My hubby and I were just discussing this morning how completely ‘pathetic’ a newborn human is. They need us for absolutely everything, so what are we to do? I’ll be spending my time struggling for the answer and admiring your work until then

I am a man. I put off having children until I got tenure. I published no papers the year after my first child was born. My wife quit her job a few months after our first was born. Regardless of whether you are a man or woman, if having a child does not impact your “career”, you are probably not doing your job as a parent. If you have kids, then raise them.

I will be accused of being old-fashioned and I am. Kids need their mothers for at least the first three years. The kids need to be breastfed with blatant disregard for present societal norms regarding the subject. Fathers must be extremely supportive of mothers during this early time, proving good parenting and respite care. Nature made things the way they are. Tough cookies. Give evolution some credit. Beware the doublespeak that arises when we say that raising kids is the most important job in the world, as we ship the kids off to be raised by someone else, not extended family. Kids are not stupid. Look carefully at the illusion of what society thinks is “supposed” to be for a “professional” and what is of deep-seated, long-lasting real value. This goes not only for thinking about a family, but with respect to everything. Examined closely enough, one finds that much of what we think is high and mighty is just a house of cards.

She was talking about the mysteries of consciousness, and giving the Royal Institution a bit of a plug. A really polished and interesting speaker. If you’re looking for a role model there is none better.

You should check out Mary Ann Glendon, I think she is a much better role model for you to follow.

Also don’t feel that your hurting your career by taking time out to start a family. It may actually make you better scientist because it’s going give you a new life’s perspective. For instance it’s amazing how fast Neo-Darwinism gets shelved when you have to teach your own kids right and wrong. It’s only then you realize a little fear of God is a healthy thing.

(An aside, check out http://www.ejectionsite.com/stapp.htm )

Another thing I want to point out is that
it’s not the quantity of work that determines whether your successful or not. It’s the quality, methodology,atitude and philosphy which you approach your work which determines whether people will place increasingly more trust in you. If people feel you are trust worthy and rational then obviously your going to get the nod when it’s comes to important positons. But if they don’t have that warm and fuzzy feeling then obviusly you will hit the glass ceiling pretty quickly.

Stay Cool,

Kevin

Many women don’t have the choice, and certainly only a small percentage by definition have to consider letting success slip to raise a family.

Many people work 16 hours just for the opportunity to get a raise, let alone achieve the sort of renown that an Oxford professor would attain.

There is nothing inhibiting a female Oxford professor from raising children - including adopting - except their own ambitions.

The reason of the choice of the ways, family or career, is mostly(not sure but need a fair survey) because of easiness. Even though the tasks on that way(family) are not easy yet.

Some prefers to fight, negotiate or give up. Each is still the way. Is your choice is wise? Yes or no! You want to keep your child respond and grow under your care, and to develop his or her(or their) intellects. Somehow, you can still realize the all responsibilities or supervisions as a scientist.

But we never forget that your choice is not the way or wrong or right. Because this is not a disadvantage for the gender. From both your side and mine, each ‘gender’ has its own ‘advantage’, “disadvantage” or “unfairness”. Although the ways intersect with lives, the comparison or choice between family and science(or say career) is not wise, but sentimental.