So, just the floor? Not committee rooms where actual work takes place, only in the televised grandstanding platform?

The Senate floor was where babies were not previously allowed. I don't think Duckworth is going to leave her baby in a car seat outside her office door or the committee rooms as she conducts business.

I've written before about how Geoffrey Miller, a prof I know, allows parents whose child care has crapped out to bring their kids to class. (Parents, male or female.)

What's interesting is there seems to be a big difference between how parents use parental leave. In academia, paternity leave actually INCREASES the achievement gap, because mothers use it to physically recover and care for their babies while fathers use it as a sort of sabbatical to work on their research without having to be distracted by teaching classes.

The reality is no matter how helpful a guy is, helping a person who just gave birth is not the same as BEING a person who just gave birth. It's not like the pain of childbirth magically disappears with the arrival of the placenta.

And of course, if mum is nursing, there's a big difference there as well... being the one with a baby constantly attached to your boob is not the same as being the one who brings a fresh drink to the person stuck on the couch with a baby attached.

Link to the article on leave

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/business/tenure-extension-policies-that-put-women-at-a-disadvantage.html

"Biological sex differences, anyone?"

Elementary, my dear Watson!

Biological sex differences, anyone?

Heretic. Alt-Right extremist. Patriarchy apologist. Self-loathing woman hater.

Until you have kids you can't know how it will change your views. I know lots of women who, upon having a child, discovered a depth of emotion and devotion that caused her to toss overboard any career plans she might have had, feeling correctly that all that was nothing compared to caring for this helpless lovely baby. People who scorn such feelings are heartless (or are lying publicly).

Men in these countries are encouraged to take a long paternity leave as well, yet ultimately it's the women who end up staying with their children.

Well, clearly they need to enact some lucrative incentives to encourage more fathers to stay home with their children, and disincentives to discourage mothers from doing so. Or maybe feminists would see it as more equal to mandate lucrative incentives to encourage mothers to return to work, and penalties to discourage fathers from doing so.

Just wait until more women get elected to Congress. We'll have a taxpayer-funded Congressional daycare facility that will make the one working people can afford look like a POW camp.

cc: I know lots of women who, upon having a child, discovered a depth of emotion and devotion that caused her to toss overboard any career plans she might have had, feeling correctly that all that was nothing compared to caring for this helpless lovely baby.

I, too, could name a whole bunch of ambitious, college educated women who had that same experience. And I could name their husbands who experienced a corresponding depth of emotion and devotion that almost completely dissolved their craving for adventure, risk, thrill and excitement, and motivated them to commit to being responsible and working hard to provide safe, secure lives for their children and that one person they trust the most to love and care for them (i.e. their children's mother)

I had a similar experience myself when I was a high-energy, aggressive, risk-hungry, 23-year-old man, and my high-energy, thrill-loving, fearless, 19-year-old wife gave birth to our first daughter. Though neither of us had any career aspirations to toss overboard at the time, we both quickly transformed into significantly more responsible, less risk-taking, harder working, still naive but less foolish, committed parents.

We've had babies serving in Congress since 1788. Why is this suddenly an issue?

> I know lots of women who, upon
> having a child, discovered a
> depth of emotion and devotion
> that caused her to

Seen all kina changes, like those described here and more.

But I've never seen parenthood actually make anyone nicer. Relative values of attention and concern migrate from this- spectrum to that-... But the expression of kindness is unchanged in volume.

There must be a lesson in that. Working theories:

• People are shits, and humanity is filth.


• Nature is amoral, accepting without review the demeanor which brings us to mere fertility as sufficient for its purposes; it will not demand continuing improvement of one's (own) generation when one executes the assignment and has passed the buck, however poorly the preceding generation and culture have delivered the moment; and the next generation is its own problem anyway.

People are inherently assholes. It is the natural state of mankind.

Which is one of the problems with Dawkins's atheists philosophy. Dawkins claims that collective behavior is ration and obvious so without god based morality people will naturally act in the collective good. But people are inherently assholes. And what is good for the group is rarely good for the individual. Which is why history shows a vastly different picture of atheist societies than Dawkins would like.

People are shits, and humanity is filth.

People are inherently assholes. It is the natural state of mankind.

These two comments pretty much fit the Biblical description of us as fallen and sinners.

People who scorn such feelings are heartless (or are lying publicly).
______________________________________

I don't scorn/deny such feelings in other people. I just think it's worth asking oneself, BEFOREHAND, whether taking such a leap is a good idea in the first place. Like joining a faith that insists that you attend services - and/or tithe. Or taking drugs. (That includes tobacco and alcohol, of course - personally, I never learned to like the taste of beer or wine or anything stronger, as a drink.)

My point is that people need to ask themselves how likely it is there will be enough GOOD jobs to go around by the time their kids grow up - or how clean the environment might be. If the answer is highly negative, how is it fair to one's kids to have them at all?

> But I've never seen parenthood actually make
> anyone nicer.

Funny hearing you of all people discuss niceness.

That being said, being nice is way down on the list of virtues for a parent. Much more important is: being physically strong, being mentally strong, protecting your loved ones, working hard, being persistent, etc.

> My point is that people need to ask themselves how
> likely it is there will be enough GOOD jobs to go
> around by the time their kids grow up - or how
> clean the environment might be. If the answer is
> highly negative, how is it fair to one's kids to
> have them at all?

Having children definitely makes one more concerned about what happens in the future, and to the country. That's why people with children heavily favored Trump.

Why must you use my distinctive formatting?

It's like you want people to think we're similar.

We're not. We're really, really not, and you should compose your own patterns of expression.

Well Mpetrie98 after looking at people for thousands of years you kinda notice a trend. So the Jews wrote in original sin. If you want to take a more evolutionary approach to things, the needs of the group and the needs of the individual are not always the same. So creatures that sacrificed for others most of the time all failed to pass on their genes. Selfishness is evolutionally preferred. At least in members that can reproduce.