want to admit that that's happening.)

Not that I really see what's wrong with wanting to get married first if you DO want babies.

And it's likely safe to say that Kipnis wasn't really talking about post-divorce scenarios. Or those women who choose to become single mothers even before they get pregnant (to me, such mothers just encourage the idea that childrearing is really women's work and that fathers shouldn't have to be there for their kids). Any mother who DEMANDS sole custody is not likely to complain about the father not doing half the custody work.

"In case you haven't noticed, more and more women AREN'T "demanding" to get married"

Afraid you are wrong there Lenona. More and more women aren't getting the option to be married. More and more men are refusing to marry for the exact reasons Lujlp listed.

"Any mother who DEMANDS sole custody is not likely to complain about the father not doing half the custody work."

Wrong again. It is a common complaint. But I agree, it is an idiotic one.

Or maybe the unhappy women are the ones who are more likely to be vocal about it? (Not that men AREN'T doing what you said...)

In the same vein, people who chose to be childfree used to be very quiet about it before the 21st century, because openly childfree people used to be accused of being "horribly selfish" or, at the least, of having a case of sour grapes. Now that it's considered somewhat OK to talk openly about who you really are, even if who you are doesn't automatically make you "useful" to other people (sort of like being gay), childfree people do talk about it, more and more.

I'm not sure what you are saying here Lenona.

If you are referring to "Any mother who DEMANDS sole custody is not likely to complain about the father not doing half the custody work." you are still flat wrong. It is an idiotic complaint. But it is a very common one. In many cases the child is a necessary financial investment that must be maintained to keep the lifestyle the mother has become accustomed to. These are selfish people and bad mothers. But they are quite common. And it is exactly the mothers who DEMAND custody who are inclined to complain. Because the child is more of a financial asset than progeny.

You are correct that US society is much more accepting of non-main stream lifestyles.

If you are still claiming it is women who are refusing to get married, you are still wrong. The stats flat don't support you. The percentage of never married men is much higher than for women. It is also growing at a much higher rate. Even surveys of people's opinions on marriage don't support you. Men have much more negative views and are moving more negative faster than women's. A basic analysis of the environment doesn't support you. Family law is heavily lopsided against men.

Like with your Appalachia comments, you often see things but refuse to accept them when they go against your ideology. As a result you end up with some impressively bizarre rationalizations.

@Bob "lenona,
You are fricking clueless."

It boggles my mind that someone can reach adulthood and be this clueless ... I constantly see men doing dangerous things precisely because 'somebody's gotta do it'. Constantly. Everywhere. And it's usually the same, men step up while women disappear. Do you live with blinkers on? How is it humanly possible to not have ever noticed this?

@lenona "Again, as I said, many of them ENJOY the danger, whether we're talking cops or coal miners."

Lol! So a man working in the coal mines does it because it's *such fun* to him, and not, you know, because he wants to see and feel the appreciation in his wife's eyes and in her body that he is offering her his all, putting a roof over her head and feeding and clothing her offspring. Damn.

Lobster: I won't argue against your first point, assuming you're talking about what a man doesn't have to do on a daily basis. Especially things he doesn't get paid to do.

Regarding the second point, you didn't see my follow-up on January 21, 2016 2:05 PM, did you?

Again, men might complain about women not doing dangerous jobs, but somehow such jobs don't seem to count when the women doing them are getting paid minimum wage. Not to mention that men aren't really clamoring to do minimum wage jobs in general. Even conservative Alex Beam noticed this, years ago.