I find it interesting that a woman refers to other women as "incapacitated" due to pregnancy. And Bill's comments that pregnancy costs money also shows an interesting capitalistic perspective on pregnancy.
I think we have our priorities confused when speaking that way. Having kids is part and parcel to being human - a woman indeed is becoming "capacitated" when taking on the responsibility of child raising. When research profits are more important than child rearing, I think priorities are confused. I would say that we need better "workers" rights just so that pregnancy is not considered negative, and that fathers taking leave for child rearing also not be considered negative. If research comes to a halt, that just means that the person who took time to give birth or raise a child was very much worth the money that they were paid - after all, if they were superfluous, research would go on just the same. Also, if reseach comes to a halt, it means that many people did not plan well. I think that if we did a survey, we would find that most researchers put in far and away more hours than the legal 40 per week. Do we get paid extra for it? We should think of those hours as saved up emergency hours, and when we need time off, we should be able to take it when the reason is good - and what better reason than to raise a kid? Sure, maybe we have enough people on the planet as is, but I would rather see scientists raising few kids, than uneducated and pverty striken people raising a half dozen of them. Cheers, Jim Kristina Pendergrass said the following on 2/11/2006 12:21: > As someone with an MS, who hopes to still get her doctorate, I find there > is either a real or perceived stigma against women with regard to > beginning a family. Since a woman has to spend some number of months > incapacitated due to the late stages of pregnancy and the early stages of > childcare, it seems her only choice is to pursue a doctorate first (and > have kids possibly late in life) or to begin a family before beginning a > doctorate. > > Because my husband is 7 years older than I am, and because I finished my > MS when I was 26, I am opting to start a family now, when the risk of > Down's syndrome and other age-related complications is reduced. > > What I would like to ask the group is whether, in your experience, older > women (e.g. age 40) are less likely to be accepted into PhD programs than > students having just finished their BS or MS? I would dearly like to > pursue a PhD (ecology is my passion!!), but I worry that my age at the > time will prove a hindrance. > > Please feel free to email me at my email address (vs. replies to the > group); I can compile results for anyone interested. > > Thank you. Sincerely, > > Kristina Pendergrass > Research Associate, > Scott-Ritchey Research Center > College of Veterinary Medicine > Auburn University, AL 36849 > 334.844.5574 > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David Inouye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >> Subject: Career advice for scientists: the X-gals alliance >> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:36:07 -0500 >> >> >> I'm hoping that women in ecology aren't facing all the >> gender-specific barriers mentioned here: >> >> http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/10/2006100201c/careers.html >> > > > > -- ------------------------------------- James J. Roper, Ph.D. Universidade Federal do Paraná Depto. de Zoologia Caixa Postal 19020 81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil ===================================== E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone/Fone/Teléfono: 55 41 33611764 celular: 55 41 99870543 ===================================== Zoologia na UFPR http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/zoologia/ Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ ------------------------------------- http://jjroper.sites.uol.com.br Currículo Lattes http://lattes.cnpq.br/2553295738925812
