The wife & I, figured out early on that we didn't want to wait to have "the talk" once and uncomfortably and then walk on, so we have both made an effort to talk to the kids about sex and drugs from a very young age (keeping it age appropriate and so on). Which has worked out rather well. The trickier question has been deciding what to share of our own histories. Very little in the event, actually, the kids really don't want to know it turns out.

But yeah, driving home stoned is bad enough, but toking up in front of your kid, who isn't toking, by the way (tho I'm not sure if that is better or worse, really), well that is just plain bad parenting. I may drink, do drugs, and engage in unorthodox sexual practices, but I don't do any of them in front of the kids. That is my life, not theirs, and they just don't need to share in it. Any of it.

And I have always deeply regretted any deepish conversation I have had with my children when I was under any kind of influence. Not a good idea, just say good night and sort it out in the morning. If you have to get wrecked to talk to your kid about sex drugs 'n rock&roll, you have a problem.

And, uh, don't drive.

As the linked (rather good) article points out, the idea has been around since the 50s at least. Proving it has been a little tricky however. Kristen Hawkes' study of the Hadza points towards it, in contradiction to the previous study of the Ache, which apparently showed little to no benefit to having grandma around. Hawke's study showed older ladies helping a variety of other women, not just their daughters; where the Ache study was only on the benefit to direct descendants. It depends on how hard a darwinist you are, and are willing to accept a degree of group evolution.

My problem is that, as the article points out, the groups being studied are modern, not ancient. Furthermore, like most extant "primitive" peoples, they live in very marginal environments, perhaps rather different from the environment hominids evolved in.

And finally, the studies are only taking into account the physical provision of food, not the provision of psychological support, and the retention of wisdom and experience that a grandmother represents.

Given the clockwork onset of menopause, and what seem like the obvious benefits, and since I'm willing to buy a bit of group evolution, I've never had any trouble with the theory, it seems compellingly obvious.

The one bit of research that might go towards proving it would be population studies: how many prehistoric women did survive into menopause? I suspect that it is precisely studies of modern "primitive" peoples living in very marginal environments that has led to the assumption that very few prehistoric women lived past 30 or 40.

I think it's kinda sweet actually.

In my own case, well I did it, but then the soon-to-be Mrs. Canuckistan also asked my mom's blessing on the thing. It tickled my mom pink, even though I've always suspected that she really didn't 100% approve. Hell, its been 20 years and I'm still not sure she 100% approves.

I've been thinking about this one for a while, working as I do in a female dominated sector of the economy, and I suspect that this may be a little less revelatory than it appears at first glance.

There may be less direct causation here than it appears: the kinds of companies that are more willing to promote women into management are also more likely to value and pay women better generally. Perhaps we are seeing the generalized effects of a more enlightened corporate culture, rather than the sisterhood helping each other up. Just saying.

Because in my experience with competent female managers (which is no little amount), they tend to have about as much (ie very little) gender/class/whatever subgroup loyalty as competent male managers, or frankly, often less, being, sadly but truly enough, often rather more competent than their male colleagues in the same positions.

The original article was a plea to not make the best the enemy of the good. It is a debatable point, and one that needs to be debated, but one which this article barely touched on.

But the underlying issue is the basic problem of making a list. Once you make one, everybody wants to be on it (or I suppose wants not to be on it, depending on who is making the list and for what purpose). Basic human rights are relatively simple and understandable, but making such group lists involves buying into various constructs of identity, and not others, and I do think that that should be viewed with some suspicion.

In Human Rights matters, not being on the list, means that it is almost ok for society to persecute you. Such lists are dangerous, dangerous things.

But still, the original plea stands, I think, and has not been well addressed by this article and both sets of comments:

Should this legislation be blocked, because it does not go far enough? Well, it is easy to understand that those being left behind might take a jaundiced view of the question. It is also easy to see how people too whom the legislation offers the promise of relief are interested in getting some progress, however imperfect.

My take, is that making lists of cultural constructs is probably not the best basis for just legislation.