What's so dumb about this is that the EXACT SAME AUTHORS of the paper reviewed here ALSO did a paper studying ONLY ADOPTIONS, and find that the negative effects on women are EXACTLY THE SAME.
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1483491180906045440
Here's the paper. They ask "Does biology drive the motherhood penalty?" and they find the answer is "No, not at all." aeaweb.org/articles?id=10…
Adopted children hurt mothers' incomes just as much as gestational children.
What impacts mothers' career trajectory is child*rearing* more than child*bearing*, tho having a baby and putting up for adoption probably impacts as well.
What impacts mothers' career trajectory is child*rearing* more than child*bearing*, tho having a baby and putting up for adoption probably impacts as well.
So, will artificial wombs lead to women's equality?
No. Absolutely not. In fact, if artificial wombs make child*bearing* much easier without making child*rearing* easier, they could actually *worsen* women's equality!
No. Absolutely not. In fact, if artificial wombs make child*bearing* much easier without making child*rearing* easier, they could actually *worsen* women's equality!
Assuming AWs don't alter the underlying determinants of women having more childrearing work, one can easily imagine cheaper reproduction leading to escalating care duties for women.
More broadly, artificial wombs will only increase fertility for very wealthy people or for collective institutions with strong pro-natal interests and inclinations. For normal people, childrearing is the big cost, not childbearing.
So aside from my repugnance at the idea generally, the idea that removing from women a social role which afford them prestige and leverage within a family will increase women's status is just bonkers to me.
What it does is it makes wives more expendable.
What it does is it makes wives more expendable.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
