[growup12345]

The main thesis of Morgenroth is that men and women are equal in terms of their ability to be communal… but are they?

No evidence offered, just some philosophical symmetry “it has to be” argument is concocted.

I don’t buy it: in western countries you are protected by law if you want to take parental leave, so if men want to do it they should do it regardless of what “society” thinks. The law gives them the power to do so, hence who cares about the hypothetical existence of these “deep prejudices”: even if it is as bad as they say, it’s not like anyone can fire them.

But you might miss out on your career: and that is logical… if you go away for 5 months, then your colleague who is ultra competitive and childless and was waiting for his chance will just snatch up your position and when you are back you will find yourself sidelined. I see zero issues with this: you prioritised family, hence where your career will go from that point shouldn’t matter to you at all. Are people supposed to modify business objectives due to personal choices? If people do believe the answer is yes, we are entering the land of such deeply ingrained entitlement that to me that is the real problem. No one owes you anything in life: if you think otherwise, you are set for a disaster.

[jbay808]

> men and women are equal in terms of their ability to be communal… but are they?

Even if the two populations aren't equal on average, undoubtedly some men are more communal, and some women are less so. You can't do comparisons on populations as though they were individuals!

But with a stereotype that becomes a norm, even especially-communal men, married to especially-non-communal women, will be pressured into not taking parental leave because people think the wife should do it. That pressure could include, for example, harsher career consequences than a woman would face for taking parental leave. And that's neither good nor fair.

So stereotypes are dangerous, even when they're accurate. (Which this one might not even be!)

[m4x]

> But you might miss out on your career: and that is logical… if you go away for 5 months, then your colleague who is ultra competitive and childless and was waiting for his chance will just snatch up your position and when you are back you will find yourself sidelined

Sure, and I assume this is part of the reason men (and women!) feel concerned about taking parental leave. The law has no effect on people's perceptions. But...

> you prioritised family, hence where your career will go from that point shouldn’t matter to you at all.

... this is just a false dichotomy. People don't have to choose between total dedication to one or the other, and it's quite possible (and practically achievable) to be good at both.

> Are people supposed to modify business objectives due to personal choices? If people do believe the answer is yes, we are entering the land of such deeply ingrained entitlement that to me that is the real problem.

You suggest it's entitlement when people want to have kids while also maintaining their careers, but I think you have it backwards - the real entitlement here is thinking you should be able to profit in a society that is fundamentally dependent on people who choose to raise another generation, while refusing to do so yourself or even acknowledge that what parents do is in general a service to society.

What do you think society would look like if everybody took your advice? The best minds would never want to reproduce, because they'd lose their careers, and many good minds who did choose to reproduce would be sidelined at great cost to their respective industries.

[MikeTheGreat]

> you prioritised family, hence where your career will go from that point shouldn’t matter to you at all

Hold on - this doesn't follow.

It's entirely possible that you value both your family and your career.

It would be good to talk with people who are actually in this situation in order to verify the assumptions you've listed.

[SilverRed]

It's a zero sum game. You only have so many hours in your life so valuing two things means you value each thing half as much as someone who values one thing.

[sofixa]

Yes, and there's enough time for both - work is 35-40 hours, maybe some overtime if you're really dedicated. Even at 50 ( too much IMHO), with 54 for sleep (7x8), that still leaves you 68 for family.

[adrianN]

40 hours work, 54 hours sleep, 7h commute, 5 hours lunch at work, 7 hours breakfast and dinner, 4 hours cooking, 2 hours cleaning, 3 hours personal hygiene, 1 hour grocery shopping... the list of "non family" activities is pretty long.

[nly]

Umm, yeah because nobody has chores to do. Cleaning, cooking, tidying, life admin, dealing with companies or people who are sucking away your time, home maintenance, etc etc

[lazide]

It doesn’t actually work that way - family can and will consume 100% of your time, just like work can. And some people can and will pick one of them and do just that.

If you’re ‘competitor’ is one of those people, well…..

[ramblerman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Sure, you can value 100 things, but your time is limited. At some point you will make decisions that favour one of the things at the expense of the others.

[yarky]

Prioritize A over B implies you give more value to A over B. Example: we all sure value chocolate and health, but you must set your priorities.

If you give priority to your health,then you shouldn't care about the fat guy eating chocolate restlessly.

[wongarsu]

Those aren't binary choices, there is a spectrum. (and of course I can eat some chocolate and then go for a swim, which leaves me more healthy than if I had done neither of those things)

[yarky]

I agree with you, but I don't see how priority isn't about a binary choice though.

I forgot cocoa has health benefits, should have used cigarettes as example.

[nyokodo]

> ... your colleague who is ultra competitive and childless ... will just snatch up your position and when you are back you will find yourself sidelined. I see zero issues with this

The major issue with this is that it discourages having children and that is a major social problem in many countries of the world. Many developed nations are on the cusp of devastating demographic decline and fertility rates have been falling in developing nations for decades which can't replace 100s of millions of retiring Europeans/Chinese etc.

[adflux]

Not having children is not a major societal problem, it would actually solve them. Many of the largest problems in the world would be fixed by a smaller human population. Food, housing scarcity, climate change...

[tolbish]

Those problems you describe are not due to the number of people, it's due to how countries and communities are organized. We have more than enough land and food to house and feed everyone, and those do not need to come at the expense of obliterating the environment. These are essentially resource utilization and distribution issues, not raw number issues.

[Dylan16807]

Rapid drops in population are very much a problem.

[nyokodo]

> Many of the largest problems in the world would be fixed by a smaller human population. Food, housing scarcity, climate change...

What we’re seeing is the beginning of a sudden and massive drop in the working population across vast regions of the planet. That’s a recipe for famine, decaying infrastructure, war, burning wood and coal instead of maintaining sophisticated energy infrastructure.

[anthonypasq]

pretty much no one who studies this sort of stuff agrees with you, just so you know.

[adflux]

Wow what an enlightening comment

[tephra]

So at least in Sweden you have a right to get back to "the same or equal position" after parental leave. And most people here are away much longer than 5 months.

Most mothers take one year off. And most other half probably are in the 8-12 months as well.

[lazide]

The problem is that it’s easy to play games on what ‘same or equal’ position means - many terrible employers in the US will do them too.

[DarkWiiPlayer]

But this isn't about entitlement; it's about society agreeing to set some extra rules to make life better for everyone. At the end of the day, you aren't entitled to anything at all: even the idea of not infringing on other peoples property is something we just all agreed on because it benefits everyone.

So why are you whining about "entitlement" here, but aren't also defending that "If you can take it, it's yours"?

[JimTheMan]

Sure. But if the opportunity was available for more people to take paternal/maternal leave then the competitive advantage would reduce as others take up the leave themselves.

Only the childless would be at an advantage in the 'experience' world.

[tpoacher]

According to statistics, in women at least, the effect is the opposite: while there is an initial observable lag, women returning from maternity leave more than catch up career-wise with men and women without children, and in fact tend to surpass them.

(we know this incidentally from studies that were investigating the pay gap)

[kbelder]

That's interesting, and I'm going to go look for some info about that. Do you have any particular cites readily available?

[globular-toast]

People want to have their cake and eat it too. People talk about choosing a career or children, but that's ridiculous. Raising children is a career. You could try to do both, but I think we can guess how well that's going to turn out.

It's extremely obvious why it tends to be women choosing to raise the children over men. Men value their work more and women value children more. It's as simple as that and if that seems wrong to you, look at the evidence and accept that truth.