Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Dev.SN ♥ developers

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday February 20 2014, @11:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the totally-getting-snipped-for-my-birthday-this-year dept.

robingHood writes:

"New Scientist Magazine reports on findings that suggest that delaying fatherhood may increase the risk of fathering children with disorders such as Apert syndrome, Autism and Schizophrenia. The article reports that 'although there is a big increase in risk for many disorders, it's a big increase in a very small risk. A 40-year-old is about 50 per cent more likely to father an autistic child than a 20-year-old is, for instance, but the overall risk is only about 1 per cent to start with.' In other words: time to start mating before those tadpoles turn into toads."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday February 21 2014, @10:44AM

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday February 21 2014, @10:44AM (#4326) Homepage

    Wow, stereotype much?

    Western hiring practices favor giving jobs to women instead of men

    If we're talking about the US, those practices must not be working, because (according to the BLS [bls.gov], there are ~75 million adult American men working, and only ~66 million adult American women working. In addition, a big reason for the disparity is women delaying their careers to raise children - the US system strongly encourages one parent to go back to work as soon as possible after having a child, and because men on average earn more than women that parent is usually the child's father.

    There's also a big difference between gradual population decline seen in some countries in Europe, and extinction. If a country was really worried about that, they could simply loosen up legal immigration and after a few years have a whole bunch of new citizens who are overjoyed to be there.

    --
    Every task is easy if somebody else is doing it.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Friday February 21 2014, @04:40PM

    by mcgrew (701) on Friday February 21 2014, @04:40PM (#4529) Homepage Journal

    The women's movement was a boon to the rich. The labor market almost doubled with women's influx, and supply and demand drove down wages. The shame is, when women were first liberated, men should have been, too. In the early days, it was a woman's choice whether or not to work, but a man was expected to hold a job, and even today if you're a stay at home dad you're looked at in askanse, and it's gotten so that everyone, man or woman, is expected to toil away creating wealth for the rich.

    A child, especially a young child, needs a parent at home. I would have loved to stay home and watch the kids; my kids and I were always close and I enjoyed being "dad" more than any other role I've ever had in life.

    We need to go back to one breadwinner per family, and IMO it doesn't matter whether Mom or Dad stays home and who works. I'm old enough to remember when most women raised kids, and have seen that child care is harming our society. The only people who should need child care are single parents. The Unites Staes needs a labor shortage!!

    Guys, let the old lady work, stay home and raise the kids. You don't need a McMansion and an F-150. I mean, is your self-worth so little that you need money to feel important?

    Alas, the greedsters have killed any chance of you young folks ever having a better life.

    --
    Free Nobots! [mcgrewbooks.com]