I think a woman could do science at a professional level and have 5 kids between 21 and, say, 33, but only if she could hand off almost all of the busyness and financial cost of parenting to someone else.
-
-
Replying to @RokoMijic @JackalInHyde
I think if she's a single mum with 4 kids at age 28 and a 5th soon on the way, it's unlikely that she'll be able to do anything other than being a mum. So she'll be on benefits and her mental effort will be going into doctors visits, school arrangements and nappies.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RokoMijic @RokoMijicUK
I'm assuming marriage to another sciency type, which should offer a healthy double income. Hiring a nanny/daycare-service/setting up one of the parents jobs as WFH should be enough to cover busybody stuff, especially if older kids trained to handle younger ones.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JackalInHyde @RokoMijicUK
I think you really underestimate how much of the challenge here is social as opposed to physical. Two hundred years ago, when we were much poorer and most mothers were expected to work we had much larger families. The limits exist only in the environment our gossip creates for us
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JackalInHyde @RokoMijicUK
I don't want to downplay the social aspect as unimportant. There are valid reasons for why people like us don't talk as we do now in the workplace, but fundamentally if there's a physical limit that requires social reorganization as prerequisite. I think you are done on step one.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JackalInHyde @RokoMijicUK
I'll also note here that mere replacement-level child rearing is totally feasible for career women in the current equilibrium. Obviously if you require 5 or 8 children that makes it harder, but you don't need to go that high for an improvement on the current situation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JackalInHyde @RokoMijicUK
Further note: If we want to pass blame around, high-status men obviously deserve much of it for valuing attractive women rather than similarly talented women. For smart women, a high status career is one of the best paths toward intelligent men, but they still fail to obtain them
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JackalInHyde
> high-status men obviously deserve much of it for valuing attractive women Valuing attractive women is just doing the socially useful task of weeding out diseases. Unattractive is basically ~diseased. Most women, if fed a healthy diet, are "attractive" when they are 18-25.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RokoMijic @RokoMijicUK
The infamous OKCupid data showing that women are more critical of looks than men, also shows that men have a more nuanced view of attractiveness than "diseased" and "not diseased" "Men look for beauty, women look for status" is classic evopsych which seems weird to downplay.pic.twitter.com/pbmzdCSWNr
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JackalInHyde
Women are more critical because they're the gatekeepers. But men still filter somewhat.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Not exactly. If you enforce monogamy then men compete for high value women. Then you take the whole pool and filter the children based on the male ability to provide and protect. What survives determines what gets selected for in men and women.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.