|
silence_kit posted:Lol, this is the gooniest response.  Well, mostly. Not handing babies to people who don't want to hold them is legit.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
"Sorry I can't golf today, I'm babysitting my kids"Who What Now posted:
That is true but it is also true, and very important, that children shouldn't be punished for their parents' actions. A baby doesn't deserve to be put in danger just because its parent handed it to the wrong person. This is also a feminist issue because a more expansive version of this thought process is what our society uses to justify kids going hungry because their mothers should have kept their legs closed. If society agreed that all children everywhere had the inalienable right to basic care and safety an enormous burden would be lifted off women. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
I would have said the same thing to a guy who said he put a baby on the floor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Wait, what? There was a very obvious troll who was pretty much copy/pasting from a a redpill FAQ Is the baby holding thing actually a gendered thing? I thought that was a universal joke that new parents are always forcing everyone to hold their babies, I've always loving hated it and dumped onto the next person as fast as I can. Maybe it was just the fact my "generation" in my family had no female children to unequally throw babies at caused me to have to hold a disproportionate (compared to societal norms) number of babies  Actually not trying to argue on this one, I get that attitudes toward child care in general are definitely completely hosed up, just never realized/thought of the "hold my baby" was/as part of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
The actual gooniest response would involve the word "crotchspawn".
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I would have said the same thing to a guy who said he put a baby on the floor. Do you understand that a man wouldn't have had a baby forced on him
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
the white hand posted:Do you understand that a man wouldn't have had a baby forced on him BarbarianElephant is one of the few high-effort contributors to this thread so I'm gonna go ahead and say yes. p.s. I will hold all your babies, give them to me. There's a flipside of this where a woman being too enthusiastic about anything traditionally female is assumed to be stupid or to lack ambition. I can't breathe a word about ever theoretically possibly wanting to have kids at work, because every man and a depressing percentage of women will assume I'll knock myself up the minute they turn their backs and never care about my job again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:
I can't stop giggling at your earlier post--I'm imagining some nerd announcing to the room during his/her family's holiday party as if he/she were some bank robber threatening the police during a hostage negotiation--"If you give the baby to me, I will put it on the floor."
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:BarbarianElephant is one of the few high-effort contributors to this thread so I'm gonna go ahead and say yes. Heh, maybe you overestimate me  I don't think most sane people would force a baby on someone vehemently refusing a baby, male or female. You want people to hold the baby properly, supporting the head, so it's not sensible to just dump one on a person who has never held one without some prep. Even the most "All women love babies!" person wouldn't do that (if they were sane), even if they did get in something annoying like "When you have your own you'll understand!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Funnily enough, both cleaning and taking care of children are things that men have the luxury of not having to do! Women don't have that luxury! It's unreasonable for a man to flee from housework because that is immature and silly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Last time someone gave me a baby she screamed and flailed until I put her on the floor. Floor is good for babbies is my takeaway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:That is true but it is also true, and very important, that children shouldn't be punished for their parents' actions. A baby doesn't deserve to be put in danger just because its parent handed it to the wrong person. This is also a feminist issue because a more expansive version of this thought process is what our society uses to justify kids going hungry because their mothers should have kept their legs closed. If society agreed that all children everywhere had the inalienable right to basic care and safety an enormous burden would be lifted off women. You'll find no argument from me here. A lack of support for raising children is one of the big reasons my wife and I are putting off having a baby at the moment, we can't afford to have one of us be a stay at home parent and we can't afford child care either. Not to mention things like hospital bills during the pregnancy and birth, and every other aspect of caring for an infant. I can't even imagine how many orders of magnitude worse these concerns are for single mothers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Dehumanize yourself and don't have kids
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:BarbarianElephant is one of the few high-effort contributors to this thread so I'm gonna go ahead and say yes. This from the Male end. Babies are the greatest thing on the planet, and one of the sole redeeming qualities of humanity. It helps that babies luuurve me.  Jenner posted:Happy Birthday to the Ground! FactsAreUseless posted:No no, these are 100 percent valid points. It's just funny. It's a funny story. Somebody handed you a baby, so you put the baby on the floor. That's funny, regardless of how the situation stands in the context of wider gender issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Concerning disparities in wages and STEM fields, these two studies are very difficult to reconcile: https://scienceprogress.org/2012/10/closing-the-pay-gap-in-stem-fields/ This study had STEM professors across the country rate applicants for a lab manager position based on CVs and recommendations and personal statements. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions The other study had STEM professors across the country rate applicants for a professorship based on CVs, recommendations, and narrative summaries. The first study (from Princeton) showed a notable bias against women candidates (especially from women employers). The other study (from Cornell) came up with a surprising bias against male candidates. Did one of the sides fudge their results, or is there some crucial, non-obvious difference here? In the original published text, the first study was asking about “purported” applicants while the second asked about “hypothetical” applicants. Is “hypothetical” some sort of social science code for the second study coming out and telling the employers that it was only a study? If so, that might explain it. Tiny Brontosaurus posted:You follow me around the forums with an elaborate theory that I'm secretly some other black girl you hate for I'm sure completely non-bigoted reasons. I Killed GBS posted:https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3577891&pagenumber=1&perpage=40#post421169558 I’m glad some of my humorous copy-pastes are remembered, but is this thread for Helldumping old posts? If you’re cool with people Helldumping post histories here, let me know, but it may not be conducive to interesting discussion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I can't breathe a word about ever theoretically possibly wanting to have kids at work, because every man and a depressing percentage of women will assume I'll knock myself up the minute they turn their backs and never care about my job again. This was horribly burdensome for my wife before she got pregnant a year ago. She had a really well paying corporate job, but felt like she was always getting probing questions about 'babies' that made her feel like the minute she admitted to wanting one all future promotion potential would vanish. Jokes on them though, now we have a beautiful 3 month old and she ain't ever going back. So maybe they were right to worry, but gently caress em.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:This was horribly burdensome for my wife before she got pregnant a year ago. She had a really well paying corporate job, but felt like she was always getting probing questions about 'babies' that made her feel like the minute she admitted to wanting one all future promotion potential would vanish. And at the same time the rest of society can't loving shut up about "when are you going to have your first/next baby" as if your sex life was any of their concern to begin with. And if you don't want any, you're a drat monster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:And at the same time the rest of society can't loving shut up about "when are you going to have your first/next baby" as if your sex life was any of their concern to begin with. And if you don't want any, you're a drat monster. Yea, she suffered from that as well! We wanted to wait a bit after getting married to really build up a solid financial position so we could go single income once we started having children. So we waited 7 years since we got married, and by year 3 it was pretty constant from all sorts of family members on her side as to 'what was up'. So annoying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:This was horribly burdensome for my wife before she got pregnant a year ago. She had a really well paying corporate job, but felt like she was always getting probing questions about 'babies' that made her feel like the minute she admitted to wanting one all future promotion potential would vanish. Compassion and logic are at odds with each other in these cases. The right thing to do is pretend it won't hurt the business, and treat people like they aren't going to vanish for however long, possibly not coming back. But it does impact companies and always will. The rich should just get over it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Compassion and logic are at odds with each other in these cases. The right thing to do is pretend it won't hurt the business, and treat people like they aren't going to vanish for however long, possibly not coming back. But it does impact companies and always will. The rich should just get over it. These days, jobs are no longer for life. You are as likely to quit your job for greener pastures as quit it for babies. They are as likely to cut your job as promote you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
I don't know a whole lot about South Korean gender politics, but here's an interesting article. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201612300057.html quote:South Korea's government closed its website that drew fury for showing the number of women in childbearing age by each city district and region. Got this from the excellent Twitter feed of NPR reporter Elise Hu, whom I really enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:These days, jobs are no longer for life. You are as likely to quit your job for greener pastures as quit it for babies. They are as likely to cut your job as promote you. Very true, but if you're in a valued position and they need you, it hurts the bottom line quite a bit to go out on Maternity, as it's illegal to just fire you for it (like they would happily do otherwise). I think it's even worse for women who need a job. Interviewing while pregnant has to be an excercise in futility, as the company knows full well you're going to leave almost as soon as you get there, taking up a spot that could be filled with someone who would be there. Again, as a disclaimer; I don't agree with not hiring pregnant women if they're qualified for the job, or passing them up for promotions, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:as it's illegal to just fire you for it (like they would happily do otherwise)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Compassion and logic are at odds with each other in these cases. The right thing to do is pretend it won't hurt the business, and treat people like they aren't going to vanish for however long, possibly not coming back. But it does impact companies and always will. The rich should just get over it. It's telling that the fact that laws against discrimination against women who are (or planning to be) pregnant don't even factor in this calculation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's telling that the fact that laws against discrimination against women who are (or planning to be) pregnant don't even factor in this calculation. FactsAreUseless posted:Depends on the job and the state, but for the vast majority of American women, they can just fire you for something else, or just straight-up without cause. Job security isn't a real thing anymore. The problem is really this. HR will do their damndest to get around it if they can, and if they don't need you. If you're not essential to the project/business, you're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Very true, but if you're in a valued position and they need you, it hurts the bottom line quite a bit to go out on Maternity, as it's illegal to just fire you for it (like they would happily do otherwise). I think it's even worse for women who need a job. Interviewing while pregnant has to be an excercise in futility, as the company knows full well you're going to leave almost as soon as you get there, taking up a spot that could be filled with someone who would be there. I'm surprised that big companies don't see this as an opportunity. A highly qualified woman interviewing while pregnant isn't going to bargain as hard as normal. Paying 6 weeks maternity could save a lot of salary in the long run.  (not serious in case you can't tell)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:“Anonymous internet person is actually some other anonymous internet person” has got to be the lamest conspiracy theory ever. Cool so stop then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:BarbarianElephant is one of the few high-effort contributors to this thread so I'm gonna go ahead and say yes. There's some musing in the Ladythread about how this "anti-baby" sentiment might be in reaction to this thing you're talking about. (How wanting babies and mother things makes you unambitious and dumb.) We want to be seen as Mighty Women so we reject baby and all things baby. If we made baby stuff more gender neutral and acceptable and less, for lack of a better word, degrading I think we'd largely solve the problem of women rejecting and fearing it and men resisting and fleeing it. Because society tells us, "Woman things suck." We don't want to do woman things even if they actually don't suck all that much. (Raising a baby super sucks. Supposedly it's super rewarding in the end but ugh. What a gamble. Your coddled and loved baby, despite your best efforts, might grow up to be an MRA or something. That's not rewarding at all! You've just made the world worse!) One of the things Feminism is trying to do is "normalize" woman things. FactsAreUseless posted:No no, these are 100 percent valid points. It's just funny. It's a funny story. Somebody handed you a baby, so you put the baby on the floor. That's funny, regardless of how the situation stands in the context of wider gender issues. Haha. I'm sorry for taking you so seriously. I'm glad you got the point and appreciated the story. That was my intent. Honestly based on your posts ITT I should have known you were just making commentary. I apologize. You are good for this thread. OwlFancier posted:Last time someone gave me a baby she screamed and flailed until I put her on the floor. My Sims kid spent 99% of the time on the floor and she grew up to be an honors student who graduated top of her class in mathematics! The floor works! Also just so you guys know the baby I put on the floor is fine. She's a happy 8 year old now and doing well in school. She loves horses and wants to be a vet. I'm sure the floor had something to do with it. Bow down to my excellent parenting. (I'm joking.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I'm surprised that big companies don't see this as an opportunity. A highly qualified woman interviewing while pregnant isn't going to bargain as hard as normal. Paying 6 weeks maternity could save a lot of salary in the long run. I know your post is a joke, but my company's retention rate for women (in the Engineering department), especially women who get pregnant and have kids while working here, is loving fantastic and I bet part of that's because we're not weird douchebags about maternity leave or employees having to take care of kids. And there's some serious benefits to having "the person who probably wrote half of our flagship desktop app in 2011" on staff still.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Colin Mockery posted:I know your post is a joke, but my company's retention rate for women (in the Engineering department), especially women who get pregnant and have kids while working here, is loving fantastic and I bet part of that's because we're not weird douchebags about maternity leave or employees having to take care of kids. And there's some serious benefits to having "the person who probably wrote half of our flagship desktop app in 2011" on staff still. Now I kinda want to work at your place
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Dehumanize yourself and don't have kids Demasculinize yourself and face to feminism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:What's frustrating is that the article that sparked the housework discussion mentioned it because it was a symptom of the lack of equality and respect that caused his marriage to fail. But a bunch of guys read it (or didn't read it) as if housework was the underlying problem and not a symptom of it. When I see stuff like this (for example people thinking a woman was being unreasonable to break up with someone due to lack of housework), the biggest difference I notice based on gender is that men tend to give more of a benefit of the doubt to other men than women. Like, it's possible that someone's wife was, in fact, unreasonable, but people tend to make this assumption with women far more often than they do men (you don't really see "this man broke up with this woman for a dumb/trivial reason" used as an argument nearly as often). Ultimately I think this comes down to gender stereotypes about women being more "irrational/crazy" that make it more easy for men to believe that a woman was acting unreasonably than to believe the same about a man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Colin Mockery posted:I know your post is a joke, but my company's retention rate for women (in the Engineering department), especially women who get pregnant and have kids while working here, is loving fantastic and I bet part of that's because we're not weird douchebags about maternity leave or employees having to take care of kids. And there's some serious benefits to having "the person who probably wrote half of our flagship desktop app in 2011" on staff still. I'm wondering how much the severity of these issues intersect with class (as in the severity of workplace sexism seems to inversely related to income bracket) because of a tendency to treat talent as valuable and the fact it becomes more of a "seller's market" when it comes to labor relations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:When I see stuff like this (for example people thinking a woman was being unreasonable to break up with someone due to lack of housework), the biggest difference I notice based on gender is that men tend to give more of a benefit of the doubt to other men than women. Like, it's possible that someone's wife was, in fact, unreasonable, but people tend to make this assumption with women far more often than they do men (you don't really see "this man broke up with this woman for a dumb/trivial reason" used as an argument nearly as often). People tend to give the benefit of the doubt to people they can more easily empathize with, I think. In the other thread, for instance, I posted about a friend of mine who criticized my fiance for choosing to put her career on hold (and me for not encouraging her hard enough to go back to work). And the first post to interact with that was BarbarianElephant wanting to know who said it and exactly what they said, because maybe I was taking it wrong... instead of trusting me (a man) to have read the situation correctly. I know my fiance, my situation, my friend, etc far better than she does but that's where she went first. I don't think she meant anything bad by that. She was able to put herself in the position of my friend and posit motives for him that were benign. There's nothing wrong with that and maybe she was right. But she went with that rather than trust me to know what was going on and chose to question me (politely and without meaning anything by it, of course) and isn't that what men in these kinds of discussions are doing? Also... I just noticed my red text got cleared. Thanks to whoever did that. =)
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Colin Mockery posted:I know your post is a joke, but my company's retention rate for women (in the Engineering department), especially women who get pregnant and have kids while working here, is loving fantastic and I bet part of that's because we're not weird douchebags about maternity leave or employees having to take care of kids. And there's some serious benefits to having "the person who probably wrote half of our flagship desktop app in 2011" on staff still. It's not a cost/benefit calculation. So many people simply feel a woman who takes off work to have a kid doesn't deserve or shouldn't have the job, with varying emphasis on taking off work or having a kid. It's about a (hateful) idea of right and wrong, not some sort of efficiency measure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's not a cost/benefit calculation. So many people simply feel a woman who takes off work to have a kid doesn't deserve or shouldn't have the job, with varying emphasis on taking off work or having a kid. It's about a (hateful) idea of right and wrong, not some sort of efficiency measure. lol yes it is, welcome to capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:lol yes it is, welcome to capitalism. Surely, my friend, you have spent enough time in the UKMT to know that there's no particular reason why it can't be both a cost/benefit analysis and an ideology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:lol yes it is, welcome to capitalism. I'm not saying that people aren't loving over women when given a financial incentive to do so; I'm saying people will gently caress over women even when there are financial incentives to not do so. Even if you can show airtight proof that hiring women who have not ruled out having a child or maternity leave policies are 100% net goods for efficiency in both the short and long term, women will still often get hosed over because employers will favor their deep-seated ideas about how parenting and work should work over their own financial interest. It's the same sort of situation with wage gaps even in identical work/experience situations. Capitalist logic implies that women should either be able to demand equal wages or would be more favored for employment because they are cheaper, but the fact remains that implicit (or sometimes explicit) misogyny causes women to be considered less desirable than an otherwise identical man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
EDIT: ^^^ Oh, yeah, I wasn't trying to imply that the way companies treat maternity leave isn't generally because of sexism. The reason we aren't douchebags about maternity leave or kids is probably because our founder's a non-technical woman who's not a douchebag (and also technically it's illegal, but that doesn't stop other companies). I just wanted to comment that a happy side-effect of not being douchebags is "better morale and also you get a stronger company overall, through improved employee retention, which leads to less loss of institutional knowledge". If you're willing to be non-sexist, you straight up get a better company. Jarmak posted:I'm wondering how much the severity of these issues intersect with class (as in the severity of workplace sexism seems to inversely related to income bracket) because of a tendency to treat talent as valuable and the fact it becomes more of a "seller's market" when it comes to labor relations. So, that's kind of a complicated subject. It DOES intersect with class and the talent that is considered valuable does have a lot of leverage -- a woman with a top-tier four-year Computer Science degree (or better), who is a US citizen or has a green card, who has five or more years of industry experience, who has a network of non-sexist connections who can perform introductions to new companies if needed, who is friends with enough coworkers that a morale-affecting incident may lead to those coworkers quitting too, who has a six-month emergency fund in cash for if she's unemployed, who can afford a lawyer to file a lawsuit if an employer actually does something blatantly and egregiously illegal, will often have the power to walk away from a bad/egregiously sexist company and will often have a lot of pushback power when her coworkers are sexist to her. But that's a lot of conditions to turn someone "valuable". And none of this prevents sexism from loving with their lives -- it just makes the company have to think a little bit when there's a conflict between employees, because sometimes, the woman can't be replaced and thus is too valuable to lose. That's assuming the leaders of the company believe that women can have value, because if they don't, they'll fire her anyways and just not understand why their lovely startup buckles under the weight of its own bad tech decisions 5 years down the line. Sexist companies (companies led by sexist CEOs/CTOs/etc) will totally and cheerfully inadvertently cripple themselves by not doing enough when their best employee says "make my teammates stop being douchebags to me or I walk", because they don't recognize she was their best employee. Even a sexist company can recognize the woman is the best employee if she's ten times better than everyone else and her coworkers always sing her praises -- but if she's only 2-3x as good and her lovely coworkers steal the credit for her ideas? Eh. It's not so much that women don't experience sexism in tech (because hooooooo boy, do they experience sexism in tech) so much as it is that the most talented women, in this current seller's market, have more options they can take if they have enough class privilege to use as leverage (intersectionality, whoo!). But they don't always have enough, and even when they do use that leverage, they still have to wade through interviewing with lovely sexist companies, or going to networking events with lovely sexist attendees, etc. etc. It's like a parade of people walking down the street, where other people are throwing rotten tomatoes at the women (and a couple assholes are also throwing tomatoes at men, for the WHAT ABOUT THE MEN folks). But some people walking down the street, including some of the women, have baseball bats. Being valuable is the baseball bat. But, yeah, it does boil down to "if you have enough class privilege (because you are successfully making six-figures at a tech company), and you know how to leverage it, it is often possible to leave a very sexist job in favor of a less sexist job (or actively fight it at your current job)." The nuance and complication comes in "how much class privilege is enough", "what are effective ways to leverage it", "how to detect sexism before accepting a job offer", etc. None of that really makes the sexism go away, though; it just makes it easier to avoid after detecting/experiencing it, and sometimes causes a minor PR kerfluffle if you go the name-and-shame route to a company or conference. Which is... better than you'd get in some industries, it's true, because right now Tech's been making a big showing of trying to care about diversity and trying to value diversity, especially in the Bay Area. If sexism means you can't get a job for 3 months, but you can afford to not have a job for 3 months, then that's less bad than being unable to get a job for 3 months and NOT being able to afford that, yes. But "woman loses her job for 3 months because sexism", I don't know that I'd call losing a job for the same amount of time "less severe"... Maybe a more accurate phrase would be "the more common negative effects of workplace sexism can be mitigated by use of class privilege, which serves to dampen the extremes of how bad workplace sexism can get, by making it easier for women to transfer workplaces in comparison to women without class privilege"? I'm not sure. For additional reading, I would recommend Model View Culture, which describes itself as "A magazine about technology, culture and diversity." They also provide a reading list here, for people who might not know where to start. Colin Mockery fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Colin Mockery posted:EDIT: ^^^ Oh, yeah, I wasn't trying to imply that the way companies treat maternity leave isn't generally because of sexism. The reason we aren't douchebags about maternity leave or kids is probably because our founder's a non-technical woman who's not a douchebag (and also technically it's illegal, but that doesn't stop other companies). I just wanted to comment that a happy side-effect of not being douchebags is "better morale and also you get a stronger company overall, through improved employee retention, which leads to less loss of institutional knowledge". Yeah this is a much more long winded and nuanced write up of basically what I was thinking... I'm just curious to see where and how class privilege starts to short circuit sexism. My wife works in big law and is pregnant so it's made me acutely aware of how lucky we are. They have a whole program dedicated to recruiting female talent where they garuntee 12 weeks paid maternity leave and if you don't take any more then that they garuntee staying on the same promotion track as male peers of the same hiring class. I'm currently weighing the decision of giving up my nascent career to be a stay at home dad and facilitate hers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:41
|
|