Women and Mustachianism (Take 2)

[Roses]

Zamboni, I appreciated your response. It will still bother me that people here(in my state) are admitted to med school based on race or gender.

People are admitted to every kind of job and school every day based on race (white) and gender (male) it's just not official.  Refer back to the studies Zamboni mentioned.  The policies you speak of, though highly flawed, are attempting to reverse that and maybe in your state they've succeeded somewhat.  Enough that you notice.

[Zamboni]

Zamboni, I appreciated your response. It will still bother me that people here(in my state) are admitted to med school based on race or gender.

While I appreciate that you are expressing a popularly held view, this is a gross misunderstanding of admissions which is propagated by certain political agendas.  Much more factual information is here, if you care to look into it yourself:
https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/

I have an insider view on both undergraduate and med school admissions, and I get to see the scatter plot of who gets in and who doesn't.  No one is admitted to anything on the sole basis of race or gender.  Not even close.  My institution has two readers rate applicants in 6 different categories (none of these are race or gender.)  Two of those are straight up test scores and grades (neither or which correlates perfectly with intelligence, by the way), but the rest include factors you might not think are important to academics such as initiative, interpersonal skills including listening to what others have to say, and how much experience a person has dealing with adversity or interacting with people of different cultures and backgrounds.  It may or may not surprise MMM readers that white candidates often have the least breadth of experience in the latter areas.  Areas such as empathy and fluency in multiple languages that are particularly important in providing the best possible health care to all people.  We are very serious about admitting the people we think will make the best physicians.

The medical profession has finally decided that these latter factors are so important that the entire MCAT has been completely overhauled to include much more social science (next year is the last year of the "old" MCAT.)  And guess what?  MCAT score still won't be the only thing that gets candidates admitted.  Essays and letters and life experiences will still factor into the equation.  Unfortunately we see some candidates with top notch credentials on paper who are so self-centered, arrogant, and lacking in basic interpersonal process skills in interviews that we can't wait to show them the door.  Ever had a doctor like that?  Me too.  For candidates like this, I assure you that their whiteness or blackness or purpleness has nothing to do with them getting the "thin envelope" in the mail. 

Saying someone got into medical school "just because she's a woman" or "just because he's purple" is insulting to both you and me and our mothers and everyone who has to work twice as hard.

[Zamboni]

. . .generally much lower percentage of women studying chemistry. Our number of female scientists is however up from complete zero just 13 years ago and we would like to increase it further albeit not by hiring inferior candidates.

Things must be much different there than in the US.  Tons of women in chemistry here.  We've had more qualified female than male domestic applicants to our graduate school in chemistry for at least 20 years.  Yet there are still hardly any female chemistry professors here.  Hmmm.

[Rural]

Personally I think that equality will be reached when children are no longer a part of "Women and Mustachianism" type posts, nor are they the second theme of "women and finance" "women and ____" anything.  When we can talk about women as women and not as mothers/potential mothers, then women will have become men's equal.  How long does it take for male questions to get to this discussion, if ever?

+1

[avonlea]

Personally I think that equality will be reached when children are no longer a part of "Women and Mustachianism" type posts, nor are they the second theme of "women and finance" "women and ____" anything.  When we can talk about women as women and not as mothers/potential mothers, then women will have become men's equal.  How long does it take for male questions to get to this discussion, if ever?

+1

I think that when the topic of fathering becomes a more central issue in a male discussion of life and career, that will be a sign that there is more equality among the sexes.  The work of raising children will always exist since most adults become parents.

[Rural]

Personally I think that equality will be reached when children are no longer a part of "Women and Mustachianism" type posts, nor are they the second theme of "women and finance" "women and ____" anything.  When we can talk about women as women and not as mothers/potential mothers, then women will have become men's equal.  How long does it take for male questions to get to this discussion, if ever?

+1

I think that when the topic of fathering becomes a more central issue in a male discussion of life and career, that will be a sign that there is more equality among the sexes.  The work of raising children will always exist since most adults become parents.

... and when "fathering" ceases to denote a thirty-second activity in English. :-)

[avonlea]

Personally I think that equality will be reached when children are no longer a part of "Women and Mustachianism" type posts, nor are they the second theme of "women and finance" "women and ____" anything.  When we can talk about women as women and not as mothers/potential mothers, then women will have become men's equal.  How long does it take for male questions to get to this discussion, if ever?

+1

I think that when the topic of fathering becomes a more central issue in a male discussion of life and career, that will be a sign that there is more equality among the sexes.  The work of raising children will always exist since most adults become parents.

... and when "fathering" ceases to denote a thirty-second activity in English. :-)

Yes, but "mothering" has more than one definition as well.  I don't think that most people assume "giving birth to a child" when they hear the term, but "raising a child".  I would like to think that the same assumption is there for the word "fathering".

[Albert]

Being a mother and being a father will never be exactly the same for obvious biological reasons.

[Albert]

. . .generally much lower percentage of women studying chemistry. Our number of female scientists is however up from complete zero just 13 years ago and we would like to increase it further albeit not by hiring inferior candidates.

Things must be much different there than in the US.  Tons of women in chemistry here.  We've had more qualified female than male domestic applicants to our graduate school in chemistry for at least 20 years.  Yet there are still hardly any female chemistry professors here.  Hmmm.

My earlier statement needs some clarification. It's not that women completely don't study chemistry here - there are a lot among incoming students, but first of all our subspecialty (organic chemistry) is traditionally even more male dominated than other areas in the chemistry and second there is a large time gap. Proportion of females is significantly higher among employees hired in the last 10 years, but we have a very low turnover here. Many people stay around all their working lives (30+ years), hardly any of my fellow scientists have ever worked for another company. Also there is a large regional variation in Europe - seemingly a lot more highly qualified candidates from France and Italy than from Germany or Switzerland.

As for US (I did my PhD there and a postdoc as well) there aren't that many women there either. About 20% (organic chemistry only) would be my anecdotal observation. Female professors do exist, but it's a great rarity both in US and Europe. It's a very competitive career and not many women even try...

I had 10 minutes free time and calculated that in my discipline there are currently 8% female professors in US research universities (less if restricted to top 20 schools). The reason I only included US is that there is a nice website where all in the field are listed (organic links.net). By the way the situation in Asia is much worse than that, I've never even heard of a female professor there at all. Also I only know one black professor worldwide out of maybe 100-150 I'd recognise by a name.

[avonlea]

Being a mother and being a father will never be exactly the same for obvious biological reasons.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by my last two posts.  Both mothers and fathers are important to children, and both need to be actively involved in their lives.

[Albert]

Being a mother and being a father will never be exactly the same for obvious biological reasons.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by my last two posts.  Both mothers and fathers are important to children, and both need to be actively involved in their lives.

Was anyone disputing that? Not in this thread at least...

[avonlea]

I guess I misunderstood what you meant by your previous comment.  Sorry about that.  I do agree that women and men are biologically different so being a mother and being a father is not the same thing.  One reason I chose to be a stay-at-home mom is so I could breastfeed my children.  I am happy, though, that my friends that I talked about earlier felt enough freedom to make the choice to have the dad stay at home with the babies and the mother remain in the workforce. 

My one big question is: If employers want both mothers and fathers to work, why don't they make it easier for this to happen?  They act like family life is the same as the 1950s--most don't offer quality childcare or the option for parents to take a year or two off to be with their kids.  Isn't that the real problem? Not that children should be taken out of the discussion but that they aren't in the workplace discussion enough?

[smalllife]

My one big question is: If employers want both mothers and fathers to work, why don't they make it easier for this to happen?  They act like family life is the same as the 1950s--most don't offer quality childcare or the option for parents to take a year or two off to be with their kids.  Isn't that the real problem? Not that children should be taken out of the discussion but that they aren't in the workplace discussion enough?

I would encourage you to look at this from another perspective.  Work life balance is not just important for parents, but for all workers (kind of like my earlier comments).  If employers are subsidizing the choice to have children, those without children should receive or have the opportunity to take advantage of a similar benefit.  I have no problem with helping on childcare if an alternative is presented to those without children, otherwise those with children are being offered an advantage and those without are discriminated against per company policy.  Which is why I prefer to discuss women being adults and humans rather than mothers - not all of us would need the "parent" privileges on top of those you already have.

[avonlea]

I am just trying to think about what would be best for society as a whole.  Since I'm a SAHM with school-aged children, my husband and I wouldn't be benefiting from these options/programs if they were to eventually surface.

[brewer12345]

My one big question is: If employers want both mothers and fathers to work, why don't they make it easier for this to happen?  They act like family life is the same as the 1950s--most don't offer quality childcare or the option for parents to take a year or two off to be with their kids.  Isn't that the real problem? Not that children should be taken out of the discussion but that they aren't in the workplace discussion enough?

Employers don't provide such things because they do not have to.  Perhaps that would change in a tighter labor market if that is what workers demanded, but at the moment it is a non-starter.  That is also a major reason why you see declining family sizes and an ever higher percentage of couples that don't have kids.

[Albert]

You can legislate it same as we already legislate five day work week, mandatory vacation and maternity leave (most countries). It raises somewhat cost of doing business, but so what?

[brewer12345]

You can legislate it same as we already legislate five day work week, mandatory vacation and maternity leave (most countries). It raises somewhat cost of doing business, but so what?

Do you have even a vague passing acquaintance with US politics?  If so, you would know that this suggestion is as likely as the US turning over its entire nuclear arsenal to North Korea for their pedigree herd of unicorns.

[Albert]

You can legislate it same as we already legislate five day work week, mandatory vacation and maternity leave (most countries). It raises somewhat cost of doing business, but so what?

Do you have even a vague passing acquaintance with US politics?  If so, you would know that this suggestion is as likely as the US turning over its entire nuclear arsenal to North Korea for their pedigree herd of unicorns.

Actually I do, but were we speaking exclusively about US? The world, even the developed parts of it, is much bigger than that. 

[brewer12345]

You can legislate it same as we already legislate five day work week, mandatory vacation and maternity leave (most countries). It raises somewhat cost of doing business, but so what?

Do you have even a vague passing acquaintance with US politics?  If so, you would know that this suggestion is as likely as the US turning over its entire nuclear arsenal to North Korea for their pedigree herd of unicorns.

Actually I do, but were we speaking exclusively about US? The world, even the developed parts of it, is much bigger than that.

I was under the impression that many countries (e.g. France) provide significant gubmint and institutional support for parents/working parents.  Besides, as a Merkin I mostly only care about what goes on in my own borders.

[Albert]

Yes, France and Sweden are particularly good at this resulting in high labour participation rates as well as relatively high birthrates for European standards.

[galaxie]

My one big question is: If employers want both mothers and fathers to work, why don't they make it easier for this to happen?  They act like family life is the same as the 1950s--most don't offer quality childcare or the option for parents to take a year or two off to be with their kids.  Isn't that the real problem? Not that children should be taken out of the discussion but that they aren't in the workplace discussion enough?

I would encourage you to look at this from another perspective.  Work life balance is not just important for parents, but for all workers (kind of like my earlier comments).  If employers are subsidizing the choice to have children, those without children should receive or have the opportunity to take advantage of a similar benefit.  I have no problem with helping on childcare if an alternative is presented to those without children, otherwise those with children are being offered an advantage and those without are discriminated against per company policy.  Which is why I prefer to discuss women being adults and humans rather than mothers - not all of us would need the "parent" privileges on top of those you already have.

People having kids is a public good, though.  Raising children well is pretty important for the continued operation of society.  Corporations may not have any interest in subsidizing child-rearing, but one can make the argument that the government might (since one of its main functions is to provide public goods).  I don't want kids, but I am happy to "subsidize the choice to have children" by paying taxes that go to public schools, etc., because it's also to my advantage if the kids in my city are well educated.  Also, I may choose to have kids someday, and I'll be glad that supportive policies exist to let me keep working in my specialized field despite having completed a basic biological process that humans do.

One might just as well ask "why subsidize the choice of some people to buy houses" (through the mortgage interest deduction or "why subsidize the choice of some people to attend college" (through grants & subsidized loans).  The government sometimes subsidizes activities it thinks are desirable.

[CommonCents]

People having kids is a public good, though.  Raising children well is pretty important for the continued operation of society.  Corporations may not have any interest in subsidizing child-rearing, but one can make the argument that the government might (since one of its main functions is to provide public goods).  I don't want kids, but I am happy to "subsidize the choice to have children" by paying taxes that go to public schools, etc., because it's also to my advantage if the kids in my city are well educated.  Also, I may choose to have kids someday, and I'll be glad that supportive policies exist to let me keep working in my specialized field despite having completed a basic biological process that humans do.

One might just as well ask "why subsidize the choice of some people to buy houses" (through the mortgage interest deduction or "why subsidize the choice of some people to attend college" (through grants & subsidized loans).  The government sometimes subsidizes activities it thinks are desirable.

Very true, although it turns out the govt is wrong sometimes in the desirability of an activity.  For example, a recent study by Dartmouth professors demonstrated that home ownership was correlated with higher levels of unemployment (because people were tied to geographic areas and didn't move to the jobs was the conclusion I believe).  In any event, I actually question whether the govt should make these choices - mortgage interest deduction, charitable deduction, etc.

[boy_bye]

My one big question is: If employers want both mothers and fathers to work, why don't they make it easier for this to happen?  They act like family life is the same as the 1950s--most don't offer quality childcare or the option for parents to take a year or two off to be with their kids.  Isn't that the real problem? Not that children should be taken out of the discussion but that they aren't in the workplace discussion enough?

Employers don't provide such things because they do not have to.  Perhaps that would change in a tighter labor market if that is what workers demanded, but at the moment it is a non-starter.  That is also a major reason why you see declining family sizes and an ever higher percentage of couples that don't have kids.

i dunno, i don't think that's a major reason that fewer people are having kids, and fewer kids on average. i think this is mostly down to the fact that women are more educated and have more options now besides 'have babies until your junk falls out.'

many people see child-rearing as a beautiful thing, and i'm glad, but personally, to me, it seems horrifying. a hundred years ago if i felt this way, my only option would be to become a nun or otherwise find a way to not end up with a man. but i have more options now. i'm able choose a different kind of life, and so i do.

and there are lots of women like me. LOTS. we even see this happening in the developing world -- when women have more education, they have more options, and they generally choose to have fewer children.

i guess i don't see a lot of people choosing not to have babies because of economics. i do see some people choosing to opt out or downshift their careers to have babies ... but not typically the other way around.

[brewer12345]

My one big question is: If employers want both mothers and fathers to work, why don't they make it easier for this to happen?  They act like family life is the same as the 1950s--most don't offer quality childcare or the option for parents to take a year or two off to be with their kids.  Isn't that the real problem? Not that children should be taken out of the discussion but that they aren't in the workplace discussion enough?

Employers don't provide such things because they do not have to.  Perhaps that would change in a tighter labor market if that is what workers demanded, but at the moment it is a non-starter.  That is also a major reason why you see declining family sizes and an ever higher percentage of couples that don't have kids.

i dunno, i don't think that's a major reason that fewer people are having kids, and fewer kids on average. i think this is mostly down to the fact that women are more educated and have more options now besides 'have babies until your junk falls out.'

many people see child-rearing as a beautiful thing, and i'm glad, but personally, to me, it seems horrifying. a hundred years ago if i felt this way, my only option would be to become a nun or otherwise find a way to not end up with a man. but i have more options now. i'm able choose a different kind of life, and so i do.

and there are lots of women like me. LOTS. we even see this happening in the developing world -- when women have more education, they have more options, and they generally choose to have fewer children.

i guess i don't see a lot of people choosing not to have babies because of economics. i do see some people choosing to opt out or downshift their careers to have babies ... but not typically the other way around.

For sure, better education and widespread availability of contraception means that the default is no longer popping sprogs until your plumbing backs up.  That said, there are huge (HUGE) economic disincentives to having kids even if you want them.  I don't much care for Elizabeth Warren or anything to do with her, but give a quick read to "The Two Income Trap" to get an idea.  Having been in this mess personally, the book is a good description of the problems with having kids as middle class people.  You might not see the disincentives as clearly since you apparently have no interest in having a family, but it is very real and very strong.

[boy_bye]

For sure, better education and widespread availability of contraception means that the default is no longer popping sprogs until your plumbing backs up.  That said, there are huge (HUGE) economic disincentives to having kids even if you want them.

i don't disagree with this, but do you know anyone who has chosen to not have children because of economic disincentives? i don't. from what i've seen, it seems like wanting to have kids trumps all other considerations including money. even if people "can't afford them," they still have them and just figure it out.

[brewer12345]

For sure, better education and widespread availability of contraception means that the default is no longer popping sprogs until your plumbing backs up.  That said, there are huge (HUGE) economic disincentives to having kids even if you want them.

i don't disagree with this, but do you know anyone who has chosen to not have children because of economic disincentives? i don't. from what i've seen, it seems like wanting to have kids trumps all other considerations including money. even if people "can't afford them," they still have them and just figure it out.

I know lots of people who waited (sometimes causing no kids due to fertility issues), skippped having kids entirely, or who had fewer kids than they otherwise would have chosen due to economic considerations.  We probably would have considered a third kid if money were not a key issue.

[Albert]

There have always been women (and men) with no children, but in the past it was easily compensated by others having many. I personally don't know any family with parents in their 40-ties or younger with more than two kids…

I don't have any data to support it, but I feel the financial aspect is more relevant in discouraging families having a second or a third child. Ease of parenting certainly makes a difference. Otherwise how do you explain French women having on average 0.5-0.6 more children than Germans? Not a great difference in culture or education levels between the two countries.

[boy_bye]

it would be a interesting thing to dig up some data on ... it's kind of reminding me of "idiocracy," where the people who are thoughtful enough to think ahead end up not having kids, while people who aren't thinking about the future at all have a bunch.

[impaire]

There have always been women (and men) with no children, but in the past it was easily compensated by others having many. I personally don't know any family with parents in their 40-ties or younger with more than two kids…

There's also a social selection bias at play here: on my mother's side, the average number of kids per (fertile) family is probably 4 to 5. Most of my cousins have stuck to their French catholic roots, and would say that they "personally don't know any family with parents in their 40-ties" with less than 3 kids. On my father's side, and among my Parisian-or-international friends, two-or-less is the standard. Although of course statistics show that your milieu is more representative than mine.

[Albert]

Albert, I had my fifth at the age of 31. A friend just had her fifth and sixth (natural twins) at 31. Another friend was 30 when she had her fifth. My previous neighbor was mid-40s and had nine. I know other big families as well.

Selection bias. Statistics, however, shows that my bias is much closer to average than yours. :)

[Jamesqf]

many people see child-rearing as a beautiful thing, and i'm glad, but personally, to me, it seems horrifying. a hundred years ago if i felt this way, my only option would be to become a nun or otherwise find a way to not end up with a man. but i have more options now. i'm able choose a different kind of life, and so i do.

and there are lots of women like me. LOTS.

Glad you wrote that, instead of me, 'cause some would be sure to say I was trolling :-)

I might even go a bit further, and say that there are probably still many women who have & rear kids more from social pressure than innate desire.  As for instance a good friend of mine, who wound up with a kid (and 3 step-kids) that she never really wanted.  And when those kids became adults, the grandparents, in-laws, and most of the social circle start in with the "when ya gonna start pumping out babies?" act.  And sometimes I catch the son's wife with this utterly trapped look on her face...

[smalllife]

i dunno, i don't think that's a major reason that fewer people are having kids, and fewer kids on average. i think this is mostly down to the fact that women are more educated and have more options now besides 'have babies until your junk falls out.'

many people see child-rearing as a beautiful thing, and i'm glad, but personally, to me, it seems horrifying. a hundred years ago if i felt this way, my only option would be to become a nun or otherwise find a way to not end up with a man. but i have more options now. i'm able choose a different kind of life, and so i do.

and there are lots of women like me. LOTS. we even see this happening in the developing world -- when women have more education, they have more options, and they generally choose to have fewer children.

+1000

[CommonCents]

For sure, better education and widespread availability of contraception means that the default is no longer popping sprogs until your plumbing backs up.  That said, there are huge (HUGE) economic disincentives to having kids even if you want them.

i don't disagree with this, but do you know anyone who has chosen to not have children because of economic disincentives? i don't. from what i've seen, it seems like wanting to have kids trumps all other considerations including money. even if people "can't afford them," they still have them and just figure it out.

I know lots of people who waited (sometimes causing no kids due to fertility issues), skippped having kids entirely, or who had fewer kids than they otherwise would have chosen due to economic considerations.  We probably would have considered a third kid if money were not a key issue.

My husband is arguing for no kids based on economic reasons.  (And no dog, although he already has a cat.)  I'm opposed, and not thrilled that he can just wait a bit and resolve the discussion in his favor.  Also not thrilled because before we got engaged he agreed to them.

[goodlife]

many people see child-rearing as a beautiful thing, and i'm glad, but personally, to me, it seems horrifying. a hundred years ago if i felt this way, my only option would be to become a nun or otherwise find a way to not end up with a man. but i have more options now. i'm able choose a different kind of life, and so i do.

and there are lots of women like me. LOTS.

Glad you wrote that, instead of me, 'cause some would be sure to say I was trolling :-)

I might even go a bit further, and say that there are probably still many women who have & rear kids more from social pressure than innate desire.  As for instance a good friend of mine, who wound up with a kid (and 3 step-kids) that she never really wanted.  And when those kids became adults, the grandparents, in-laws, and most of the social circle start in with the "when ya gonna start pumping out babies?" act.  And sometimes I catch the son's wife with this utterly trapped look on her face...

Good point James, I have definitely seen that as well. I colleague at work never wanted kids...but the guy she married really did, so she sort of resigned herself to that fact. She came up with a whole bucket list of all the things she wanted to do before she had kids which was only maybe 2 years away. It was as if she had been given a death sentence. She started going binge traveling to make sure she hit every spot on her bucket list. And also other things, not just traveling. To her, it was as if her life would be over once she had kids. Anyways, she found out later that she couldn't have kids. It was a real relief to her, I could see how a huge weight lifted of her shoulders.

[Jamesqf]

Anyways, she found out later that she couldn't have kids. It was a real relief to her, I could see how a huge weight lifted of her shoulders.

I have another friend in similar position.  We went through college (CS grads) together, and for years assumed we'd marry once we got careers started.  But she was always more interested in the yuppie life than I was,  met this guy in upper managment at a successful startup, and I guess went for the money.  Well, then the baby pressure started, and she discovered that she couldn't conceive naturally.  (Which would have saved us a lot of money if we'd known it earlier :-))  So after much money spent on fertility treatments, she has 3 kids, no career, and her only real social contact is with other women in the same boat.

[clutchy]

Are mustachians predominantly male?

Or do mustachians just use predominantly masculine sounding usernames?

The longer I stick around here, the more poster whom I thought were guys turn out to be ladies (as little clues are revealed here and there.)

there are alot more women on here than I realized.  I first started noticing it when topics would come up and I thought to myself "why the hell is this guy talking about this?", then I realized it was a chick.

I've noticed I value things differently than women and its somewhat annoying.

differences and all that I suppose.

[clutchy]

there are alot more women on here than I realized.  I first started noticing it when topics would come up and I thought to myself "why the hell is this guy talking about this?", then I realized it was a chick.

I've noticed I value things differently than women and its somewhat annoying.

differences and all that I suppose.

 

Lol, annoying like being called a chicken? I don't think that guys realize how unappealing it is to be called a chicken. :)

Who was calling anyone a chicken?  We love our lovely ladies and terms of endearment towards a gender are appropriate.

I was going to type more but... my man sense is tingling; might be a trap.   

[englyn]

I bet it's from chica in Spanish.

[Jamesqf]

Chick as a nonsexual term of endearment is older than that.  For instance, in Shakespeare's The Tempest, Prospero's final command to Ariel is

My Ariel, chick,
That is thy charge: then to the elements
Be free, and fare thou well!

In the interest of equality, we might spare a thought for the original use of the word 'guy' as a figure of fun, or the butt of a joke.

[impaire]

Chick as a nonsexual term of endearment is older than that.  For instance, in Shakespeare's The Tempest, Prospero's final command to Ariel is

My Ariel, chick,
That is thy charge: then to the elements
Be free, and fare thou well!

Oh, now you've done it! You made me go to the OED, which actually distinguishes several meanings to the term. Beyond the avian, one is the non-sexual usage you singled out ("Applied to human offspring; = chicken n.1 2; esp. in alliteration with child. Sometimes as a term of endearment"--The Tempest is part of their examples), but the first occurrence they identify in this sense is c.1320 (Seuyn Sag., "He is the fendes chike."). A distinctive entry is "A girl; a young woman. slang (orig. U.S.).", first example 1927, "He didn't want to marry this brainless little fluffy chick."

I think the infantilization the term implies is what annoys me. Terms of endearment can be pretty symptomatic too.

That was a rather radical derailment of the topic. Apologies to all.

[Jamesqf]

I think the infantilization the term implies is what annoys me.

True, but infantilization can be gender-neutral, e.g. calling the object of one's affections 'baby'.

That was a rather radical derailment of the topic. Apologies to all.

Apologies? Rather they should be grateful for our informative - and tension-reducing! - digression into etymology :-)

[Roses]

For sure, better education and widespread availability of contraception means that the default is no longer popping sprogs until your plumbing backs up.  That said, there are huge (HUGE) economic disincentives to having kids even if you want them.

i don't disagree with this, but do you know anyone who has chosen to not have children because of economic disincentives? i don't. from what i've seen, it seems like wanting to have kids trumps all other considerations including money. even if people "can't afford them," they still have them and just figure it out.

This is timely.  I just came back from a holiday party for the parents at my son's co-op preschool.  The subject of 2nd kids came up (most have just one but a couple are pregnant).  One mom said she loves kids and wishes she could have more but that it's just too expensive.  I told her kids don't have to be expensive and told her about MMM!  I'm not sure how much she absorbed.  Then other parents there also expressed the same sentiment about kids being expensive.  This is a middle to upper middle class area and finances are definitely at play in the decision to have kids or have more kids. 

[Gray Matter]

The size of my family has absolutely, and only, been impacted by economics.  We have two bio kids and then adopted.  We always intended to adopt another child, but time and money became issues.  Even then, the only real issue was money; time was only an issue because we spend so much of it working to make money.  If money had been no issue, we wouldn't have had to work so much and would have had plenty of time.

[Luck better Skill]

  I know friends with 4 children on very low incomes.  What I hear from others is, "I cannot have the massive USA suburban lifestyle and a larger family."  I see people with 6 passenger vans/SUV's for a family of 4.
  The adoption system is stupid broke.  A debate for a different thread.

[goodlife]

A timely article on this topic, thought I would share:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/us/wall-street-mothers-stay-home-fathers.html?hpw&rref=us

[Catherine]

I've been thinking about this question for a couple of days and finally have something to contribute.

One of Betty Friedan's main arguments in The Feminine Mystyque was about how women's consumerism leads to inequality. It's been about 10 years since I read the book, but if memory serves, the "mystique" was the idea that there was one ideal of womanhood and it involved a lot of buying stuff, and also that it was conveyed to women through advertisements.  (that were for the most part created by men)

Although male-targeted advertising is definitely rising, It seems obvious to me, that most ads are still directed at women. Women are still receiving more messages than men that being happy or even normal is contingent on the stuff you buy - makeup, clothes, home decor, a certain lifestyle that requires a certain amount and style of possessions.

One of the tenets of mustachianism is that we already have enough (see yesterday's post on the soldier of luxury). Although not being a cosumer sukka is good for everyone, it's maybe more important for women who are more fiercely targeted by marketing. In that way it definitely points toward equality.

[arebelspy]

Although male-targeted advertising is definitely rising, It seems obvious to me, that most ads are still directed at women. Women are still receiving more messages than men that being happy or even normal is contingent on the stuff you buy - makeup, clothes, home decor, a certain lifestyle that requires a certain amount and style of possessions.

I don't watch enough TV to know, so do you have a source for this?

Ads are generally targeted towards their viewers.  Do more women watch TV than men?

For example, the only thing I really watch is NFL football, and all those ads are clearly targeted towards men (beer commercials, car commercials, etc.)

Maybe more billboard ads are targeted towards women?  More women read magazines, so those are more targeted?

Like I said, I don't know.

Either way, I think companies are indiscriminate when it comes to consumerism - everyone is green (money) to them.

[Rebecca Stapler]

For sure, better education and widespread availability of contraception means that the default is no longer popping sprogs until your plumbing backs up.  That said, there are huge (HUGE) economic disincentives to having kids even if you want them.

i don't disagree with this, but do you know anyone who has chosen to not have children because of economic disincentives? i don't. from what i've seen, it seems like wanting to have kids trumps all other considerations including money. even if people "can't afford them," they still have them and just figure it out.

This is timely.  I just came back from a holiday party for the parents at my son's co-op preschool.  The subject of 2nd kids came up (most have just one but a couple are pregnant).  One mom said she loves kids and wishes she could have more but that it's just too expensive.  I told her kids don't have to be expensive and told her about MMM!  I'm not sure how much she absorbed.  Then other parents there also expressed the same sentiment about kids being expensive.  This is a middle to upper middle class area and finances are definitely at play in the decision to have kids or have more kids.

We have held off on having another child solely due to our financial constraints. We're not living a life of luxury, but children are expensive when you have to put them in daycare so you can earn enough $$ to pay the bills. And no, we don't have an expensive mortgage or car payment -- we have astronomical student loans. Now that our son is almost 4, we are ready to start trying again soon because he will be in kindergarten and we won't have to pay double childcare costs for too long.

[impaire]

Maybe more billboard ads are targeted towards women?  More women read magazines, so those are more targeted?

Like I said, I don't know.

Either way, I think companies are indiscriminate when it comes to consumerism - everyone is green (money) to them.

True that advertising is gender-targeted depending on the type of media you are exposing yourself to. And in fact, women are underrepresented in advertising: they make about 85% of household purchase, and are "proportionally" represented in ads for food or house supplies, BUT they also decide on 50% or more of car or consumer electronics purchases, which you would never believe by surveying the ads for these sectors or by looking at the ad dollars targeted at them versus men (source: http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/22/news/midcaps/advertising_women. tbh I also have at the back of my mind several studies from when I worked in marketing, but while the general knowledge is not proprietary, I can't share the sources. I'm fine with challenge if anyone doesn't believe me, I'm aware that personal authority claims are... flimsy). I have never seen the data for beer and alcohol in general, but I bet the money is also disproportionately spent to cater to male audiences.

Women are subjected to much more looks-related advertising, as per Catherine's comment (http://womeninads.weebly.com/statistics.html), but so many of the "male" ads play on status insecurity and group acceptance, I honestly can't decide how to weigh them against one another except to say that it's all a bunch of nefarious horseshut...

[randymarsh]

One of Betty Friedan's main arguments in The Feminine Mystyque was about how women's consumerism leads to inequality.

Wasn't it women's rise in equality (working & earning their own money) that allowed them to be such profitable consumers in the first place? Bit ironic if that's the case.