Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
2,500,000 members. Thank you!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2014, 01:00 PM
 
6,129 posts, read 6,763,339 times
Reputation: 10821

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I thought the article was about how fatherhood is so hard for these academics. My husband, who's had a foot in both worlds, academia and business, said he thought it was no harder for them than for men in the business world.

"Career" is hard for all women. If you want an inflexible job, work in health care, particularly in a hospital. When I first started in nursing, you couldn't take a sick day if your kid was sick, you had to take time off w/o pay. That changed in the 80s, but there was still a lot of pressure for people to come to work, get their spouses to watch the sick kids, etc. Some hospitals set up "sick child care" services, but they wouldn't take kids with contagious diseases, so they weren't real helpful. I coped with this by working part time. Better to be inflexible a couple days a week than five.
The article was about how being an involved parent was hard for academics in the sciences, and how that affected females in general as well as dads who wanted to be more involved.

Then we discussed the specific reasons why the academic science track might be hard for women who want to have children.

The part I'm not understanding from you is... why is saying that also implying other careers don't have their challenges? The article is not saying academics have it the hardest. Why are you taking that away from it?

It's like if I stubbed my toe and said ouch, and you come along and say "Well why are you complaining? Other people stub toes too!". Um Okay, but my toe still hurts. Can I just say ouch in peace? LOL

If you want to find an article about how hard nurses have it, then we'll discuss that one too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2014, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,022,892 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinawina View Post
The article was about how being an involved parent was hard for academics in the sciences, and how that affected females in general as well as dads who wanted to be more involved.

Then we discussed the specific reasons why the academic science track might be hard for women who want to have children.

The part I'm not understanding from you is... why is saying that also implying other careers don't have their challenges? The article is not saying academics have it the hardest. Why are you taking that away from it?

It's like if I stubbed my toe and said ouch, and you come along and say "Well why are you complaining? Other people stub toes too!". Um Okay, but my toe still hurts. Can I just say ouch in peace? LOL

If you want to find an article about how hard nurses have it, then we'll discuss that one too.
The title of the article linked in the OP is (bold, at bottom):

Quote:
Originally Posted by no kudzu View Post
Of course every career, academic or not, is helped by having a partner at home who is willing to take on the lion's share of domestic and child rearing duties.

This is an interesting article which sheds a light on academia as well as gender challenges. The jerk who says "That is what you have a wife for" really ticks me off but many men still feel this way.
Can you imagine a grown educated man being proud he has never washed a sock?


Study: Male scientists want to be involved dads, but few are - The Washington Post
And I AM saying this is not unique to academia. I agree with the OP's comments in bold green. I also think some of these men are exaggerating the cost to their careers. I know plenty of scientists, in and out of academia, including some at the highest levels, who are involved fathers. Maybe it requires organizational skills that some of these guys interviewed don't have. Maybe you do have time to wash a sock and concoct some new invention.

I have no wish to discuss nursing here; I'm always wrong, teaching is the most difficult job there is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 01:34 PM
 
6,129 posts, read 6,763,339 times
Reputation: 10821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The title of the article linked in the OP is (bold, at bottom):



And I AM saying this is not unique to academia. I agree with the OP's comments in bold green. I also think some of these men are exaggerating the cost to their careers. I know plenty of scientists, in and out of academia, including some at the highest levels, who are involved fathers. Maybe it requires organizational skills that some of these guys interviewed don't have. Maybe you do have time to wash a sock and concoct some new invention.

I have no wish to discuss nursing here; I'm always wrong, teaching is the most difficult job there is.

But even the title doesn't say that this is the only career that has it hard, or that it's the hardest.

In fact, the article itself talks about some of these guy's wives having demanding careers of their own.

It just says that some of the males in THIS PARTICULAR job think they don't have as much time for their families as they want. In fact, they only spoke to male professors in high prestige schools, which probably affected the results.

In any case doesn't say accountants don't feel the same way, so why is that a problem?

Anyway, that's a different issue than thinking their lying, and that they are just not organized enough or whatever.

Like I said, I've known plenty of people on the science track from PhD students to postdocs to people trying to make tenure that have spouses/families complain about not seeing them enough, so we have had 2 different experiences with this issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,022,892 times
Reputation: 35920
We sure do! DH was at Illinois when John Bardeen won his Nobel Prize. He said Bardeen used to just do his work and go home. If he could do it, so can these other guys. And organization DOES have something to do with it! DH had a coworker in business who was literally always at work. DH felt guilty that he was not working as much, until he found out the boss considered that guy disorganized. Finally, no, I don't believe these guys who are "involved fathers" (whatever that means) are sacrificing their careers, getting crap from their bosses for not being willing to work 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and the like. (That supposedly is the mantra at Google-you get to choose which 16 hours of the day you work, and which half-day a week you take off.) Sure, if they want to work 1/2 day and then go home and "be involved", the boss probably wouldn't go along with that. There is no evidence that these men are working significantly more than 40 hours a week, either.

John Bardeen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Bardeen was a man with a very unassuming personality. While he served as a professor for almost 40 years at the University of Illinois, he was best remembered by neighbors for hosting cookouts where he would cook for his friends, many of whom were unaware of his accomplishments at the university. He would always ask his guests if they liked the hamburger bun toasted (since he liked his that way). He enjoyed playing golf and going on picnics with his family.[13]"

And lest you say "that was a long time ago", just let me say the same seems to be true of some Nobel Prize winners today. Here's one from my neck of the woods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Allin_Cornell
"Married with Children"

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-19-2014 at 02:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 01:57 PM
 
6,129 posts, read 6,763,339 times
Reputation: 10821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
We sure do! DH was at Illinois when John Bardeen won his Nobel Prize. He said Bardeen used to just do his work and go home. If he could do it, so can these other guys. And organization DOES have something to do with it! DH had a coworker in business who was literally always at work. DH felt guilty that he was not working as much, until he found out the boss considered that guy disorganized. Finally, no, I don't believe these guys who are "involved fathers" (whatever that means) are sacrificing their careers, getting crap from their bosses for not being willing to work 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and the like. (That supposedly is the mantra at Google-you get to choose which 16 hours of the day you work, and which half-day a week you take off.) Sure, if they want to work 1/2 day and then go home and "be involved", the boss probably wouldn't go along with that. There is no evidence that these men are working significantly more than 40 hours a week, either.

John Bardeen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Bardeen was a man with a very unassuming personality. While he served as a professor for almost 40 years at the University of Illinois, he was best remembered by neighbors for hosting cookouts where he would cook for his friends, many of whom were unaware of his accomplishments at the university. He would always ask his guests if they liked the hamburger bun toasted (since he liked his that way). He enjoyed playing golf and going on picnics with his family.[13]"
Why do you keep bringing up physicists though? Weren't we talking about the 24 hour lab guys? Wasn't it that this was more of a bio/chem/etc type phenomenon? Not so much engineering and the like? It's like we keep talking past each other somehow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,022,892 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinawina View Post
Why do you keep bringing up physicists though? Weren't we talking about the 24 hour lab guys? Wasn't it that this was more of a bio/chem/etc type phenomenon? Not so much engineering and the like? It's like we keep talking past each other somehow.
Physicists is what I know. The article quoted a physics professor who said kids would have interfered with his career. Sounds like an excuse not to have kids more than anything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 02:13 PM
 
6,129 posts, read 6,763,339 times
Reputation: 10821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Physicists is what I know. The article quoted a physics professor who said kids would have interfered with his career. Sounds like an excuse not to have kids more than anything else.
Oh I see! Well maybe that is where our differences come from! Most of the science professors I know are in biology, biochem, neuroscience, chemistry, things like that are are doing cancer research or something along those lines. I worked in mostly Ivies and near Ivies so I'm used to dealing with people in those "publish in the top journal or DIE, land that NIMH/NSF/Whatever grant or PERISH" environment. At one job my task was to counsel the PhDs and Postdocs and man, the stories the ones working for the labs would tell! Whew.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2014, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,022,892 times
Reputation: 35920
^^I'm not sure how to take that comment about cancer research. Believe me, I work in health care, and I think it's up there at the top in importance. The ones around here work in climate science, energy, and basic physics. I'm not quite sure of the point, here, what makes a difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2023, 02:30 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
101,999 posts, read 106,624,171 times
Reputation: 115713
Quote:
Originally Posted by syracusa View Post
Not sure what you mean.
Engineering may be lower prestige than MD and maybe law, but it's still higher prestige than teaching, nursing, etc; and yet you don't see women running away from such occupations just because they are lower in prestige.
Since when are women refusing certain jobs because of low prestige...especially engineering, which is not that low? :-).
I didn't say women are refusing engineering because of low prestige. What I've observed is, that some parents deliberately neglect to steer their math-talented girls toward engineering, because the parents have strange (too common in the US) attitudes about engineers and engineering. And maybe the parents are more comfortable (old-fashioned?) with girls choosing more traditional careers. There's no accounting for parental biases; there are some irrational parents out there who hold their kids back for all sorts of reasons, or no reason at all, seemingly. It's actually kind of disturbing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top