New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | September 27, 2005

Cathy Young is on the trail of the mysterious Ivy League Mommy.

Comments

Dave W.|9.27.05 @ 9:13AM|#

Another factor may be that salaried jobs are becoming less and less attractive as the decades roll along.

I am not saying that jobs are less attractive -- I don't know, but this could potentially be a big factor, especially if salaries (in real money terms) are going down over time . . .

|9.27.05 @ 9:27AM|#

The field I work in (Nursing) is predominantly female. I see many women put their careers on hold to give birth to, and raise, young children. I also see a lot of women with school age children working 50+ hrs. a week while Dad does his share of the parenting. Or, if they're single mothers, other friends and family help.

I agree with Cathy Young, the feminist ideal of "men as the enemy" is flawed. I think women are coming around to the fact that men can be their partners instead of their oppressors. At least, that's how I see relationships of people my age working out.

|9.27.05 @ 9:33AM|#

I didn't get this bit:

"Men, for one thing, do not have the same options of career flexibility as women. For women, meanwhile, the abundance of options can lead to painful conflicts." How, exactly, do men have fewer options than women?

|9.27.05 @ 9:37AM|#

Joe- I think she meant that maternity leave is more common than paternity leave. Also, a woman returning to the work force might have an easier time explaining why she was out of the workforce for several years than a man. The second, of course, is pure speculation on my part.

Dave W.|9.27.05 @ 10:00AM|#

How, exactly, do men have fewer options than women?

Court-ordered support can curtail career options. Personally I have no idea about this, but some ppl claim that court-ordered support tends to exhibit some gender inequality when court ordered support is ordered.

|9.27.05 @ 10:03AM|#

One problem with the New York Times article is the fact that it is premised on the idea that if a 19-year-old says they are going to do something when they are 30, then it must be so. Looking back on myself and my friends, that's a stretch, to say the least.

|9.27.05 @ 10:05AM|#

"Personally I have no idea about this, but some ppl claim that court-ordered support tends to exhibit some gender inequality when court ordered support is ordered."

Some gender inequality is an understatement.

|9.27.05 @ 10:06AM|#

seems it's not a big problem for a man to act as caregiver and let his wife be the breadwinner when they live in a nice liberal college town, but if he does it elsewhere he's seen as a wuss, completely a laughing-stock.

Akira MacKenzie|9.27.05 @ 10:11AM|#

One could argue that stay-at-home mothers, present or future, are exercising their freedom of choice in the most feminist way possible.

Yeah, if I was woman, I'd choose to throw away years of expensive education just so they can play house maid and pop out children every nine months. That really enhances the lives of females above and beyond the roles of homemaker and incubator.

|9.27.05 @ 10:20AM|#

The story points out that in several surveys of Yale alumni and Harvard Business School graduates, the majority of women were not employed full-time 10 to 20 years after graduation.

I'm sure that some of this is due to decisions concerning children, but keep in mind that if they're referring to MBA grads from the Ivy League then this is a fairly elite cohort. I wonder how many of the women in that statistic might have an alumni bio like this:

"Jane Doe (MBA 1985) accepted a job with a Fortune 500 company after graduating. In 1987 she left her position to start her own company with classmate Mary Smith (MBA 1985). The company had annual sales of $20 million in 2003, when Doe sold her stake in the company. She now lives in the Napa Valley with her husband, where they manage a small winery."

Or:

"Lisa Random (MBA 1985) worked in marketing for several large companies. In her last full time position she was Director of West Coast Operations for (insert company here) until she left in 2004. She now consults part-time and manages several income properties."

Again, I realize that most women who leave work aren't doing so for these reasons. But they cited a surprising number for a fairly elite cohort, and I wonder how many of the people in that cohort have elite stories like that.

|9.27.05 @ 10:23AM|#

Akira- That's where choice comes in. For some people, the life of a homemaker is satisfying. To me, it's repugnant, but the phrase "to each his own applies."

|9.27.05 @ 10:24AM|#

Another gratuitous typo. I quit.

|9.27.05 @ 10:37AM|#

"Men, for one thing, do not have the same options of career flexibility as women."

joe, disingenuous much?

The truth of this statement should be fairly obvious. In the context of this article, career flexibility refers to the option to act as women do when it comes to child-rearing; that is, to leave the workforce on either a short- or long-term basis to raise children while the mother returns to work full-time, and be taken seriously when it comes to career track issues such as job protection, promotion, and salary. While there is modest federal parental leave protection, and many companies have enacted facially gender-neutral parental leave policies, the numbers of men who have opted to exercise their rights under those policies are nearly non-existent. While I do not have the hard data, my instincts tell me that it is probably due to the perseverence of attitudes in our society (among men and women both)that parental leave is for new moms, not dads, and that any man who would elect to take leave is a loser, lazy, unprofessional, not dedicated, etc. Women are not likely to suffer these prejudices to a similar degree, since the society accepts the role of a woman as nuturer. Conclusion: a stay at home woman=nuturing mom; stay at home man=loser dad.

|9.27.05 @ 10:37AM|#

let his wife be the breadwinner when they live in a nice liberal college town
I've noticed that, due to rules regarding tenure, women in academia are especially susceptible to the drawbacks of taking time off to raise children. I studied under quite a few profs that fit that description while I was in community college.
Number 6,
As a single father, I could tell you a few stories about how people assume that, as a man, you cannot possibly be a person who puts family before career. For women, it is pretty apparent that taking a few years off effects their career negatively. For men, it is practically career suicide.

|9.27.05 @ 10:40AM|#

Thoreau,
The article also gave the comparative stat for men who had graduated from those programs, and men were far more likely to still be working. If I recall correctly, the female number was in the 30s or 40s and the male was in the 80s.

|9.27.05 @ 10:42AM|#

Edit, just checked the article, 56% for women in their 40s, 90% for men.

|9.27.05 @ 11:00AM|#

Jeff-

Nothing like some facts to shoot down a perfectly good theory.

|9.27.05 @ 11:05AM|#

I think you're all (and the article, and Cathy too) overlooking the facts that 1) most modern Yale students come from the upper-middle class and above, 2) and having gone to Yale or Harvard guarantees they will run with AND MARRY INTO "a certain class" of people for the rest of their lives.

So, given that money is likely not a problem for these women, they opt to stay home. Cathy's right, this shouldn't surprise us. Plenty of other women would rather be home with their kids than in the workforce.

Akira MacKenzie|9.27.05 @ 11:13AM|#

Number 6:

You have a point. It's just that I have too many memories of listening to right-wing talk radio and hearing the sychophantic mewings of "proud-stay-at-home-moms" telling Rush how happy she is to be cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the screaming brats.

It was like listening to a Stepford Wife.

|9.27.05 @ 11:22AM|#

linguist,
Are you saying that these women went to Yale to get their MS degree?

I'm only half kidding. Does that really happen? wait a minute, of course it does sometimes..

|9.27.05 @ 11:41AM|#

I agree with linguist. Given the choice, I would rather be at home with no kids than at work. I would be, if I could afford to.

|9.27.05 @ 11:49AM|#

"I really believed 25 years ago," [Yale women's and gender studies professor Laura] Wexler told the Times, "that this would be solved by now."

Kind of begging the question isn't it? What is it that she believed would be solved? The element of human nature that some people actually derive a greater sense of personal satisfaction from child rearing than from career. I can understand the gratification one gets from not having kids and focusing on a career and all of the goods and services one can buy when there are no child raising expenses, but having two kids myself I also know how much satisfaction there is in my nightly attempt to un-brainwash my kids from their day at school and government programming. It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many people in positions of influence who cannot understand how others in the world could possibly see things differently than they do.

|9.27.05 @ 12:06PM|#

I asked "How, exactly, do men have fewer options than women?"

juri answered, "seems it's not a big problem for a man to act as caregiver and let his wife be the breadwinner when they live in a nice liberal college town, but if he does it elsewhere he's seen as a wuss, completely a laughing-stock."

OK, if we're talking about social pressures, which is to say, people looking at you funny based on whether you choose to say home with the kids or go to work, it is complete bullshit to claim that women face less of this than men. Sure, a man might get looked at funny for staying home while his wife works in some communities. But how many men catch crap for working full time? Women, on the other hand, get it coming and going - either Cathy Young types give them crap for falling for feminist myths when they choose to have careers, or The Unnamed Feminists give them crap for not having careers.

cgee's pissy answer, that only men ever suffer social consequences for their decisions in this area, is foolish, and ignores half the question. Cgee mentions that men get crap for staying home, while women are (supposedly) universally applauded for it, and then ignores the inverse, about the social reaction to fathers and mothers who go to work.

And if I can ask one last question, did Cathy Young, libertarian extraordinaire, just write an article that accepts the proposition that the feelings and reactions of people around you, completely disassociation from any coercion or government action, can function as an impediment to freedom?

|9.27.05 @ 12:13PM|#

I have a friend who has a degree in hard sciences, and who was on a managerial career track at a major DoD contractor. She had plans to get her PhD, as well.

She just had her first baby.

'Creepy' doesn't even begin to describe it. 'Stepford Wives' is closer. She's said 'I never intend to work again' and 'I am totally fulfilled and happy right now.'

Hormones, man. Humans are *wired* to do this shit. It's like a circuit is closed somewhere in the brain by giving birth, and a whole new set of previously hidden programming kicks in.

|9.27.05 @ 12:14PM|#

Joe-The feelings of others only limit your freedom insofar as you choose to pay attention to the bleating of the herd.

|9.27.05 @ 12:26PM|#

isildur-

Remember how hard it was to put down the Ring? That's probably what it would be like to put down your baby. Hell, I had a hard time saying goodbye to my favorite nephew (17 months at the time) when I saw him a month ago.

For the record, there is no little boy on the planet cuter than my favorite little nephew. None. And I'll beat up anybody who says otherwise! Some day he'll be saying to the other kids "My uncle can beat up your uncle!"


Number 6 and joe-

Maybe it would be most accurate to say that social pressure is not, in and of itself, a violation of freedom. But the possibilities of freedom (the absence of coercion) are most easily realized when social pressures don't get in the way. I may have just split a hair, but people here are very insistent that freedom only be defined in terms of what the law says or doesn't say. So here's a way to make joe's underlying point with syntax that others might find acceptable.

|9.27.05 @ 12:31PM|#

Part of the problem is that the word "feminist" has become so malleable that it can describe such a wide range of viewpoints. In my own circle, I don't know feminists who view men as the enemy. Seeing men as the sole problem seems a pecularly old-fashioned stance to me and outside current mainstream feminism.

|9.27.05 @ 12:31PM|#

Isildur--

I know what you mean. Motherhood is worse than crack addiction, so far as personality deterioration is concerned. I've been able to maintain my friendships with men who've become fathers (including one man who became a stay-at-home dad), but I've never been able to do it with women who've become mothers, because no matter how many Nobel Prizes they may have won before Mommyhood, suddenly all they can talk about is kid stuff: the merits of Barney vs. Dora, how wonderfully enthralling it is to notice daily changes in the consistency of diaper contents--yecch!

And I don't mean an occasional mention of their kids. I mean all kidtalk, all the time.

|9.27.05 @ 12:31PM|#

Isildur--

I know what you mean. Motherhood is worse than crack addiction, so far as personality deterioration is concerned. I've been able to maintain my friendships with men who've become fathers (including one man who became a stay-at-home dad), but I've never been able to do it with women who've become mothers, because no matter how many Nobel Prizes they may have won before Mommyhood, suddenly all they can talk about is kid stuff: the merits of Barney vs. Dora, how wonderfully enthralling it is to notice daily changes in the consistency of diaper contents--yecch!

And I don't mean an occasional mention of their kids. I mean all kidtalk, all the time.

|9.27.05 @ 12:31PM|#

(Possible double-post: either the server or my browser's getting weird)

Isildur--

I know what you mean. Motherhood is worse than crack addiction, so far as personality deterioration is concerned. I've been able to maintain my friendships with men who've become fathers (including one man who became a stay-at-home dad), but I've never been able to do it with women who've become mothers, because no matter how many Nobel Prizes they may have won before Mommyhood, suddenly all they can talk about is kid stuff: the merits of Barney vs. Dora, how wonderfully enthralling it is to notice daily changes in the consistency of diaper contents--yecch!

And I don't mean an occasional mention of their kids. I mean all kidtalk, all the time.

|9.27.05 @ 12:31PM|#

(Possible double-post: either the server or my browser's getting weird)

Isildur--

I know what you mean. Motherhood is worse than crack addiction, so far as personality deterioration is concerned. I've been able to maintain my friendships with men who've become fathers (including one man who became a stay-at-home dad), but I've never been able to do it with women who've become mothers, because no matter how many Nobel Prizes they may have won before Mommyhood, suddenly all they can talk about is kid stuff: the merits of Barney vs. Dora, how wonderfully enthralling it is to notice daily changes in the consistency of diaper contents--yecch!

And I don't mean an occasional mention of their kids. I mean all kidtalk, all the time.

|9.27.05 @ 12:43PM|#

I hate this server with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns.

Akira MacKenzie|9.27.05 @ 12:59PM|#

...because no matter how many Nobel Prizes they may have won before Mommyhood, suddenly all they can talk about is kid stuff: the merits of Barney vs. Dora, how wonderfully enthralling it is to notice daily changes in the consistency of diaper contents--yecch!

Brrrrr... It's moments like this I'm GLAD I'm single.

|9.27.05 @ 1:17PM|#

What this study ignores is the fact that working kind of sucks. Even well paid jobs are stressful as hell. Is is any wonder that people are looking for any out when 60 plus hours of work are demanded each week? Overlong hours are especially common in "top" professions, like law. Ask a Yale grad lawyer how they spend their free time and its likely you will find out that they have none. On top of this the partners are likely to be very demanding, even if they are scrupulously polite.

Raising a kid is a convenient escape from a career that people kind of slid into without realizing the downside.

|9.27.05 @ 1:18PM|#

I hate this server with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns.

Yeah, seems like that thousand years just flashed right by.

|9.27.05 @ 1:33PM|#

Are you saying that these women went to Yale to get their MS degree?

Fraid so. I didn't want to believe it for a long time, either. But I've had friends....

Anyway, I thought of something else. IVY LEAGUE schools are Ivy League for a reason. One of the motivations in going there is to be able to hook up with exactly the blue-blooded kind of people who would be expected to have "traditional" values. I think a lot of these women ARE pursuing their goals. People just misunderstood what those goals were. Is it better to work your way to the top of a Fortune-500 company and make $400 million, or to marry the guy who does?

Eh, now there's a real feminist conundrum.

|9.27.05 @ 1:38PM|#

I think that there is the distinct possibility that statistically, women prefer to stay home with kids as compared to men. It is possible that there is some reason for that. There could well be whole fields of science, and unifying theories to whole fields of science that may have something to say about the topic. Maybe not. I'd also be willing to bet that there may be hugely complicated interaction between certain fields of science, millions of years of certain social traditions, brains, and individual will that comes into play here, but I'm not really a betting man. Just saying.

Also, kids are really great. Seems to me that women like them especially.

keith|9.27.05 @ 1:45PM|#

I have to echo Dave's sentiment regarding the desire to not work. Why is it that so many people consider pursuit of career to be the apex of human fulfillment? I work because I have to, so I can do the things I want to. If a sudden windfall made it unnecessary for me to work, I sure wouldn't be one of those people you see on the television explaining how they're going to keep their job because it gives them purpose. I have purpose in life, and it has nothing to do with career.

Akira MacKenzie|9.27.05 @ 1:47PM|#

Also, kids are really great.

Huh??? I wouldn't wish children on my worst enemy. Cancer, maybe. But whining, screaming, demanding, messy, smelly, freedom-and-money-sucking, children? They ought to be banned by the U.N. Human Rights Charter.

|9.27.05 @ 1:48PM|#

women prefer to stay home with kids as compared to men. It is possible that there is some reason for that.

Yeah--hormones. I'd be willing to bet that brain scans of mothers and female non-mothers will show certain differences, in the presence of a baby. Hell, I'm the most non-maternal woman I know, and even I spend up to three minutes having various gooey "Awwww"-type thoughts when I visit my friends with kids.

But never more than three minutes--after that I get tired and long to return to my child-free home.

|9.27.05 @ 1:49PM|#

But whining, screaming, demanding, messy, smelly, freedom-and-money-sucking, children? They ought to be banned by the U.N. Human Rights Charter.

I think that would cause serious problems for future generations--namely, the fact that they wouldn't exist.

Somebody has to have kids. Just not me.

Akira MacKenzie|9.27.05 @ 1:52PM|#

Is it better to work your way to the top of a Fortune-500 company and make $400 million, or to marry the guy who does?

I've said it once, I'll say it again:

If a woman sells sexual favors, they get thrown in jail for "prostitution." If they agree to screw a man once or twice a week in exchange for a diamond ring, a house, a car, and half his income when she decides to dump him, we call it "marriage" and it get's the endorsement and blessing of both church and state.

I frankly don't see the difference.

|9.27.05 @ 1:54PM|#

I frankly don't see the difference.

And that is part of the reason why women aren't interested in you. There is so much more to a healthy marriage than financial exchange.

|9.27.05 @ 1:56PM|#

Thoreau--

In Akira's defense, there are women who marry only for money. I'd say they are actually worse than hookers--at least prostitutes (generally) don't lie and pretend they love their clients.

But it's inaccurate to say that ALL marriages are like that, or that ALL women are gold-diggers.

Personally, I'd rather make my own money than marry a man who has it. Why give anyone such control over your life?

Dave W.|9.27.05 @ 1:59PM|#

Personally, I'd rather make my own money than marry a man who has it. Why give anyone such control over your life?

Depends on: (1) who your boss is at work; and (2) who your spouse is at home.

Akira MacKenzie|9.27.05 @ 1:59PM|#

Of course, I'm kidding when it comes to kids. However, having had "family values" drilled into my skull by my overly-conservative brood since an early age, I sympathize with anyone wants nothing to do with tradition.

|9.27.05 @ 2:04PM|#

"Joe-The feelings of others only limit your freedom insofar as you choose to pay attention to the bleating of the herd."

That's a wonderful, empowering sentiment, #6.

Unfortunately, it is wholly inadequate as an explanation for statistically significant patterns of behavior across a large population.

|9.27.05 @ 2:05PM|#

Depends on: (1) who your boss is at work; and (2) who your spouse is at home.

Well, Dave, even I--one of the few posters here who sees a need for worker-protection laws since the average person can't just "find a new job" as easily as changing your socks--admit that leaving even the crummiest job is easier than leaving a marriage, especially from a spouse who doesn't want it to end.

As for the control issues concerning money and marriage. . . well, let's say that my boyfriend gets a thousand-percent raise at the same time I lose my job, and he says I can just stay home and be supported by him. Hell, let's even say we go so far as to get married first. I would NOT like that at all. And it's not because I think Jeff would suddenly become a control-freak asshole--I highly doubt he would--but because things would not be the SAME between us. I'm with him because I'm happier being with him than without him, not because he's a damned meal ticket.

Besides, even though he'd give me money anytime I asked for it, I'd rather not have to ask at all.

|9.27.05 @ 2:17PM|#

cgee: "...and be taken seriously when it comes to career track issues such as job protection, promotion, and salary. While there is modest federal parental leave protection, and many companies have enacted facially gender-neutral parental leave policies..."

Has anyone else on this thread asked why an employer or the gubmint should even be responsible for an employee's personal lifestyle choices?

Hey, you or your wife wants to pop a meatsack out of her c00ter and come in to work a half hour a week? Fine. Your choice. Neither your employer nor the government is obligated to support you, pay you for wiping up strained bananas and diaper leakage, or give you a promotion that should go to harder-working employees. God I wish.

If there is anything to the "trend" of preppy college kids who want to grow up to tend sproggage, unfortunately, they'll use their educations and whopping senses of entitlement to wrest more government support for their personal choices to breed. 50% income tax, here we come. So they can do "the hardest job in the world" and sit around the neighborhood Starbucks all day with their strollered screechlings while the rest of us are working to support their lifestyle.

The whole notion that childrearing somehow benefits society is built on the faulty assumption that most or all parents are doing a good job of parenting, and that their kids will all turn out to be productive and thoughtful citizens who will work hard upon reaching adulthood. With Social Security's future in doubt, there's no guarantee that even if their kids do grow up to be industrious contributors, (which I see being less and less likely as the generations march on) we'll see any return from them. Any other pro-breeding argument is based entirely on sentiment and is thus worthless.

Parents don't choose to be parents because they want to do something wunnerfulll for mankind. They choose parenting for selfish reasons of their own (i.e. "my sister's having a baby and she's getting a lot of attention and I want some of that attention for myself and I don't want her kids to get all Grandma's heirlooms" or "maybe my man will stick around if the stick turns pink"). Why reward or encourage them at all?

|9.27.05 @ 2:30PM|#

Jesus, Zero. I thought I had a bad attitude. To understand how having kids benefits society, forget about Social Security and people staffing old-age homes, and just imagine what the world would be like thirty years from now if, after today, no more children were born.

As for employers adjusting themselves to their employees' needs--yeah, I know the official Libertarian argument against that, and certainly some employers take it too far, but with the way society is set up nowadays, if employers didn't make at least some allowances for people with kids, hardly anybody could afford to have any, and sooner or later we'd be fucked.

Damn. This is one messed-up thread, when I'm one of the most pro-child posters on it.

|9.27.05 @ 2:31PM|#

Jesus, Zero. I thought I had a bad attitude. To understand how having kids benefits society, forget about Social Security and people staffing old-age homes, and just imagine what the world would be like thirty years from now if, after today, no more children were born.

As for employers adjusting themselves to their employees' needs--yeah, I know the official Libertarian argument against that, and certainly some employers take it too far, but with the way society is set up nowadays, if employers didn't make at least some allowances for people with kids, hardly anybody could afford to have any, and sooner or later we'd be fucked.

Damn. This is one messed-up thread, when I'm one of the most pro-child posters on it.

|9.27.05 @ 2:33PM|#

I work for a city where the police dept. had a pool of donated annual leave for people to use in situations where people are not able to work for extended periods of time. Until recently, women could use this pool for extended leave around childbirth. Oddly enough, the employees who demanded that the leave not be used for pregnancies were the few cops in the Dept. that were female. THe guys knew that the leave pool was being abused (It really is supposed to be used for NON self-inflicted injuries), but were to wimpy to say anything about it.
Of course, these people are far from being Yalies, but it is refreshing to note that there is a limit to the amount of nonsense some people are willing to put up with.

Dave W.|9.27.05 @ 2:34PM|#

Jennifer,

I don't begrudge you your decent job and the priorities it allows you to have.

I am just saying that if you have enough disrespectful bosses over a long enuf period of time and jobs, then your perspective changes. If you ever get there (and I hope you don't), you will know what I am talking about.

|9.27.05 @ 2:38PM|#

Jennifer,

Child-bearing and rearing could be offshored cheaply and effectively. Hell, they often pay to transport themselves here. Think of the savings.

I'm only half kidding. If I were to have another kid, I'd get me one of those cute Ethiopian kids like Angelina did. what a cutie!

|9.27.05 @ 2:39PM|#

Dave W-

Jennifer said that she'd rather work than rely on her boyfriend for mine. She never said she'd keep working if she accumulated a huge pile of her own money.

Parents don't choose to be parents because they want to do something wunnerfulll for mankind.

True enough. My wife and I would like kids some day, but not for the betterment of the rest of the world.


zeroentitlement:
They choose parenting for selfish reasons of their own (i.e. "my sister's having a baby and she's getting a lot of attention and I want some of that attention for myself and I don't want her kids to get all Grandma's heirlooms" or "maybe my man will stick around if the stick turns pink").

My wife and I simply adore kids and want our own. Selfish? Maybe. But not as messed up as the examples you give. Maybe we're abnormal, but I somehow doubt it.

Jennifer:
Damn. This is one messed-up thread, when I'm one of the most pro-child posters on it.

I've said it before, and I'm only half-joking: The rarity of libertarians may have something to do with their tendency to hunt in predominantly male packs, and their disdain for reproduction.

Of course, my kids will undoubtedly rebel against me by becoming either liberal, conservative, or apolitical. (Or, worst of all, becoming fiscally liberal and socially conservative.)

But I'll love them anyway.

|9.27.05 @ 2:41PM|#

CORRECTION:
"Jennifer said that she'd rather work than rely on her boyfriend for mine."

should be

"Jennifer said that she'd rather work than rely on her boyfriend for money."

Preview is your friend.

|9.27.05 @ 2:53PM|#

I have a question. Whether the survey is true or false, what kind of person drops 100+ grand on an Ivy League education with the intent to drop out of the workforce during the most productive years of their life? Do they have some kind of "rich people discounts" at these schools that I was just too poor to have heard about? And, if they don't, and they are paying full price, how in the fuck do rich people manage to hold onto their money? I mean, Christ, I'd have to have rocks in my head to even consider that. You might as well use hundred dollar bills to heat your house.

|9.27.05 @ 3:03PM|#

I am just saying that if you have enough disrespectful bosses over a long enuf period of time and jobs, then your perspective changes.

I know--I used to work at some miserable jobs. But none that made me think, "Well here's a guy with a lot of money, and he's willing to marry me. I don't love him at all, but being in a loveless marriage with a full wallet would be heaps better than what I have now!"

And even if I did, that would hardly be fair to the man in question.

Mk--

As for the police department viewing pregnancy as a "self-inflicted injury," and people who go on maternity leave as being selfish--don't you think society may be in for a rough future, when the propagation of the species is viewed as selfish self-indulgence?

|9.27.05 @ 3:17PM|#

Funny (at least to me) anecdotal stories: Female friend #1 of mine works in a small company as an admin. assistant. Got pregnant. Company lavished her with benny's and time off. When she returned, the owner made sure everyone covered for her when she needed time off for child-rearing issues. She continues to this day to be a very dedicated employee, with said child in high-school.

Wife (should she have been listed as Female Friend #1? Uh-oh) school teacher in local public school. Had to file 300 forms (and get a note from her doctor that she actually was pregnant. Really. I couldn't make this stuff up) to get the mandated time off, which was calculated to the hour. Sick time was assiduously detailed and monitored to the point where she considered just quitting instead of dealing with the beauracracy. All of the time off was meticulously subtracted from seniority, so now she's some kind of crazy mid-grade which causes her to lose out on all sides.

Female friend #2 (maybe more of an acquaintance than a true friend) - professional, self-employed. Returned to working 12 hour days within 5 days of giving birth and hasn't stopped since. States "there just wasn't anyone to pass it off on... if I wasn't there, the job wouldn't get done." Kids pretty much know their day-care teachers better than their parents.

Draw your own conclusions. BTW - the deciding point in determining where my wife and I were going to live was who got to stay home when we had kids. She refused to let me do it, so I got to choose location. I'm a firm believer that you need to form the emotional bond with your children early - if you wait until they're old enough to reason with, you're going to have a lot of yelling and screaming...

Cathy Young|9.27.05 @ 3:23PM|#

A comment to joe:

First of all, I don't think being a libertarian requires refusing to recognize that social pressures can limit people's choices (though not nearly to the same degree as formal restrictions).

Second, men's options are limited not only by social attitudes (and by employers' attitude -- I would venture a guess that a man who takes a few years off for child-rearing may have a much tougher time getting back on the career track than a woman in a similar position), but also by women's attitudes.

Very few ambitious women will entertain the idea of being married to a "househusband."

For some further thoughts on all this, check out the posts on my new blog, The Y-Files:

http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2005/09/ivy-league-mommy-wars.html

http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2005/09/what-about-men-1.html

|9.27.05 @ 3:23PM|#

Jennifer,
Certainly, but the leave that the pregnant women were using was above and beyond the normal amount of maternity leave that they got. Which, the women I mentioned, many of whom were mothers themselves, felt was sufficient. The rest of the story goes that there was one woman who had several children within the space of a few years. As a result she had raided the leave account and not actually set foot in the building for more than a month or two within the space of a couple of years. THe other women simply said that she could be a full-time mother if she wanted, but not to expect her co-workers to carry her indefinitely for that purpose.

|9.27.05 @ 3:23PM|#

I think that would cause serious problems for future generations--namely, the fact that they wouldn't exist.

Somebody has to have kids. Just not me.

But why is the continuation of the human race a good thing?
It's not so much the continuation that's annoying. It's the expansion. We're like fucking cockroaches. Prospective parents should seriously ask themselves "Does the world really need another human? What is so special about my DNA that I need to spread it?"
And, while we're on the subject, screw motherhood. I'm sick and tired of hearing hagiographic peans to women who have undergone a common biological process. Mothers are also the ones responsible for the endless attempts to make the world safe for their special little offspring. That is invariably accomplished by curtailing other's freedom.

How's that for a rant?

|9.27.05 @ 3:23PM|#

there *are* selfish benefits for the companies which offer what are seen as good "family friendly" programs, as well.

which should be wholly libertarian, since we're snorting decoder rings or whatever the fuck is going on.

|9.27.05 @ 3:28PM|#

Oh come on. I've been hearing this "noble" "we're sacrificing our careers for the children" garbage since the 80's.

Bullshit.

Here's what happened.

(1) chick goes to college.
(2) chick finds college fun.
(3) chick gets job.
(4) chick discovers getting up and going to work every day sucks major ass like there's no tomorrow.
(5) chick wraps intention to stop enduring #4 in cloak of noble sacrifice, grateful to have a better cover story than her mom had.
(6) feminist academics who have never endured #4 shit bricks about #5.

|9.27.05 @ 3:29PM|#

What is so special about my DNA that I need to spread it?

It's not that my DNA is so good. It's just that, well, yours is so bad that I feel the need to offset that somehow. My way of doing my part for humanity. You understand, right?;)

|9.27.05 @ 3:32PM|#

Christ. After reading these comments, I've got half a mind to go out and have a kid purely to spite y'all.

|9.27.05 @ 3:32PM|#

Shem-Since I'd rather de-nut myself with an olive fork than spawn, you could have saved yourself the trouble.

|9.27.05 @ 3:37PM|#

"don't you think society may be in for a rough future, when the propagation of the species is viewed as selfish self-indulgence?"

Well, there IS a certain crowd of chicken-littles that talk about overpopulation and the need to "thin the human herd" before eco-disaster strikes. And to some extent, they're right - the Earth obviously has some finite limit to its resources.

Now, bringing that point back down to "real life" - what is it, if not self-indulgence (granted, ignorant self-indulgence, but self-indulgence nonetheless) when a 14 year old and her 15 year old boyfriend have a kid in diapers and another on the way? I have enough experience in this area to know that the probabilities that these babies will grow into productive adults is vanishingly small in today's world. And the probability that they will end up in the criminal justice system is frighteningly large.

Take the age out of it and just focus on having a child without having the resources to provide for it - this phenomenon is all too prevalent today, and is encouraged by a sense of entitlement that we create. And such children often suffer through miserable lives and quite often perpetuate a cycle of poverty, violence and crime. And the 'parents' often end up resenting their kids, because it isn't all roses - the 'parents' just wanted the status and accoutrements that came with being 'parents'. They didn't actually want to raise a child. They didn't knowingly accept the awesome responsibility it entails.

While I love my child, and have sacrificed mightily my career and other goals for his benefit, I have no illusions that his existence is good for society at large. How he lives his life will determine that. In contrast, his existence is joy to my wife and I despite (and sometime because of) the sacrifices we make for him, and regardless of what he does in life, we will love him.

I don't think the mere fact of child-birth is good or bad for 'society', however you want to define that.

|9.27.05 @ 3:37PM|#

Shem-
"[W}hat kind of person drops 100+ grand on an Ivy League education with the intent to drop out of the workforce during the most productive years of their life? Do they have some kind of "rich people discounts" at these schools that I was just too poor to have heard about?"

A person who wants to have kids, but wants to find a good person to have them with. The discount your looking for is called "parents". Think of the $100,000 as a good way to ensure the quality of breeding stock that your daughter meets. Lot's of parents want to be grandparents too.

|9.27.05 @ 3:37PM|#

dhex,

I work at a very family-friendly place. Not because they have day-care centers and benes and such, but because they actually expect me to work a 40 hour week. This is because I get paid hourly (very unusual for a programmer) and they don't want to give me overtime. My job is also a flex-time job.
The catch is that I probably make about 10k+ less here than I would in one of the many Tech corridor work farms around here. It's worth it though, and my being a father has a lot to do with that.

|9.27.05 @ 3:38PM|#

what kind of person drops 100+ grand on an Ivy League education with the intent to drop out of the workforce during the most productive years of their life?

Because mothers with more/better education tend to be better and more understanding parents (usually with fewer children than the mean, so they are more attentive) and produce educated children (aka "legacies"). The familial investment seems to pay off for those who can afford the investment in the first place.

|9.27.05 @ 3:40PM|#

Being a female with an MBA and a good management job, who had a baby a few months ago, i feel pretty damn qualified to address this topic. I'm back at work now after taking 3 months leave, and ya know, all the office BS seems really petty these days. And if i work just a 8-5 day, i can squeeze in seeing my son for what 2 hours or so before he goes to bed (and during that time i'm washing out bottles and fixing dinner and feeding him and not really getting to spend time with him). I NEVER thought i would want to stay home, but right now i'm looking at it like 'why not take a few years off til he's in preschool?' It would be tight money wise, and i'm afraid i might go crazy with the lack of adult contact [i might have to start posting here more, instead of just lurking ;)], but i'm thinking it would be worth it.
Hell, it probably is something biological or hormonal, but trust me, YOUR OWN baby is not the torture to be around that OTHER PEOPLES babies are!

|9.27.05 @ 3:43PM|#

Everyone's babies are always special.

|9.27.05 @ 3:44PM|#

Now, bringing that point back down to "real life" - what is it, if not self-indulgence (granted, ignorant self-indulgence, but self-indulgence nonetheless) when a 14 year old and her 15 year old boyfriend have a kid in diapers and another on the way?

Uh, Quasibill--if you check the context, you'll see I was talking about women with jobs taking time off to have babies, not unemployed teenagers having babies with no thought beyond that.

|9.27.05 @ 3:45PM|#

My well-educated self and my extremely-well-educated wife are already at odds about which of us get to stay home once we start spawning (which hopefully won't be for another 3-5 years.) We've decided upon an answer which is NOT economically optimum, but good for both of us. She'll stay home first 4 or so years, then I'll take a shift. Doesn't that hurt both our careers? Yup. But we both want to spend time with the kids and we're both so much better off financially than either of our parents that we don't really care.

We're both products of middle-class-bordering on lower-middle class families and we've both educated ourselves into very upper-middle class salaries. So rather than buy Audis or develop a cocaine habit, we're just maintaining our standard of living that we had during our upbringings and "spending the money" on time spent not earning money (if that makes any sense.)

Had we not been so well-educated, our options would be a lot more limited. Sooo....

Why is it so hard to believe that those capable of taking this choice are taking it? Isn't that WHY we get higher salaries? Not to buy more things, but to have more leisure? If we were going to stay childless, wouldn't we just spend that time travelling or on a vanity project or watching after our parents? So what's so bad with spending the time on children instead?

|9.27.05 @ 3:46PM|#

"what kind of person drops 100+ grand on an Ivy League education with the intent to drop out of the workforce during the most productive years of their life?"

I don't know about y'all, but when I was in undergrad, I had no idea what the real world was about. If I had gone straight to grad school, like some of my friends did, I wouldn't have known during that time, either (just like they didn't). It's one thing to study a subject. It's another thing entirely to make a living in a particular field.

Another favorite anecdote I tell anyone who will listen - when I graduated from undergrad (cough, cough) years ago, the career development person (who was virtually useless except for this pearl of wisdom) told me that they expected current graduates to change CAREERS (not jobs) 7 times in their lifetime.

Well, my wife and I are both on #2 careers, and both thinking of switching to #3s before too long. All of which is a long way of saying - I'm not too sure that the people we're talking about had any idea of what they were going to do with their lives when they chose ivy league schools. And if they did, I bet they changed their minds at least once in school, and perhaps again after they got out.

|9.27.05 @ 3:51PM|#

the career development person (who was virtually useless

College guidance counselors can be as useless as the HS ones? Say it ain't so!

|9.27.05 @ 3:51PM|#

"Uh, Quasibill--if you check the context, you'll see I was talking about women with jobs taking time off to have babies, not unemployed teenagers having babies with no thought beyond that."

Well, the quoted portion was hardly the only thing in my post, but that aside, the way I read your post, you did make an assertion that having a child was good for society. My point was that that's not necessarily true. If, despite your best efforts, your kid becomes Jeffrey Dahmer, I don't think it was good for society.

Having children is a personal decision which should be based upon a personal cost/benefit decision. "Society" should have no say in it, one way or the other, and therefore should have no responsibility towards parents.

|9.27.05 @ 3:51PM|#

Poco - They are, they're just paid better and mocked less.

|9.27.05 @ 3:52PM|#

dot,
I felt the same way exactly. Screw work, you can always do that later. Money might be tight, but fancy new clothes and sports cars are for people who don't have to worry about spittle.
Oh, and you are right about other people's children. Still, there are exceptions. My fondest memories of the past year are all memories from my having coached my daughter's soccer team. Of course, being a coach, you are expected (obligated ) to yell a lot.

|9.27.05 @ 3:53PM|#

I guess I'm the only man here who has actually been a stay-at-home father. So my anecdote to trump other anecdotes:

Yes, it's career-destroying to be "out of work" for the 18 months I took off to raise my son before enrolling him in day-care. I was able to scoot around this because I had been employed part time as a consultant for a previous employer, so without lying, was able to say that I'd been employed for that time. Just not full-time. It did make a lot of interviews a little dicey when I had to go back to full-time work, despite being completely honest and open about what I'd done and why.

Yes, even in college-educated liberal surroundings, you get no shortage of grief, even from people who are ostensibly friends. There's an automatic bias against men raising children- you're expected to be not-good-enough, although overt discrimination is relatively rare, there's no question that it exists and is pervasive. Indeed, I attribute one of the sources of the failure of my marriage to it.

To be blunt, raising children is a very difficult, expensive, and time-consuming task. One does the best one can, but responsibility as a parent lies with the parent. Appeals for the State to assume a greater role in parenting is to diminish the actual parent's role, which is why idiocy like "juche" or the "Hitler Youth" serve to not only alleviate the parent's role but to obliterate the individual.

Optimum path is then drawn by the parent doing what he or she feels is best. For me, it was to accept both putting my career (and early retirement and early mortgage payment) on hold, and the disrespect of some who I thought were friends. For others, they will make other choices.

But for the State to arbitrarily make decisions about my child for me, and what I will or will not do for him, is to remove my child from me.

-Natebrau

|9.27.05 @ 3:54PM|#

Quasibill--

No one specific child is good for society. Children in general are. And in the context of my post, I was pointing out that it would be very bad indeed, if people in general had the idea that motherhood and childrearing were selfish, self-indulgent pursuits.

|9.27.05 @ 3:58PM|#

Jennifer, my favorite little nephew is the greatest thing to ever happen to the world!

BOW BEFORE HIS AWESOME CUTENESS!!!!

|9.27.05 @ 4:03PM|#

"No one specific child is good for society. Children in general are."

I'm afraid you're going to call me "dorky" again, but those two sentences are contradictory to me. If individual children are a mixed bag, what magical substance transform children as a collective into a good thing?

What about, say Ethiopa. Are children, in the collective sense, a good thing there? Or perhaps should those people be focusing on accumulating capital to provide for those already alive before thinking of creating more? (and let's not get sidetracked - I readily admit their plight is in large part not their own doing)

How about a hypothetical world where people live forever - are children then a good thing for society?

Again, I don't see children as either positive or negative for society. They are one of many ways that a person can spend their accumulated capital. If children are not there, the economy will shift to accomodate the increase in discretionary capital. Children are a good thing for their parents, albeit a high-price good thing.

|9.27.05 @ 4:04PM|#

Jennifer-Bombast and theatrical cynicism aside, let me ask you this: why are children a good for society(Actually, I hate that word, so let's just say a good)? And if the answer is to propagate the human race, why is that a good thing?

|9.27.05 @ 4:08PM|#

So, what everyone is saying is that the system has the happy consequence of screwing over poor people in it's attempt to serve as a social organ for the people who provide funds. I don't know if this is a sign of the need for more devotion to a market system or a stunning indictment of humanity's ultimate tendency toward clannish behavior that ensures that the market will never, ever work. Either way, I think my lower-class, State College-attending self could do with a good stiff drink at this point.

|9.27.05 @ 4:08PM|#

If individual children are a mixed bag, what magical substance transform children as a collective into a good thing?

Same way that the oceans are vital to life on Earth, even though no single gallon of ocean water matters much.

|9.27.05 @ 4:15PM|#

Unsubstantiated and probably worthless theory #569,422 for why libertarianism will never catch on: Libertarian forums attract people who attempt to seriously argue that children aren't such a good thing.

|9.27.05 @ 4:15PM|#

Natebrau,
I was a stay-at-home dad. I did, however, work part-time at the one job I could get that I could go to after the kid was in bed. That was as a pizza delivery driver (In downtown Norfolk VA no less). My "Career" certainly didn't progress during that time. The whole "fearing for my life" thing did keep my home life in perpective tho'

|9.27.05 @ 4:15PM|#

Unsubstantiated and probably worthless theory #569,422 for why libertarianism will never catch on: Libertarian forums attract people who attempt to seriously argue that children aren't such a good thing.

|9.27.05 @ 4:15PM|#

Unsubstantiated and probably worthless theory #569,422 for why libertarianism will never catch on: Libertarian forums attract people who attempt to seriously argue that children aren't such a good thing.

|9.27.05 @ 4:15PM|#

Unsubstantiated and probably worthless theory #569,422 for why libertarianism will never catch on: Libertarian forums attract people who attempt to seriously argue that children aren't such a good thing.

|9.27.05 @ 4:26PM|#

Unsubstantiated and probably worthless theory #569,423 for why libertarianism will never catch on: Our servers suck!

|9.27.05 @ 4:27PM|#

Thoreau-or people who keep punching the post button. ;)

But really, that doesn't answer my question. I'd expect more from you than a dismissive sneer. So, I'll ask again the questions I put to Jennifer: Why are children, and/or the propagation of the human race good things?

|9.27.05 @ 4:27PM|#

Unsubstantiated and probably worthless theory #569,423 for why libertarianism will never catch on: Our servers suck!

|9.27.05 @ 4:27PM|#

Mk--

You used to live in Norfolk? When was that? I lived by ODU when I was an undergrad.

|9.27.05 @ 4:30PM|#

Thoreau-or people who keep punching the post button. ;)

But really, that doesn't answer my question. I'd expect more from you than a dismissive sneer. So, I'll ask again the questions I put to Jennifer: Why are children, and/or the propagation of the human race good things?

|9.27.05 @ 4:32PM|#

Why are children, and/or the propagation of the human race good things?

I hate answering questions with questions, but in this case I will. The fact that you're posting right now suggests you haven't committed suicide. Why not? Why is life better than death?

|9.27.05 @ 4:32PM|#

Why are children, and/or the propagation of the human race good things?

The same reason why nuclear war is a bad thing. Do you want to be the one to explain why you felt the need to end a 100,000 year old experiment? I may hate just about everyone, but even I'm rather partial to the idea of not being the last one out the door.

|9.27.05 @ 4:36PM|#

Posted at the exact same time with the exact same quote. Spooky.

|9.27.05 @ 4:36PM|#

Misanthrope-

I swear that I didn't hit post 4 times on that first one! On the second one, I posted, waited, checked to see if it was there, then tried again.

OK, why are children good? Given the nature of this forum I'll start with a hard-nosed libertarian answer. If one enjoys the material benefits of a market economy and thinks that those benefits are desirable to have, a replenishing labor supply is usually nice to have.

Beyond that? Well, many of us (no, not all) simply have a powerful instinct to enjoy children. My wife and I haven't gone down that road yet, but we will. It's just a powerful instinct that we want to satisfy. It will make us happy, and we won't be hurting anybody else. I can't describe why I want kids, I just do. I think kids are wonderful, I adore our nephews and nieces, and I want to go down that road so much that I'm willing to put up with the burdens of child-rearing.

Cathy Young|9.27.05 @ 4:39PM|#

Personally, I think that the question, "Why is the propagation of the human species a good thing," does not deserve an answer.

|9.27.05 @ 4:40PM|#

Libertarian forums attract people who like to argue, period.

|9.27.05 @ 4:41PM|#

Libertarian forums attract people who like to argue, period.

No they don't.

|9.27.05 @ 4:50PM|#

Kiss a baby? But, they aren't even self-sufficient! And if the pregnancy wasn't an accident then it means that the parents subscribe to the questionable notion that the human race is worth preserving.

|9.27.05 @ 4:51PM|#

Jennifer-because actively ending one's life is a different question than whether the species as a whole deserves to continue. I'm not suggesting ending anyone's life. Nor am I actually suggesting that humans should simply go extinct. What I'm getting at is that there is a presumption that breeding is an inherent good. I'm suggesting that that idea is wrong.

Thoreau's first answer is a good one, from a utilitarian point of view. His second, I think, is more accurate for most people. It's a biological urge, nothing more. It would be a good thing if people would think before indulging that urge. (Another Thoreau in the world would, however, be a net good.)

|9.27.05 @ 4:53PM|#

Jennifer-because actively ending one's life is a different question than whether the species as a whole deserves to continue. I'm not suggesting ending anyone's life. Nor am I actually suggesting that humans should simply go extinct. What I'm getting at is that there is a presumption that breeding is an inherent good. I'm suggesting that that idea is wrong.

Thoreau's first answer is a good one, from a utilitarian point of view. His second, I think, is more accurate for most people. It's a biological urge, nothing more. It would be a good thing if people would think before indulging that urge. (Another Thoreau in the world would, however, be a net good.)

|9.27.05 @ 5:05PM|#

Jennifer-because actively ending one's life is a different question than whether the species as a whole deserves to continue.

Not the way you phrased the question, it wasn't.

|9.27.05 @ 5:05PM|#

No they don't.

Yes they do.

|9.27.05 @ 5:05PM|#

Jennifer-because actively ending one's life is a different question than whether the species as a whole deserves to continue.

Not the way you phrased the question, it wasn't.

|9.27.05 @ 5:05PM|#

No they don't.

Yes they do.

|9.27.05 @ 5:05PM|#

without humans there is no beauty.

|9.27.05 @ 5:12PM|#

Jennifer-I asked if continuing the human race is a good idea, not if humans should be exterminated.

Dhex- Since beauty is a human idea, yes.

|9.27.05 @ 5:13PM|#

so is misanthropy, my dear.

only humans are guilt-ridden enough to think that they deserve to go extinct.

|9.27.05 @ 5:14PM|#

I asked if continuing the human race is a good idea, not if humans should be exterminated.

Only a semantic difference.

I disagree with Cathy Young that the question isn't worth answering at all, but I will say that it's not worth arguing about.

|9.27.05 @ 5:31PM|#

Dhex- It's like Twain's quote about humans being the only animal that blushes.
We're the only ones to have reason to be that guilt-ridden.

Jennifer-It's more than a semantic difference. The question is whether there is something intrinsically good about humanity above and beyond "We're humans and therefore view humanity as a good thing." This does not mean that we should just let the bombs fly or engage in a global Jonestown. It means that the question is worth asking and exploring. It also means that "because it makes more people" is not a sufficient reason for breeding.

|9.27.05 @ 6:27PM|#

And if the answer is to propagate the human race, why is that a good thing?

I like cats and dogs, but they're lousy conversationalists.

|9.27.05 @ 7:04PM|#

>We're the only ones to have reason to be that guilt-ridden.

We're the only ones capable of conceptualizing abstractions such as morality, and therefore the only ones capable of experiencing guilt. This doesn't mean we should experience guilt. The fact that we can and do experience it is a testament to our uniqueness as a species, which is a much more interesting point to ponder than any question about "whether there is something
intrinsically good about humanity."

The answer to your question is that there is not something intrinsically good about humanity. This is because value questions are conceptual questions which belong purely to the realm of human understanding and have nothing to do with any objective reality beyond it. However, it is a fact that we are human and therefore view humanity as a (more or less) good thing.

OK, fine. Having dispensed with that issue, we're free to get on with more interesting discussions about humans and human life, including work, procreation, social roles, access to material resources, morality, and interactions among them all -- hopefully without stopping too many times along the way to justify our basic understanding of our own species as worth reproducing.

Honestly, I don't understand the POV that a preference for one's own species is somehow pathological or a moral flaw. I view it as a sign of good mental health.

Cathy Young|9.27.05 @ 7:08PM|#

I'm not particularly interested in debating whether humans should continue to exist (in my view, it's one of those "truths we hold to be self-evident"), but going back to the original topic...

In response to Joe's question about what is limiting men's options:

First of all, being a libertarian does not preclude recognizing that social pressures can limit people's choices (though they still aren't nearly as oppressive as state-enforced restrictions). Secondly, men are discouraged from curtailing their careers in order to spend more time with their children not only the culture in general, and by employers, but also by women. The vast majority of women, even ones with professional ambitions, are not prepared to financially support a man while he acts as primary caregiver to their children. Peggy Orenstein, a bona fide feminist, interviewed about 200 young women for her 2000 book, Flux, and found that even many women who did not plan to stay home while raising children wanted to keep that option open, and consciously avoid prospective mates with low earning potential.

(And by the way -- where in the world did Joe see me condemning women who pursue careers? I think he's got me confused with Danielle Crittenden or something. You know, all of us right-of-center females look alike.)

By the way, I encourage all of you Reasonoids to check out the posts on this topic on my new blog, The Y-Files:

Ivy League Mommy Wars

What About Men? (1)

|9.27.05 @ 9:40PM|#

I did not realize how many people on this board hate humanity.

"The question is whether there is something intrinsically good about humanity above and beyond "We're humans and therefore view humanity as a good thing."-The Misanthrope

A human being does not have to justify his own existance as a "good", his existance is a end in itself. Therefore the continued existance of humanity in general is an end in itself, a good in itself. The suggestion that humanity should not be continued is what has to be explained and justified otherwise you're just wallowing in nihilism. Care to take a wag at it?

"It means that the question is worth asking and exploring."

No, it does not. It really does not.

"Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse"-Robert Heinlein

|9.27.05 @ 9:50PM|#

Vabs-Yes, we conceive those abstractions. We also possess reason and empathy. Which all the more reason some of the things we do are so repugnant.

MJ-Yes, I've read Rand also. She could never explain coherently why a man is an end in himself. Nor has anyone else on this thread. The fact that no one has really presented a good answer apart from a tautological one indicates to me that the question is, in fact, worth asking.

|9.27.05 @ 10:14PM|#

Then I suggest you step back, open a bottle of your favorite adult beverage, and sit down and relax, because you're looking at things far too deeply for your own good mental health.

If you cannot bring yourself to do that, can you at least explain why you think the extinction of the human race would be preferable?

|9.27.05 @ 10:39PM|#

MJ- I'm not sure there is such a thing as looking at questions too deeply. Having said that, Calling for the extinction of the human race is probably a bit much. My point is more that if you eliminate the god argument,(as we should) there is no real value to our species outside of that which we give it. Considering that our nature seems to dicate that we will make life miserable for each other through clannishness, violence, and a thousand other crappy tendencies, I refuse to get all dewey-eyed over the creation of another human life. Babies are not miracles-they're biology.

|9.27.05 @ 10:55PM|#

Space the Misanthrope. He's a cylon.

|9.27.05 @ 11:03PM|#

MJ-I refuse to be spaced until we hire a judge. I'd like Mycroft (aka Mike, aka Simon Jester) to hear the case.

|9.27.05 @ 11:08PM|#

"there is no real value to our species outside of that which we give it."

therein lies the greatest wonder of them all.

|9.27.05 @ 11:38PM|#

Ah-ha, I knew it!

|9.28.05 @ 11:36AM|#

Jennifer,
I lived there from around 1996-1999. I'll never go back.

|9.28.05 @ 12:52PM|#

>"there is no real value to our species outside of that which we give it."

No kidding!

>>therein lies the greatest wonder of them all.

Exactly.

|9.28.05 @ 1:23PM|#

Cathy Young's refusal to dignify a legitimate question with an answer, as a means of dismissing the question as too monstrous to discuss, is exactly the kind of sentimental garbage that surrounds the subject of procreation.

No one on this thread has yet offered even a shred of a reasonable argument for offering societal supports to those who choose to reproduce. I've even scented whiffs of the "Oh, but it's so haaaaard wiping up spittle from the creature I chose to bring forth!" non-reason why parents should continue to have public encouragement.

Thoreau, I don't know why you keep reassuring us that you want to have kids. No one's going to stop you. In my dream world, people with kids would have to go live in some other part of the country where I'm nowhere near, but as my grandpappy used to say, "sh*t in one hand and wish in the other, and see which one fills up the fastest." I've no desire to cut off people's choices.

But I would like you all to stop pretending like your desire to breed, (or Jennifer's desire to hear the pitter-patter of the damned parasites' little feet in the neighborhood) makes you more human than the rest of us. Stop acting, Cathy Young, like your refusal to dignify questioning the value of bloating the population of a top-level consumer well beyond what the ecosystem's capable of sustaining makes you Albert F*cking Schweitzer. Stop pretending, Thoreau, like your choice isn't going to have any effect on us, because it is. Your kids will use roads, schools, parks, infrastructure, emergency services, and healthcare dollars (hmmm, any part of your wife's childbearing expenses covered by insurance that other people pay into, by any chance?) that everyone else gets to pay for. And, absurdly enough, you'll get tax credits and deductions, even though your choice to reproduce actually costs the public more than my choice to live childfree.

Live your lives and make your choices. Just stop pretending like you're doing the rest of us such a big f*cking favor by wanting or caring about da pweshus chyldrun.

|9.28.05 @ 2:02PM|#

I don't think Cathy Young is suggesting that the question of whether government should subsidize human reproduction is "too monstrous to discuss." I think she stated clearly that the question of whether human existence should continue has a self-evident answer and thus is unworthy to discuss. As for the former, I wager she'd rather not discuss it on this thread, regardless of her opinion on the matter, since her overall point on these tangential issues seems to be "let's talk about the subject of my article."

|9.28.05 @ 2:33PM|#

As a public service, could some woman go and have sex with Zero, already? If ever a man needed to get laid, it's him.

|9.28.05 @ 2:53PM|#

zero-

Who here has defended public policies that encourage or subsidize procreation? Most of the pro-procreation crowd here would prefer to just be left alone to handle that matter without interference (that's certainly my case).

Geez, can't somebody say "X is good" without some irate anti-X person saying "You just want subsidies for X!"

|9.28.05 @ 2:55PM|#

Why do libertarians seem to possess a much higher jerk/normal person ratio?

|9.28.05 @ 8:27PM|#

Number 6,

I checked the dockets today, and well, Mycroft's just full up. James Kirk and Sarah Connor have openings though, OK?