As a scientist, I work 60 to 80 hours a week. This, of course, does not bother me one bit; after all, I love what I do. However, it poses a dilemma for many of my colleagues: they need to take care of their children, but work longer hours than they would like. I, on the other hand, believe that we can continue working long hours without neglecting our children. There are some serious flaws in the logic behind this argument

First, the author fails to realize that most scientists do not work 60 to 80 hours a week. In fact, many scientists, especially at the beginning of their careers, work 20 to 30 hours a week. It is only after they have acquired more funding and experience in their field that their work hours increase. Furthermore, the author fails to realize that working long hours is not necessarily due to laziness or lack of ambition. Many people work long hours because they enjoy what they do and take pride in their work. Most scientists, for example, work long hours because they love discovering new things and solving complex problems. If more scientists were satisfied with working 20 to 30 hours a week, then the author’s problem would be solved

Second, the author takes no account of the differences between men and women. Women generally have greater responsibilities at home than men do. Women generally are primary care givers for their children, and this can mean that they work longer hours than men. However, science is a field that values independence of mind and intelligence, qualities that most parents want for their children. Therefore, giving children the responsibility of caring for themselves and others at a young age can help ensure that children become independent and are able to contribute to society when they grow up. The author also ignores the differences in work schedules between men and women. Women generally work longer hours than men, but this is not because they are less ambitious or less intelligent than men. Rather, it is a matter of choice. Women generally take more time off than men to have their children, and this in turn means that they spend more hours at work. If, however, both parents work, then it can be argued that both parents are neglecting their children. Third, the author’s assumption that good and affordable all-day child care must be made available to both male and female scientists if their careers are to be advanced is fundamentally flawed. Children are generally better off having a parent at home with them than having a babysitter, and studies have shown time and again that children do better in school when they have a stay-at-home parent. The author’s assumption that children need to be with both parents at all times and under all circumstances in order to succeed is flawed, and it implies that children are incapable of taking care of themselves. In fact, children of both genders do extremely well in school, and many of them grow up to be very successful adults

This argument contains several flawed premises. First, most scientists do not work 60 to 80 hours a week. Second, women generally have greater responsibilities at home than men do. Third, the author’s assertion that good and affordable all-day child care must be made available to both male and female scientists if their careers are to be advanced is fundamentally flawed.