Letters to the Editor
firefly82
Published Letters: 286 Editor's Choice: 30
-
introverts/extroverts
[Read the article: The whole "working mother" thing actually works]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Omni said "My theory goes something like this.....
Introverts will like being stay-at-home parents, (or stay-at-home anythings.)
Extroverts will suffer from it."
Eek! No! Omni, I think you're working from a well-intentioned, but one-dimensional understanding of introversion/extroversion. I'm an EXTREME introvert, but I love my very communication/interpersonally-oriented career pursuit. It just means that I have to set aside plenty of time to be alone, to think alone, to do a lot of the preparatory work alone. But I would HATE being a full time stay-at-home parent. Being an introvert doesn't mean wanting to avoid the outside world and work with people; it means being naturally drawn to and energized by your own internal life, and needing a certain high level of private life. But that doesn't necessarily mean you'd do well staying home.
Sorry, rant over.
As for the study and Ms. Lloyd's comments....I'm also really really sick of the manufactured "mommy wars." I don't think that most families and mothers do what they do to make a point about happiness or feminism, or out of ideological self-righteousness, but out of what they think will really work best for their family. I too think Caitlyn Flanagan is sanctimonious and unrealistic. But I don't think the antidote to her is to be equally adolescent and contemptuous about pushing some superficially "opposite" position.
The British study surveys what makes women happier on average, but within that, there is *no* average woman who will necessarily and predictably be made happier in every case by working instead of staying with the kids. It's not really a surprise or cause for neener neenering that most *people* are happier with some time in productive pursuits outside their home, contributing to the family's financial well-being, having regular contact with like-minded adults.
And I'd be very curious to see how/whether they looked at what percentage of each group was doing what they truly wanted, as well as the occupation/income bracket of the working moms. Working in a field you've conscientiously chosen and prepared for, which I would guess tend to be higher-paying, would probably make one happier than having to work a low-end job with brutal hours (4:45 AM opening shift at Starbucks, anyone?) just to make ends meet.
In the end, I don't think averages mean much to individuals.
-
@ Rosenkavalier, who said...
[Read the article: The whole "working mother" thing actually works]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"If anything, introverts would be far more likely to hate raising children, because an introvert needs several hours of solitude to recharge and recover from extended periods of human contact."
THANK YOU. I don't dislike children, I think I'll enjoy raising them when I'm prepared and financially able, but they are about the most EXHAUSTING creatures ever invented. It'll only ever work for me with a partner who would unquestioningly share equal child-watching duties.
-
Not the skills of a scientist?
[Read the article: Let's have a presidential debate on science]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]shannonr said "So the skills we need in the top job are actually not the skills of a scientist, but rather the much more old-fashioned skills of leadership, specifically the ability to find, pick and retain the best people to advise, direct, and handle the various portfolios of functioning government."
In my book, leaders absolutely must have the ability to think critically about what's presented to them, ask pointed questions about cause and effect, consider and weigh the evidence they're presented to develop a further plan of action, sort truth from poppycock, and be constantly learning and refining the quality and effectiveness of their knowledge. Not the skills of a scientist?
Even if the vast bulk of that, especially the minutiae and legwork, is delegated, a decent leader absolutely must have at least a survey understanding of what is science and what isn't. Of what qualifies as evidence and what doesn't. A powerful curiosity for ferreting out weaknesses and blind spots. Otherwise they--and therefore we--are mentally at the total mercy of anybody with any agenda who tells them anything.
Yes, we should absolutely have this debate, and only with real/working/peer-reviewed scientists moderating.
-
@ AKA Smith
[Read the article: The whole "working mother" thing actually works]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I surely hope I didn't give the impression that I think the value or worthwhileness of a job can be measured by its pay rate. That would certainly be, well, hypocritical of me, to say the least.
I meant that if this study looked only at certain kinds of employment, at "career women" or "professional" women, then all kinds of factors related to income, work hours, and available or perceived choices come into play that could certainly skew the happiness outcomes, rather than just employment itself being the primary independent variable. But no, I don't think that says anything about the intrinsic societal value of low-paying or less respected jobs or the people who do them. So again, I'd be curious to see whether or not this was studied across income and education brackets, and across women who have a chosen "profession" as well as those who have jobs of necessity or happenstance. Not to say that one condition is superior to another.
(I live in a city that would be literally *paralyzed* within two days without its waste management workers and baristas.)