Do you think there is something wrong with society which pressures women to study for many years and then work before having to give it all up to give birth and raise children only to find it harder to re-enter the professional workforce later in life?

[mad_scientist]

Any thoughts?

Do you think society will always discourage women from entering the labour market or having babies?

[Thorham]

While I hope neither, women should say: 'Screw society', and just do whatever the hell they want.

[mad_scientist]

1 minute ago, Thorham said:

While I hope neither, women should say: 'Screw society', and just do whatever the hell they want.

Hahaha. Do you think the years of work prior to being a mother would make a woman a better mother for her children compared to a housewife with little or no professional working life?

If so, how and in what ways?

[Thorham]

1 minute ago, mad_scientist said:

Do you think the years of work prior to being a mother would make a woman a better mother for her children compared to a housewife with little or no professional working life?

I'm the wrong guy to ask

[OldChemE]

I don't think work history necessarily correlates to being a good mother any more than it correlates to men being good fathers.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, mad_scientist said:

Any thoughts?

Do you think society will always discourage women from entering the labour market or having babies?

I think, if you examine it carefully, you will realise that society traditionally discouraged women from entering the labour market precisely so they would have the time to have and raise babies. Since your opening question is poorly framed I don't see how it can be properly answered. (GIGO)

[iNow]

1 hour ago, mad_scientist said:

Do you think the years of work prior to being a mother would make a woman a better mother for her children

Do you think my years of work prior to being a father made me a better father for my children? If so, why? If not, why not?

[zapatos]

In what way does society pressure women to study for many years? Can you give an example?

[mad_scientist]

2 hours ago, OldChemE said:

I don't think work history necessarily correlates to being a good mother any more than it correlates to men being good fathers.

Are you sure? But you learn lots of things from work (e.g. communication skills, time management skills, collaboration skills etc.) sure some of these skills can be beneficial?

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

In what way does society pressure women to study for many years? Can you give an example?

It's part of the global feminist movement. Now there are more female university graduates than male graduates.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, mad_scientist said:

 It's part of the global feminist movement. Now there are more female university graduates than male graduates.

I believe you were asked for evidence of societal pressure, not some vague assertion.

Anyway, my answer to the Q in the title is "Yes". There is a problem if society pressures women to do things, and there is a problem if it pressures them to give it all up to raise children and there is a problem if there is an impediment if the choose to re-enter the workforce.

[OldChemE]

On 9/24/2017 at 9:56 PM, mad_scientist said:

Are you sure? But you learn lots of things from work (e.g. communication skills, time management skills, collaboration skills etc.) sure some of these skills can be beneficial?

You need to read what you respond to more carefully before you reply.  My statement contains the phrase "any more" which makes your reply inconsistent with what I said.  I was comparing men and women, not asserting that work experience is not of value.

Edited September 26, 2017 by OldChemE

[Ten oz]

Societies where mothers are free to work both pre and post child bearing are in my opinion better places across the board in most general measurements of society: GDP, mortality rates, innovation, literacy, and etc. 

[Sensei]

If woman studied many years, she will be better mother to her children, because she is better educated, she better knows how world is working, and will be able to answer many more questions asked by her kid. Woman is, or at least should be, the first teacher of kid. Starting from learning reading, writing, mathematics, and everything what she knows and remembers from school and university. She should build the curiosity of the world and satisfy it by interesting challenges, developing intelligence of kid.

 

It's very sad, and devastating, to see mother/father with kids which are going together quiet *), without discussion going on about interesting subjects (world is full of interesting things around us, and kid is naturally curious about them and asking questions). Such people don't treat their kids as partners to discussion ("because they are just kids",treating them as somebody at lower level than they are, not worthwhile to waste time explaining them anything with details).

*) I have seen parents which are saying to kids asking about something in adult discussion, answering "shut up, adults are now talking, go play".. After couple such answers kid has enough, and stop talking to parent about anything.

Parent should treat kid as partner. Not only partner to discussion, but the real partner. Treat kid like you would like to be treated.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Sensei

[Kevin Mulisa Isaya]

this depends on vision of someone and culture she was raised in, especially in Africa women don't spend a lot of time in school. so that she can prepare real future life out of books

[YaDinghus]

I don't think the problem is society forcing anyone to study, especially women. It's not even forcing them to study, women seem much more interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake than men who seem more into knowledge for power's sake. The cruel thing societies do is making it harder to get their legs back up in professional life (Scandinavian countries and Austria are far more progressive in this matter than most others)

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

I don't think the problem is society forcing anyone to study, especially women. It's not even forcing them to study, women seem much more interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake than men who seem more into knowledge for power's sake. The cruel thing societies do is making it harder to get their legs back up in professional life (Scandinavian countries and Austria are far more progressive in this matter than most others)

Knowledge for knowledges sake is not something i see overtly in either sex.

[YaDinghus]

32 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Knowledge for knowledges sake is not something i see overtly in either sex

Haha you're right, I've been relying on my intuition for this statement. I couldn't find anything that conclusively supports it on short notice, but just because this emphasis is missing doesn't mean the rest of my contribution is wrong

[StringJunky]

On 25/09/2017 at 3:32 AM, iNow said:

Do you think my years of work prior to being a father made me a better father for my children? If so, why? If not, why not?

Better, as in being able to advise with experience on the employment landscape and generally being more socially experienced. This experience is an important part of the teaching process. If you don't have this knowledge you can't pass it down. In this respect, your employment makes you a better parent because it makes you a better teacher with more teaching aids in your bag.

14 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

Haha you're right, I've been relying on my intuition for this statement. I couldn't find anything that conclusively supports it on short notice, but just because this emphasis is missing doesn't mean the rest of my contribution is wrong

It's all about money; everybody wants it. Employers don't want to pay someone for nothing. In a socialist society, where the burden is spread around, it is more likely to be amenable to support women having children but in a principally profit-driven society, it's much more 'everyone for themselves' and very few are going to let others have a share of their pie. It makes perfect sense when you put  capitalist specs on.

 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Knowledge for knowledges sake is not something i see overtly in either sex.

This seems a rather odd comment to make on a site that, in principle, provides the opportunity to post and learn knowledge, but without any reward.

[YaDinghus]

29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It makes perfect sense when you put  capitalist specs on

Which is why I consider pure, unregulated capitalism bad for humanity in general. But that's like my opinion

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

This seems a rather odd comment to make on a site that, in principle, provides the opportunity to post and learn knowledge, but without any reward

My reward is emotional ;-) I love talking to smart people, and there aren't many of those in my line of work

[Ten oz]

On 9/24/2017 at 8:57 PM, mad_scientist said:

Any thoughts?

Do you think society will always discourage women from entering the labour market or having babies?

In my opinion you asked a loaded question. It is your suggestion that having a child is a determent to a career and not a fact. In the U.S. where I am at it is common, depending on the type of career, for a women to continue to work through their whole pregnancy. Women are entitle to 12 weeks off following giving birth but many are back at work prior to that.  I hardly see up to 3 months off as "giving up" ones career.

In 2012 I ruptured my left Achilles playing basketball and required surgery. Between the lead up to surgery and the initial recovery I was at home for a month. Then when I did go back to work I had my own flexible schedule which allowed me to leave as needed for therapy appointments which lasted for another 12 weeks. At no point did I feel that I was jeopardizing my career and 6 years on I still work with the same organization and have been promoted twice. If time off and special accommodation for months had no impact on me (a male) why should it a female?

I know from experience that time away and special accommodations aren't career killers. Moreover they are common. Most people in their working lives (30-40yrs) will miss work due to something. It is my opinion this is just something chauvinists exploit to justify their own bias views.  

 

 

 

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

This seems a rather odd comment to make on a site that, in principle, provides the opportunity to post and learn knowledge, but without any reward.

I meant, to my knowledge,  it''s not biased to either gender.

[iNow]

48 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In my opinion you asked a loaded question. It is your suggestion that having a child is a determent to a career and not a fact. In the U.S. where I am at it is common, depending on the type of career, for a women to continue to work through their whole pregnancy. Women are entitle to 12 weeks off following giving birth but many are back at work prior to that.  I hardly see up to 3 months off as "giving up" ones career.

In 2012 I ruptured my left Achilles playing basketball and required surgery. Between the lead up to surgery and the initial recovery I was at home for a month. Then when I did go back to work I had my own flexible schedule which allowed me to leave as needed for therapy appointments which lasted for another 12 weeks. At no point did I feel that I was jeopardizing my career and 6 years on I still work with the same organization and have been promoted twice. If time off and special accommodation for months had no impact on me (a male) why should it a female?

I know from experience that time away and special accommodations aren't career killers. Moreover they are common. Most people in their working lives (30-40yrs) will miss work due to something. It is my opinion this is just something chauvinists exploit to justify their own bias views.  

Unfortunately, anecdote <> evidence. There are countless counterexamples of folks not as fortunate as you. Not all employers are equally equitable and fair. 

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Better, as in being able to advise with experience on the employment landscape and generally being more socially experienced. This experience is an important part of the teaching process. If you don't have this knowledge you can't pass it down. In this respect, your employment makes you a better parent because it makes you a better teacher with more teaching aids in your bag.

I tend to agree, but it really depends on what metric is used for measuring success. Some parents might focus on skills unrelated to vocation and social experience and that’s perfectly fine, too. 

Appreciate answering head on, but like some of your posts in this thread, my broader point was that this isn’t gender-specific and was frankly a rather daft OP question stemming from rather daft OP preconceptions. 

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

...and was frankly a rather daft OP question stemming from rather daft OP preconceptions. 

Yeah, it's a crap thread. 

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Unfortunately, anecdote <> evidence. There are countless counterexamples of folks not as fortunate as you. Not all employers are equally equitable and fair. 

True. My overall point was that there are numerous reasons why people miss work and that it isn't a fact that women will miss more work throughout a full career than will a man. My anecdote aside there is truth to that point. People miss work following car accidents, illnesses, deaths in the family, and etc, etc, etc. A career is often littered interruptions. 

The OP references education. In my opinion a good career, one a person invests in education for, is nearly always one that offers stability in addition to good pay. A career where one would fear being fired or demoted due to paternity isn't a good one and probably isn't one people (male or female) invest in education for.