I wonder how a person who is regularly away from home from 6 AM until after
10 PM really raises a family? Most kids are sleeping during the "at home"
time of 10 PM-6 AM.

It saddens me to think that people want to silence the discussion of
positive models of work-life balance. Just because people have to work the
long hours described below does not mean it is a good (or productive) way
to live our lives.

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Robert Hamilton <roberthamil...@alc.edu>wrote:

> I must say that I find this conversation somewhat embarrassing, and hope
> it never gets out into the public domain. I have and have always had
> friends and neighbours who work 2 or 3 jobs to keep things going.
> Literally going to work at 6AM and not coming home till after 10PM
> working jobs at places like Walmart and McDonalds. Lots of people work
> 8+ hours per say 50 weeks a year, like say my Dad, and had no problem
> raising a family and contributing to the community. This whole thing is
> a study in extreme narcissism. How's that for a wet blanket!
>
> Robert Hamilton, PhD
> Professor of Biology
> Alice Lloyd College
> Pippa Passes, KY 41844
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jahi Chappell
> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 10:07 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal
> and professional life
>
> While putting resources into science, including ecology, is of course a
> wonderful, necessary, and valuable thing, assuredly supporting our own
> families with our presence, time, and energy (and societal resources) is
> at least as wonderful, necessary, and valuable. Indeed, as many benefits
> as flow from science and science funding, we know that having strong
> families and communities makes everyone better off, ceteris parabus, and
> having strong families and communities requires time and resource
> investment from everyone.
>
> Even granting the proposition that we in the US produce the "best and
> most successful scientists in the world", all accounts indicate that we
> certainly don't produce the highest average of "happy and most secure
> and successful families in the world." We have a *lot* of those, but
> alas, our median is likely much lower than our mean, and both are likely
> behind countries like those Andres analyzed. So much of what so many are
> lacking are basic needs, connections, support networks, and resources,
> something depending as much or more on good and participatory governance
> than new scientific discovery--we need more time for more participation
> outside our work and research, not less.
>
> On 4/27/12 10:22 AM, "David L. McNeely" <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> This is not meant as a wet blanket, as I encourage family friendly
> employment practices for all countries and for all occupations.  But, I
> wonder how those figures would look if all areas of science were
> considered?  It may be that smaller economies, and the Scandinavian
> countries in particular, put a greater fraction of their available
> resources for scientific research into ecology than do larger economies
> and non-Scandinavian countries.  Is U.S. science more diversified than
> Finnish or Icelandic science?
>
>
> David McNeely
>
> ---- Andres Lopez-Sepulcre <lopezsepul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since we're at it, it did the same calculation for all four countries
> ranked first in gender equality by the Global Gender Gap Report. All
> four, as far as I remember, provide generous paternity leaves that
> guarantee job security and can be shared between mother and father.
> ISI indexed publications in Ecology per capita (countries ranked in
> order of 'gender equality index')
> Iceland: 1167
> Norway: 1794
> Finland: 1500
> Sweden: 1361
> Not only do these countries do significantly better in ecology 'per
> capita' than the less family-oriented scientific powerhouses (e.g.
> USA: 650, UK: 660), but it almost seems that if anything, their ranking
> in the gender equality index is correlated with their productivity, not
> an 'impediment' ... safe for Iceland, but do remember that Iceland
> suffered the largest financial collapse in world history in these last 5
> years.
> Even when this small sample and oversimplified analysis is not proof of
> anything, I hope it can change peoples' perceptions that countries that
> have increased social welfare, gender equality and more protective
> labour laws are less productive.
> Andres Lopez-Sepulcre
> Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625
> Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris
> alo...@biologie.ens.fr
> http://web.me.com/asepulcre
> On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Cecilia Hennessy wrote:
> PERFECT response, thank you so much!  If we Americans could stop patting
> ourselves on the back long enough to realize that other countries have
> successful ways of doing things too, maybe we could learn from
> international example and progress more efficiently.
> cheers!
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre
> <lopezsepul...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> "...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the
> best and most successful scientists in the world..."
>
> I would simply like to add a quick clarification. I struggled with how
> to respond to this US-centric statement. There is no doubt that the USA
> is a scientific powerhouse and I have wonderful things to say about my
> experience as a scientist there, which has brought me wonderful
> collaborations I hope last long. However I am not sure it is fair to
> compare a country of over 300 million inhabitants with another of 5
> (Finland). In fact, I took the liberty do do a quick search in Web of
> Science for articles in the area of 'Environmental Sciences and Ecology'
> for both countries in the last 5 years. USA showed 204,414 in front of
> 8,119 Finnish articles indexed in ISI. If one thinks 'per capita', the
> USA has produced 650 indexed articles in ecology per million
> inhabitants, while Finland has produced 1,500. With this I do not mean
> to say that Finland is better or worse... but just to show that, when
> the comparison is done 'fairly', maternity leaves do not seem to be
> hampering Finnish ecology. Productivity can be achieved without equality
> and social welfare suffering.
>
>
>
>
>
> Andres Lopez-Sepulcre
> Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625
> Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris
> alo...@biologie.ens.fr
>
> http://web.me.com/asepulcre
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Amanda Quillen wrote:
>
> "...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the
> best and most successful scientists in the world..."
>
>
>
> --
> Cecilia A. Hennessy
> PhD Candidate
> Purdue University
> 715 W. State St
> Pfendler Hall, G004
> West Lafayette, IN 47907-2061
> lab: 765-496-6868
> cell: 574-808-9696
>
> --
> David McNeely
>
> --
> M. Jahi Chappell, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Justice School of the
> Environment Faculty Affiliate, Center for Social and Environmental
> Justice Faculty Affiliate, Program in Public Affairs Washington State
> University Vancouver Vancouver, WA 98686
>
> Tel: (360) 546-9413
> Fax: (360) 546-9064
> Faculty Page: http://directory.vancouver.wsu.edu/people/michael-chappell
> Chappell Lab: http://agroecopeople.wordpress.com/
> Email: m.jahi.chapp...@vancouver.wsu.edu
>

Reply via email to