I have zero idea what you're getting at. It sounds like you're saying it's unfair that women shouldn't be able to decide when and where their bodies can be used as a host for new offspring without men being able to say what is right for them.
No, not really what I mean.
It's not about women not being able to decide, it's more about men not having any say about babies anymore, but all sorts of responsibilities inherited from the time where they had the power. Case in point, the ex-Minister for Justice in France, Rachida Dati, who had a baby with a man who apparently stated he did not want her to keep the baby. She had a legal right to have the baby, since it's her body. Fine by me. However, the Minister got the legal system to confirm the genetic father has to poney up for the education of the baby (which, by the way, is reasonably estimated at 3k€ a month. Just in case you wondered how much the legal system thinks a Minister's baby deserves).
That's where it breaks, in my opinion.
If you have the power to decide when and when you use your body to be a host, you should be alone to assume the consequences, unless the man has some power to say "no", or "yes". Currently, it is not the case, and the unfairness seems to me to have the power on one side and the responsibility on the other.
Note, to me it's not a problem. I'm a happy monogamist with a lady who basically has the last word on everything about her path and mine, and that is fine by me ^^
IMO, this indicates there are not enough qualified candidates available in Silicon Valley. When you start seeing crazy incentives for employees there is a high level of competition for those employees.
I think Apple really should consider creating their own college system to train and grow employees (from pod to grave).
Without population growth occurring in some way our species dies on this rock because resources are limited. Based on current technological abilities about 4 billion is the ideal for creating a long term homeostasis. I'm sure we'll increase efficiently to increase that number but all signs point to the population of the world growing much too faster to ever catch up with the current progress of technology.
But this doesn't solve the problem of "who gets to decide who can have the babies". This sounds horribly like "the ones with the most guns" or "the ones with the highest tech". Anyway, higher tech is bigger guns, right?
Unless I'm very mistaken or have been brainwashed (always a possibility), "white man" has already done sterilization, forced or manipulated, on Indians, American Indians, Africans, and even, in the case of Switzerland, on ethnic or social groups which "did not fit in", such as Tzigans or misfits. This is why "Population Control" is fundamentally wrong. Tech will allow us to expand out of the planet if needed. Population Control will mean eugenism, suppression of "misfits", and sooner or later loss of democracy.
Because I think people having children later in life is selfish (and in some cases can have health risks).
Why is it selfish to have children later in life? And at what age does it become "later in life"?
My wife was 38 and I was 43. We have a stable relationship, (fairly) stable jobs, savings, I'd like to think I'm smarter now than I was when I was younger (even if it's just knowing now how little I really know) and I would guess she is as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
If you have the power to decide when and when you use your body to be a host, you should be alone to assume the consequences, unless the man has some power to say "no", or "yes". Currently, it is not the case, and the unfairness seems to me to have the power on one side and the responsibility on the other.
Of course the man has a say in it, he can not put his doo-dad in her hoo-ha, he can use a condom, etc. It takes two to get pregnant (unless she saves his sperm and has her eggs fertilized with them without his knowledge).
But this doesn't solve the problem of "who gets to decide who can have the babies". This sounds horribly like "the ones with the most guns" or "the ones with the highest tech". Anyway, higher tech is bigger guns, right?
Unless I'm very mistaken or have been brainwashed (always a possibility), "white man" has already done sterilization, forced or manipulated, on Indians, American Indians, Africans, and even, in the case of Switzerland, on ethnic or social groups which "did not fit in", such as Tzigans or misfits. This is why "Population Control" is fundamentally wrong. Tech will allow us to expand out of the planet if needed. Population Control will mean eugenism, suppression of "misfits", and sooner or later loss of democracy.
Right now it's the least educated and poor who reproduce the most.
They'll have more eggs to try or they can use third-party reproduction.
Actually, it was more like a tangentially related fact ^^
My main gripe is the fact that having babies later, for men as well as for women, is not a good thing on a population basis.
Anyway, I made my general opinion pretty clear, and I understand very well why some people would disagree. The rest of it is not in my hands nor theirs, but in the hand of our friends Society, Democracy, and History, who I hope will do a good job of finding out what's best for us humans ^^
There’s an interesting point to be made here, using an old phrase.
“Separate, but equal.” Men and women are utterly different, but who’s to say they’re not equal in their differences?
We need to stop treating men and women as the same, not stop treating them as equals. There’s a big, BIG difference in those two words with big consequences.
Of course the man has a say in it, he can not put his doo-dad in her hoo-ha, he can use a condom, etc. It takes two to get pregnant (unless she saves his sperm and has her eggs fertilized with them without his knowledge).
Or she tells him she's on the pill. Or the condom breaks. There are many scenarios where the perfect world doesn't happen, and "not having sex with people you don't want babies with" sounds like "not having sex with people you aren't married with" which is an awfully reactionary thing.
I find interesting how some very catholic-Church, patriarcal ideas seem to come back under "women's rights" clothing. The wolf is never very far from the sheep, I guess.
Talking of situations, my lady and I went drinking a few weeks ago, and she turned out to be ill afterwards even though she did not drink that much ( sun + alcohol, dangerous combination ). She vomited her pill. We were very stressed out about this, because having a baby at this point would seriously dent her career.
The problem is exactly that. We shouldn't live in a world where a woman cannot have a baby at a given point in her life without sacrificing her career. That's what Apple should fight, in my opinion. But maybe I'm just asking too much from my favorite tech company ^^
Anyway people, whatever your opinions on this subject, lots of love, I'm off to bed
APPLE!! WHY HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE AT ALL WHEN U HAVE SO MUCH $$$ ON HAND TO GROW BABIES IN A MEDICAL FACILITY?!!! THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A COMPANY HAS TOO MUCH POWER, THE NATURAL ORDER GETS FUCKED UP BY A BUNCH OF ASSHOLES WHO THINK THEY CAN DO ANYTHING.
WHY NOT PAY WOMEN TO HAVE SEX WITH MEN IN THE COMPANY SO THE MEN DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING SOME AFTER WORK AND SPEND MORE TIME IN THE COMPANY DOING MORE WORK?!!!!! O WAIT?!!! THEY DO THAT ALREADY BUT ITS A SECRET!!!!!! SHHHHH
Because I think people having children later in life is selfish (and in some cases can have health risks). But anyway this benefit was never mentioned in the recent leaked email from Apple's HR chief. So while it might be a benefit offered to employees it sure doesn't seem like something Apple is making a big deal about. Of course it makes for the perfect click bait headline. I'm sure Business Insider jumped on the story the minute they heard about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YvesVilleneuve
I think the idea is dumb if the purpose is to encourage more female employees in the company.
Why not just let their female employees be told that getting pregnant will not hurt their careers while the company invests in daycare and parent support of any kind?
In addition, if you're going to freeze eggs then freeze the husband's sperm too.
This perk is way too geeky and lacks true organic family building. You probably have to consider who are the CEOs of Facebook and Apple to make any sense of this.
I think 'organic' family building is a quaint idea... right up there with 'wired' telephones, telegraphs instead of emails, and men with ties and pocket protectors feeding cards into the mainframe, and then coming home to their college educated stay at home wife, having a couple of manhattans and having sex watching Johnny Carson.
In other words, juussst a bit old-fashioned.
other random thoughts...
0) sperm doesn't degrade like eggs with age... and sperm banks are a constant (or drop your blank shooting man for a new virile model... all are good options for a smart woman ;-)
1) getting pregnant does hurt their careers if you're in a constantly changing workspace. A software engineer missing 6 weeks to 6 months of a project basically puts you 'back on the bench' for Apple's dev cycle (Gruber @DaringFireBalldid some mental math in his last Talk Show, and figured that there are only 3-6 months of 'new development' for each OS release (3 months of beta, and 3 months of prod Support to get to .1 and .2 releases). If you're out during a critical cycle, you may not get back in [and with day care demands, soccer and karate classes, PTA meetings, you may never gett fully back in] to the 'hot dev teams' and spend your days patching crap code someone half your skill set spent all night coding while you were on FMLA.
2) work/life balance. 45-60 work weeks are not great for kids or spouses. Even if you get to work from home, the demands are great to shut the door. (you just save the commute, so the 70 hours away from home is now just 60). Rise to a manager position, where there is less demands to 'be there 7x24' and you can still make the occasional PTA meeting, instead of 'coding like there is no tomorrow'
3) Energy. Apple takes energy, So do rug rats. It may be better to be older and 'retired' from Apple... and live off those exercised stock options... But Old eggs aren't a great option.
4) uterine/ovarian failures happen with age.
Ovarian Cancer sucks [Think Teal, Ovarian Cancer Research needs more money!!!!], but it sucks less if you catch it early and take out all the female plumbing. Odds are women [there are genetic markers, and other conditions, such as HPV and Herpes that raise your risks] with a family history of ovarian cancer may want to harvest some good eggs, and then get rid of the ovaries prophylatically.
Lots of reasons why this is a good thing for any working woman. Get a stock pile, just in case.
Either way, I'd rather be plucking eggs 'for later' and putting on the triple layer condom/diaphragm/pill defense than aborting fetuses because 'now is not the best time' (The best 'choice' is a 'planned pregnancy' and this is about as planned as it can be).
“Separate, but equal.” Men and women are utterly different, but who’s to say they’re not equal in their differences?
That's how it should be treated. Embrace the strengths of each gender. The message that some groups try to put out makes it seem like men have all conspired together to keep women down and that there needs to be a fight to rectify the situation. It's nothing like that, it's about understanding and inclusion and not treating differences as weaknesses.
One example that women take issue with is being regarded as emotional. Everybody knows this is the case:
[VIDEO]
but it's taboo to say it. It's not a way of putting women down, it's a nice thing that women are emotional. It means we can get away with doing all sorts of things:
[VIDEO]
Look how cute this is, the little guy isn't bothered and his sister is crying about him growing up:
What some groups want to do is say that everyone is the same and behaves the same but it's because they've made the conclusion first and are trying to force facts to fit. The reason they do this is flawed. They for example make assumptions that not being as physically strong is a weakness and by definition it is but men don't see it as a negative if women aren't physically strong so it's a non-issue. It's actually an advantage when taking care of children or nursing.
Some women try to put forward the idea that sexuality is a negative as it's only empowerment by submission. Again, this is a totally wrong way of thinking about it.
Pregnancy here is being treated as though it's a weakness holding women back and women are made to feel ashamed at looking after their kids instead of working. They are trying to fight their own bodies:
The chance of a child having Down's Syndrome goes from 1 in 1500 at age 20 to 1 in 100 at age 40 - 15x more likely. The woman is also more at risk of developing long-term problems.
I think women should embrace their sexuality, not make an agenda of outclassing men, employers shouldn't try to artificially equalize numbers (although there's nothing wrong with promoting inclusion) and women shouldn't be ashamed to have children when their bodies are best suited for it (20-35) and everyone should try to be more accepting of differences rather than trying to eliminate or dismiss them as perceived weaknesses.
This is simply deranged thinking. Apple can simply pay ALL their employees $20k extra a year so at least it would be fair... And then STAY OUT OF THE PREGNANCY MANAGEMENT BUSINESS.
Guess what's being built inside the Spaceship Campus?
'separate but equal' in TS's reference is probably a bad turn of a weighted phrase.
I want to say 'gender unique' policies. (the fact female bathrooms don't have urinals isn't a reason to demand 'equal' porcelain, and no tampon dispensers in the men's bathroom isn't making me scream 'I'm not being treated the same!' )
But I'm probably still ignorant of the proper terms to cover Male/Female/Gay/Straight/Transgender/Queer spectrum within an HR policy guide.
Or she tells him she's on the pill. Or the condom breaks. There are many scenarios where the perfect world doesn't happen, and "not having sex with people you don't want babies with" sounds like "not having sex with people you aren't married with" which is an awfully reactionary thing.
I find interesting how some very catholic-Church, patriarcal ideas seem to come back under "women's rights" clothing. The wolf is never very far from the sheep, I guess.
Talking of situations, my lady and I went drinking a few weeks ago, and she turned out to be ill afterwards even though she did not drink that much ( sun + alcohol, dangerous combination ). She vomited her pill. We were very stressed out about this, because having a baby at this point would seriously dent her career.
The problem is exactly that. We shouldn't live in a world where a woman cannot have a baby at a given point in her life without sacrificing her career. That's what Apple should fight.
The man has to realize if he's having sex with a woman, that a baby could result. It's just biology. So one night can suddenly become a lifetime of payments. Perhaps more people should think about that before engaging in the act. You only need to catch one episode of Jerry Springer (or whomever has the equivalent of his show) to wish that more people would think about this beforehand " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I agree, we should be working towards work-life balance and solving the baby-career issue. People need to realize they're going to have to give up some career aspirations by having children, assuming they want to have an active role in raising their children. I'm not sure if we as a society still believe in "quality time" and still spending tons of time at work is sufficient for the child. I'd personally rather spend more time with my children, I believe they'll get more out of spending more time with me (and I feel I do as well).
One example that women take issue with is being regarded as emotional. Everybody knows this is the case:
[videos]
It's not because it's taboo, it's because it's a pejorative that has no basis in science to simply say "women are emotional" with an implication that men are not. People are emotional.
You can be emotional by acting out aggressively rather than crying. There is also a lot of culture built into how the sexes are expected to react.
There are plenty of videos of guys freaking out, too.
It's not because it's taboo, it's because it's a pejorative that has no basis in science to simply say "women are emotional" with an implication that men are not. People are emotional.
You can be emotional by acting out aggressively rather than crying. There is also a lot of culture built into how the sexes are expected to react.
There are plenty of videos of guys freaking out, too.
Yep, just watch a couple football games on Sunday (that's hand-egg for those of you outside the US).
Comments
I have zero idea what you're getting at. It sounds like you're saying it's unfair that women shouldn't be able to decide when and where their bodies can be used as a host for new offspring without men being able to say what is right for them.
No, not really what I mean.
It's not about women not being able to decide, it's more about men not having any say about babies anymore, but all sorts of responsibilities inherited from the time where they had the power. Case in point, the ex-Minister for Justice in France, Rachida Dati, who had a baby with a man who apparently stated he did not want her to keep the baby. She had a legal right to have the baby, since it's her body. Fine by me. However, the Minister got the legal system to confirm the genetic father has to poney up for the education of the baby (which, by the way, is reasonably estimated at 3k€ a month. Just in case you wondered how much the legal system thinks a Minister's baby deserves).
That's where it breaks, in my opinion.
If you have the power to decide when and when you use your body to be a host, you should be alone to assume the consequences, unless the man has some power to say "no", or "yes". Currently, it is not the case, and the unfairness seems to me to have the power on one side and the responsibility on the other.
Note, to me it's not a problem. I'm a happy monogamist with a lady who basically has the last word on everything about her path and mine, and that is fine by me ^^
I think Apple really should consider creating their own college system to train and grow employees (from pod to grave).
They'll have more eggs to try or they can use third-party reproduction.
Sounds like a great idea to me.
Rent-a-Womb™
Baby Pro™
iPreg™
Without population growth occurring in some way our species dies on this rock because resources are limited. Based on current technological abilities about 4 billion is the ideal for creating a long term homeostasis. I'm sure we'll increase efficiently to increase that number but all signs point to the population of the world growing much too faster to ever catch up with the current progress of technology.
But this doesn't solve the problem of "who gets to decide who can have the babies". This sounds horribly like "the ones with the most guns" or "the ones with the highest tech". Anyway, higher tech is bigger guns, right?
Unless I'm very mistaken or have been brainwashed (always a possibility), "white man" has already done sterilization, forced or manipulated, on Indians, American Indians, Africans, and even, in the case of Switzerland, on ethnic or social groups which "did not fit in", such as Tzigans or misfits. This is why "Population Control" is fundamentally wrong. Tech will allow us to expand out of the planet if needed. Population Control will mean eugenism, suppression of "misfits", and sooner or later loss of democracy.
Because I think people having children later in life is selfish (and in some cases can have health risks).
Why is it selfish to have children later in life? And at what age does it become "later in life"?
My wife was 38 and I was 43. We have a stable relationship, (fairly) stable jobs, savings, I'd like to think I'm smarter now than I was when I was younger (even if it's just knowing now how little I really know) and I would guess she is as well.
Of course the man has a say in it, he can not put his doo-dad in her hoo-ha, he can use a condom, etc. It takes two to get pregnant (unless she saves his sperm and has her eggs fertilized with them without his knowledge).
Right now it's the least educated and poor who reproduce the most.
They'll have more eggs to try or they can use third-party reproduction.
Actually, it was more like a tangentially related fact ^^
My main gripe is the fact that having babies later, for men as well as for women, is not a good thing on a population basis.
Anyway, I made my general opinion pretty clear, and I understand very well why some people would disagree. The rest of it is not in my hands nor theirs, but in the hand of our friends Society, Democracy, and History, who I hope will do a good job of finding out what's best for us humans ^^
A slogan from the segregation era...?
Of course the man has a say in it, he can not put his doo-dad in her hoo-ha, he can use a condom, etc. It takes two to get pregnant (unless she saves his sperm and has her eggs fertilized with them without his knowledge).
Or she tells him she's on the pill. Or the condom breaks. There are many scenarios where the perfect world doesn't happen, and "not having sex with people you don't want babies with" sounds like "not having sex with people you aren't married with" which is an awfully reactionary thing.
I find interesting how some very catholic-Church, patriarcal ideas seem to come back under "women's rights" clothing. The wolf is never very far from the sheep, I guess.
Talking of situations, my lady and I went drinking a few weeks ago, and she turned out to be ill afterwards even though she did not drink that much ( sun + alcohol, dangerous combination ). She vomited her pill. We were very stressed out about this, because having a baby at this point would seriously dent her career.
The problem is exactly that. We shouldn't live in a world where a woman cannot have a baby at a given point in her life without sacrificing her career. That's what Apple should fight, in my opinion. But maybe I'm just asking too much from my favorite tech company ^^
Anyway people, whatever your opinions on this subject, lots of love, I'm off to bed
WHY NOT PAY WOMEN TO HAVE SEX WITH MEN IN THE COMPANY SO THE MEN DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GETTING SOME AFTER WORK AND SPEND MORE TIME IN THE COMPANY DOING MORE WORK?!!!!! O WAIT?!!! THEY DO THAT ALREADY BUT ITS A SECRET!!!!!! SHHHHH
Yep. It’s fitting.
Because I think people having children later in life is selfish (and in some cases can have health risks). But anyway this benefit was never mentioned in the recent leaked email from Apple's HR chief. So while it might be a benefit offered to employees it sure doesn't seem like something Apple is making a big deal about. Of course it makes for the perfect click bait headline. I'm sure Business Insider jumped on the story the minute they heard about it.
I think the idea is dumb if the purpose is to encourage more female employees in the company.
Why not just let their female employees be told that getting pregnant will not hurt their careers while the company invests in daycare and parent support of any kind?
In addition, if you're going to freeze eggs then freeze the husband's sperm too.
This perk is way too geeky and lacks true organic family building. You probably have to consider who are the CEOs of Facebook and Apple to make any sense of this.
I think 'organic' family building is a quaint idea... right up there with 'wired' telephones, telegraphs instead of emails, and men with ties and pocket protectors feeding cards into the mainframe, and then coming home to their college educated stay at home wife, having a couple of manhattans and having sex watching Johnny Carson.
In other words, juussst a bit old-fashioned.
other random thoughts...
0) sperm doesn't degrade like eggs with age... and sperm banks are a constant (or drop your blank shooting man for a new virile model... all are good options for a smart woman ;-)
1) getting pregnant does hurt their careers if you're in a constantly changing workspace. A software engineer missing 6 weeks to 6 months of a project basically puts you 'back on the bench' for Apple's dev cycle (Gruber @DaringFireBall did some mental math in his last Talk Show, and figured that there are only 3-6 months of 'new development' for each OS release (3 months of beta, and 3 months of prod Support to get to .1 and .2 releases). If you're out during a critical cycle, you may not get back in [and with day care demands, soccer and karate classes, PTA meetings, you may never gett fully back in] to the 'hot dev teams' and spend your days patching crap code someone half your skill set spent all night coding while you were on FMLA.
2) work/life balance. 45-60 work weeks are not great for kids or spouses. Even if you get to work from home, the demands are great to shut the door. (you just save the commute, so the 70 hours away from home is now just 60). Rise to a manager position, where there is less demands to 'be there 7x24' and you can still make the occasional PTA meeting, instead of 'coding like there is no tomorrow'
3) Energy. Apple takes energy, So do rug rats. It may be better to be older and 'retired' from Apple... and live off those exercised stock options... But Old eggs aren't a great option.
4) uterine/ovarian failures happen with age.
Ovarian Cancer sucks [Think Teal, Ovarian Cancer Research needs more money!!!!], but it sucks less if you catch it early and take out all the female plumbing. Odds are women [there are genetic markers, and other conditions, such as HPV and Herpes that raise your risks] with a family history of ovarian cancer may want to harvest some good eggs, and then get rid of the ovaries prophylatically.
Lots of reasons why this is a good thing for any working woman. Get a stock pile, just in case.
Either way, I'd rather be plucking eggs 'for later' and putting on the triple layer condom/diaphragm/pill defense than aborting fetuses because 'now is not the best time' (The best 'choice' is a 'planned pregnancy' and this is about as planned as it can be).
I do it for free, I mean, I would do it for free. Tricky during meetings though.
That's how it should be treated. Embrace the strengths of each gender. The message that some groups try to put out makes it seem like men have all conspired together to keep women down and that there needs to be a fight to rectify the situation. It's nothing like that, it's about understanding and inclusion and not treating differences as weaknesses.
One example that women take issue with is being regarded as emotional. Everybody knows this is the case:
[VIDEO]
but it's taboo to say it. It's not a way of putting women down, it's a nice thing that women are emotional. It means we can get away with doing all sorts of things:
[VIDEO]
Look how cute this is, the little guy isn't bothered and his sister is crying about him growing up:
[VIDEO]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6334107/Women-cry-more-than-men-and-for-longer-study-finds.html
What some groups want to do is say that everyone is the same and behaves the same but it's because they've made the conclusion first and are trying to force facts to fit. The reason they do this is flawed. They for example make assumptions that not being as physically strong is a weakness and by definition it is but men don't see it as a negative if women aren't physically strong so it's a non-issue. It's actually an advantage when taking care of children or nursing.
Some women try to put forward the idea that sexuality is a negative as it's only empowerment by submission. Again, this is a totally wrong way of thinking about it.
Pregnancy here is being treated as though it's a weakness holding women back and women are made to feel ashamed at looking after their kids instead of working. They are trying to fight their own bodies:
http://www.babycentre.co.uk/a538711/how-age-affects-pregnancy
The chance of a child having Down's Syndrome goes from 1 in 1500 at age 20 to 1 in 100 at age 40 - 15x more likely. The woman is also more at risk of developing long-term problems.
I think women should embrace their sexuality, not make an agenda of outclassing men, employers shouldn't try to artificially equalize numbers (although there's nothing wrong with promoting inclusion) and women shouldn't be ashamed to have children when their bodies are best suited for it (20-35) and everyone should try to be more accepting of differences rather than trying to eliminate or dismiss them as perceived weaknesses.
This is simply deranged thinking. Apple can simply pay ALL their employees $20k extra a year so at least it would be fair... And then STAY OUT OF THE PREGNANCY MANAGEMENT BUSINESS.
Guess what's being built inside the Spaceship Campus?
A slogan from the segregation era...?
The typing pool and the executive dining room?
'separate but equal' in TS's reference is probably a bad turn of a weighted phrase.
I want to say 'gender unique' policies. (the fact female bathrooms don't have urinals isn't a reason to demand 'equal' porcelain, and no tampon dispensers in the men's bathroom isn't making me scream 'I'm not being treated the same!' )
But I'm probably still ignorant of the proper terms to cover Male/Female/Gay/Straight/Transgender/Queer spectrum within an HR policy guide.
Or she tells him she's on the pill. Or the condom breaks. There are many scenarios where the perfect world doesn't happen, and "not having sex with people you don't want babies with" sounds like "not having sex with people you aren't married with" which is an awfully reactionary thing.
I find interesting how some very catholic-Church, patriarcal ideas seem to come back under "women's rights" clothing. The wolf is never very far from the sheep, I guess.
Talking of situations, my lady and I went drinking a few weeks ago, and she turned out to be ill afterwards even though she did not drink that much ( sun + alcohol, dangerous combination ). She vomited her pill. We were very stressed out about this, because having a baby at this point would seriously dent her career.
The problem is exactly that. We shouldn't live in a world where a woman cannot have a baby at a given point in her life without sacrificing her career. That's what Apple should fight.
The man has to realize if he's having sex with a woman, that a baby could result. It's just biology. So one night can suddenly become a lifetime of payments. Perhaps more people should think about that before engaging in the act. You only need to catch one episode of Jerry Springer (or whomever has the equivalent of his show) to wish that more people would think about this beforehand
I agree, we should be working towards work-life balance and solving the baby-career issue. People need to realize they're going to have to give up some career aspirations by having children, assuming they want to have an active role in raising their children. I'm not sure if we as a society still believe in "quality time" and still spending tons of time at work is sufficient for the child. I'd personally rather spend more time with my children, I believe they'll get more out of spending more time with me (and I feel I do as well).
It's not because it's taboo, it's because it's a pejorative that has no basis in science to simply say "women are emotional" with an implication that men are not. People are emotional.
You can be emotional by acting out aggressively rather than crying. There is also a lot of culture built into how the sexes are expected to react.
There are plenty of videos of guys freaking out, too.
It's not because it's taboo, it's because it's a pejorative that has no basis in science to simply say "women are emotional" with an implication that men are not. People are emotional.
You can be emotional by acting out aggressively rather than crying. There is also a lot of culture built into how the sexes are expected to react.
There are plenty of videos of guys freaking out, too.
Yep, just watch a couple football games on Sunday (that's hand-egg for those of you outside the US).