David Brooks: Women should have children THEN have a career

[BrklynLiberal]

Neil Gilbert observes in the current issue of The Public Interest that as women have entered the work force, they have adopted the male model, jumping directly into careers. Instead, he suggests, it would be better to make decisions based on what he calls the "life-course perspective." It's possible that women should sequence their lives differently from men, and that women may need a broader diversity of sequence options.
<snip>
It might make sense, for example, to give means-tested tax credits or tuition credits to stay-at-home parents. That would subsidize child-rearing, but in a way that leaves it up to families to figure out how to use it. The government spends trillions on retirees, but very little on young families.

I suspect that if more people had the chance to focus exclusively on child-rearing before training for and launching a career, fertility rates would rise. That would be good for the country, for as Phillip Longman, author of "The Empty Cradle," has argued, we are consuming more human capital than we are producing - or to put it another way, we don't have enough young people to support our old people. (That's what the current Social Security debate and the coming Medicare debate are all about.)

Any opinions on this???

[frogfromthenorth2]

1. Great idea!!!

[asjr]

2. I don't know if this man is befuddled or what. The last paragraph

is interesting. I wonder if he wants us to have more children in order to grow up and open more "private accounts."

[quiet.american]

3. Translation:

"We're runnin' outta young people to send into hellish quagmires on the basis of lies, power grabs and pathological avarice -- quick, get them womens pregnant, son!"

[havocmom]

4. Bingo! Another 'copy Hitler' thing: Breed Baby Breed

:grr:

While babies frist then career works for some, itholds others back. If a woman has kids, many employers figure she will be running to take care of emergencies all the time, where a man has someone else (the good little wifey) do that chore. Guess who gets consideration for the promotions first?

Then there is the jungle of childcare.

Then there is the porblem of older women being treated poofly by society when they try to re-enter the job market.

Hilter wanted women popping out babies too.

[Cerridwen]

5. do you have a link - I'd like to see the entire justification

thanks.

edited to add: I'm also interested in why we're discussing and ultra-conservative's view of women's proper role in society.

And maybe even figure out why family friendly policies target women to make adjustments rather than corporarate interests. I mean, if family is so important to the state, shouldn't the state modify it's corporate interests?

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Sorry, I did not post the link.. Here it is

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/15/opinion/15brooks.html?hp

[Cerridwen]

7. Thank you - n/t

[politicat]

8. I would support it if they allow childless people to take advantage, too.

When I worked corp, I was constantly being asked to cover for someone else who had a kid's doctor's appointment, a soccer game, an illness... I probably did twice the work of my parenting co-workers, for the same pay, and it was considered a-okay for me to take up the slack because hey, she doesn't have kids anyway.

The whole fetishization of childrearing and parenthood has got to go away. I have no problems with making sure that every child gets an appropriate education, enough to eat, age-appropriate supervision and stimulation, but I do have a problem when those needs are met at the expense of others. If children are important to our society, then we need to treat them as such, and not expect their parents to do everything for them. (Of course, I have issues with the fetishization of the SAHM; in my practice, I've seen that the kids with do-everything, child-centric mothers are the ones with the least sense of self-actualization and independence, and the greatest sense of unearned entitlement. Not healthy.) Anybody should be able to go to college, not just parents or SAHMs. I don't like that it sets up a class of "evil non-breeders" and "virtuous breeders."

However, we don't need fertility rates to rise. We've got 6 billion people on this rock, and that's a few too many. We can't support more at this level of consumption.

[kcr]

15. Nice strawmen

Did you build them yourself? Because if you did? Bravo. No, really, bravo. You managed to turn the entire topic into a massive whine that boils down to "I don't like kids because sometimes I have to work extra because a kid got sick!" Not only did you manage to elevate your own petty selfishness (because, after all, if the sickness happens during normal business hours, then it is certainly and absolutely best for the kid, the parents, the company in question and society as a whole that they not get treatment until after the close of business. And what I particularly liked was how you turned your lack of social connections into someone else's problem. Because of course, we know that you would never need to take time off to help a friend or a lover or a parent or a sibling, etc.)

The term "breeders" was really good too -- you turn your own overblown sense of martydom and selfishness (and, yeah, it's selfishness -- cause I am pretty certain that in fifty years, your bad-ass geriatric self wont be complaining about the children of today taking care of you) and express it in a term designed to equate people who have children to livestock. I mean, wow. That was really amazing, the way you managed to be both insulting and amazingly self-pitying at the same time. You should be imagining the sound of a golf-clap right now, because, wow, that takes talent.

Almost as much talent as equating, umm, well, actually here you kinda lost me, because you just used limited personal experience to judge an entire class of people. Even or a fine, fine artisian of straw such as yourself, that's a bit of a stretch. You should really know your limits, my friend. Not even a consumate strawman constructor as yourself can really expect anyone to take you seriously when you cite your persoanl experience at a "practice" as justification for broad, sweeping generalizations than run counter to just about all scientific evidence available.

Good effort, though.

Now, if you want to join us in the real world for a minute: The kids you despise so much are the ones who are going to be driving the economy in just a few years. You will owe your continued economic well being to them very shortly (and if I have to go into detail to explain why, then you obviously don't have enough of an understanding of economics to be engaged in these kinds of discussions). You also seem to be under the misapprehension that everything is handed to parents on a silver platter, that corporate America and the government are designed solely for the benefit of parents. Which, if you thought about it, you would realize how much crap that is. The glass ceiling is not a myth, my friend, and welfare reform required mom to go to work while their kids spend 15 hours alone -- because there is no such thing as affordable child care, even for the middle class.

But to know that, of course, you would have had to manage to rise above your irrational and debilitating prejudice against kids (and, really, it's pretty bad. I hate chihuahuas -- miserable little rat dogs. but I don't obsess about how much of my vet's time is being spent on them) and actually think about how the world works. But, then again, since you are so, so good at building straw men, perhaps you think you should just stick with what you know.

[shrike]

17. On the other hand, she's right

People who don't have kids (and I'm one of them) usually are the ones who pick up the slack for co-workers who have kids. It's a fact of life in most offices; I've seen it myself.

I doubt the poster hates kids -- she's probably been pounded for years by strangers (and I do mean strangers) who ask her point-blank why she doesn't have any. AND, sadly enough, there are an awful lot of ill-behaved children in the world who make me rather grateful I don't have any. (Save for my own nieces and nephews, who are perfect in every way, of course.)

I would agree that attacking the childless OR mothers is counterproductive. I've read Mr. Brooks' article, and the way society and the workplace are structured now, his ideas are unworkable.

[SarahB]

9. Nice in theory.

What if a women is in a marriage that starts out well, but then after the children come, spirals downward into a pretty lousy place? Makes it pretty tough for her to have much of a voice or make choices in that kind of situation (at least without a lot of work involved) if her earning capacity isn't as high.

My advice to my own daughter: Have the skills in place to support yourself (and any possible children) completely before you have children. Then, stay home if it feels right knowing that you're prepared for any possible situation. To do otherwise I'm afraid is a bit naive.

It terms of support for parents, I think better maternity coverage and more after school and Summer programs would do a lot.

[Phentex]

12. I agree with your advice....

Life doesn't always go as planned. It's best to be prepared to support yourself.

[wildeyed]

18. Absolutely.

When I was just starting out in the job market, I got that exact advice from a 30+ year old woman who was starting in the same position, but with three kids to support. She said, be sure you have a skill to fall back on. You can't know what is going to happen. She was recently divorced. I listened.

Also, my job experience has given me a much higher sense of self-worth and confidence. I think those traits are a plus when you deal with small kids all day with very little adult feedback.

[Pithlet]

14. But, Sarah

We're breeders who just live to inconvenience others. Wouldn't maternity coverage, and programs for kids take away from those who've decided not to have any?

Sorry. I'm just venting. It's hard to be a parent at DU as it is sometimes. Bein a SAHM (Gasp! Shudder!) is even worse.

[SarahB]

16. Well, yeah...

I suppose it's possible, but in countries like Sweden, France, and Canada where women receive awesome leave time and benefits after having a child, not only are their birth rates and infant mortality rates lower, but there sure seems to be less of a vocal group of pissed off people who choose to have not children. It's like I said before (similar to an argument as to why paying for public schools is important), "In civilized societies, we take care of our own for a greater good." (Be it it children, elderly, disabled, etc.)

Personally, I would venture to say not one childless person has ever been seriously inconvenienced at all by myself or my children. If people have issues with their employer, take it out on their employer- not on everyone who has children or make blanket statements regarding those of us who do. Things just aren't that simplistic.

[wildeyed]

19. I use the SAHM thing as bait sometimes.

Post, well I am a SAHM, yada yada. Then the dumb poster says something reckless because they assume you are a mindless twit and BAM, you nail him.

[fortyfeetunder]

10. Another reason his theory is a bunch of BULLSHIT

I am giving support to a friend who has taken time off to raise her kids, and one of them needed medical care during that time. So she's been out of pocket almost 8 years. She started looking 2 years ago and so far NO FUCKING LUCK.

It's been like HELL for her to get back in the workplace. She's tried returning to her old company in the last two years, to no avail.

I think a couple of things going against her is she didn't do any formal study while on her child-rearing leave, but then under her circumstances she couldn't. Then she made her resume so obvious (with dates), the first thing the assholes at her job say well you've been gone 8 years...can you explain why?

The explanation she was told by someone at the company was that she was gone too long and they wouldn't hire her as an entry level because entry level kids out of school know more than she does (and she had about several yrs experience and a college degree when she left)?

This has not been good for her because her spouse has been laid off from his job at Christmas time. This is the 3rd time he's been out of work since 9/11.

So I am not at all amused with the bastard who thinks women can just absent themselves to raise their kids till they are ready for school, and return as if nothing happened. It just doesn't fucking happen.

edited for clarifying statement

[WildClarySage]

11. When I worked with abused women

I found that their partners often encouraged them to become pregnant. Having a child together was one more hold he would have over her and made her less likely to leave. I'm very suspicious of the motivations of men who encourage women to get pregnant. It's often a tactic to 'keep us in our place'.

[Southpaw Bookworm]

13. Absolutely

Justice Department research has studied whether the drop in domestic violence homicides since the 1940s is due to the increased opportunities women have economically.

[wildeyed]

20. Foolish.

You need a skill to fall back on if your marriage fails or your partner dies. Or what if you are single to start with? Besides, I didn't WANT to have kids in my early 20's. I wanted to work, have fun, travel, stuff like that. I wasn't ready to settle down with a single partner, much less raise children.

I own a small business with my husband. We have two kids. It is great. I can flex my hours, work for home, whatever. If I need to take time off for a sick child, I don't have to beg a mean boss, I just do it. If I lose income as a result, it was mine to lose.

We have a female office manager with three kids. When we brought her on, she was a single parent (divorce). She is 30 hours per week with health benes, instead of the traditional 40. Her pay reflects her smaller work commitment. But she is considered f/t for benefits purposes.

When her kids are sick, she can work from home. Also, when she is in the office she is absolutely focused on completing her tasks because she knows she must leave at a certain time to be home for her kids. None of the other non-parent employees are as efficient. So, at least in my experience, it is possible to get the parenting/work thing under control if the employee and the employer are both committed to making it work.

[baba]

21. Mr. David Brooks

I'm so glad that he has taken it upon himself to tell women what they "should" do! :eyes:

[cap]

22. how dare he open his mouth!

what does a gay man have with giving advice to women on an activity that he has no intentions of participating in?

That's a question between a wife and a husband. Not some one who has no desire to create a child.