Comments on: Childless by Circumstance http://kerryhowley.com/2008/04/09/childless-by-circumstance/ Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:28:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: JimS http://kerryhowley.com/2008/04/09/childless-by-circumstance/comment-page-1/#comment-497 JimS Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:08:31 +0000 http://kerryhowley.com/?p=81#comment-497 "I’m skeptical that most women understand how severely having children will affect their future earnings. Everyone knows about the gender wage gap; how many people know that the gap between mothers and non-mothers is greater?" Every time I read something on this subject I'm always amazed by the implicit sexism (reverse sexism?). The assumption is always that it is the women's earning that will suffer not the man's. Having a wife who is a physician, I am myself an at home Dad, and know many other doctor's husbands who are or were when the children were young. Two have BA's, but the other dozen or so of us all have some form of advanced degrees. Certainly taking several years off has harmed our careers as least as much as our female peers ( and I would argue more). “I’m skeptical that most women understand how severely having children will affect their future earnings. Everyone knows about the gender wage gap; how many people know that the gap between mothers and non-mothers is greater?”
Every time I read something on this subject I’m always amazed by the implicit sexism (reverse sexism?). The assumption is always that it is the women’s earning that will suffer not the man’s. Having a wife who is a physician, I am myself an at home Dad, and know many other doctor’s husbands who are or were when the children were young. Two have BA’s, but the other dozen or so of us all have some form of advanced degrees. Certainly taking several years off has harmed our careers as least as much as our female peers ( and I would argue more).

]]> By: Kevin B. O'Reilly http://kerryhowley.com/2008/04/09/childless-by-circumstance/comment-page-1/#comment-487 Kevin B. O'Reilly Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:55:26 +0000 http://kerryhowley.com/?p=81#comment-487 I don't think the study Will cites proves what you claim it proves. That study is about *when* women have children, not *if* they have them at all. After 30, apparently, the gap levels off or disappears. It makes sense to me that women who choose not to have kids would earn more. The question is which way the causation runs, or if there is any at all. I don’t think the study Will cites proves what you claim it proves. That study is about *when* women have children, not *if* they have them at all. After 30, apparently, the gap levels off or disappears. It makes sense to me that women who choose not to have kids would earn more. The question is which way the causation runs, or if there is any at all.

]]> By: Ali Stocker http://kerryhowley.com/2008/04/09/childless-by-circumstance/comment-page-1/#comment-486 Ali Stocker Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:18:38 +0000 http://kerryhowley.com/?p=81#comment-486 While I do agree with much of Bryan's OTHER work, on this issue I’m firmly on Team Kerry. I think that this mental need to think everyone should want children is probably an evolutionary trait and extremely analogous to the biological basis for the success of religion. Recent research* suggests that religious societies which enforce members to cooperate and comply to social norms cause the group to benefit and, thus, survive. So too, those women that “cooperate and comply” by walking around barefoot in the kitchen plopping out progeny in their wake cause the group (probably Bryans’ group, that is) to benefit and survive. I’m afraid us libertarian, childfree, atheists are just short-lived offshoots in the evolutionary tree. But so what? I’m here on this earth for me, not my descendants. Our (classical) liberalism may be the pinnacle of self-actualization, but not self-procreation. However, I'm still not breeding for Bryan. * See “Where angles no longer fear to tread”, The Economist, 19 May 2008 While I do agree with much of Bryan’s OTHER work, on this issue I’m firmly on Team Kerry. I think that this mental need to think everyone should want children is probably an evolutionary trait and extremely analogous to the biological basis for the success of religion. Recent research* suggests that religious societies which enforce members to cooperate and comply to social norms cause the group to benefit and, thus, survive. So too, those women that “cooperate and comply” by walking around barefoot in the kitchen plopping out progeny in their wake cause the group (probably Bryans’ group, that is) to benefit and survive. I’m afraid us libertarian, childfree, atheists are just short-lived offshoots in the evolutionary tree. But so what? I’m here on this earth for me, not my descendants. Our (classical) liberalism may be the pinnacle of self-actualization, but not self-procreation. However, I’m still not breeding for Bryan.

* See “Where angles no longer fear to tread”, The Economist, 19 May 2008

]]> By: Rimfax http://kerryhowley.com/2008/04/09/childless-by-circumstance/comment-page-1/#comment-485 Rimfax Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:25:42 +0000 http://kerryhowley.com/?p=81#comment-485 Don't Bryan's numbers look better if there is minimal difference in marriage rates between '76 and '04? What is the difference between the percentage of 36-40 year-old women who were married in '04 and '76? Don’t Bryan’s numbers look better if there is minimal difference in marriage rates between ’76 and ’04? What is the difference between the percentage of 36-40 year-old women who were married in ’04 and ’76?

]]>