> As much as I admire the dreams and accomplishments of Elon Musk, I have trouble getting past the idea that he failed to maintain his marriage (the biggest promise of them all) and rarely sees his own children.
Look at the personal histories of accomplished men and women throughout history, and you will see many examples of lives in which personal relationships and children were a low or nonexistent priority -- these are often lives dedicated to doing something important instead.
To put this in the simplest possible way, can you tell me the names of Einstein's children? I can -- they're Special Relativity, General Relativity, and the photoelectric effect. They look great together in family photographs. Einstein actually had biological children, but they just weren't very important to his life or his work.
How about the children of two-time (1903 and 1911) Nobel Prizewinner Marie Curie? She had children, but they just weren't very important, either to her personally or to her place in history -- consider that, in her lengthy Wikipedia article, her children are only mentioned in passing (she had two):
> Maybe the answer to OP's question is, "Because many who could dream and do like Elon Musk would rather focus on the "little things" like life, love, and family.
Yes, and, given what extraordinary people can accomplish when they are more focused, that's often a tragedy. Consider how often one hears stories of people who inadvertently get involved in child-raising who have no aptitude for it, and who do a terrible job.
My point? Relationships and family are a choice in life, not a requirement. People -- men and women -- should feel free to focus on career instead if they wish. The idea that relationships and family are primary requirements is a persistent myth that disproportionately hurts women in their careers, but men as well.
Giving birth to a child is nice, but there's no shortage of people doing that. Giving birth to an idea is extraordinary, and far too few people make that life choice.
Look at the personal histories of accomplished men and women throughout history, and you will see many examples of lives in which personal relationships and children were a low or nonexistent priority -- these are often lives dedicated to doing something important instead.
To put this in the simplest possible way, can you tell me the names of Einstein's children? I can -- they're Special Relativity, General Relativity, and the photoelectric effect. They look great together in family photographs. Einstein actually had biological children, but they just weren't very important to his life or his work.
How about the children of two-time (1903 and 1911) Nobel Prizewinner Marie Curie? She had children, but they just weren't very important, either to her personally or to her place in history -- consider that, in her lengthy Wikipedia article, her children are only mentioned in passing (she had two):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie
> Maybe the answer to OP's question is, "Because many who could dream and do like Elon Musk would rather focus on the "little things" like life, love, and family.
Yes, and, given what extraordinary people can accomplish when they are more focused, that's often a tragedy. Consider how often one hears stories of people who inadvertently get involved in child-raising who have no aptitude for it, and who do a terrible job.
My point? Relationships and family are a choice in life, not a requirement. People -- men and women -- should feel free to focus on career instead if they wish. The idea that relationships and family are primary requirements is a persistent myth that disproportionately hurts women in their careers, but men as well.
Giving birth to a child is nice, but there's no shortage of people doing that. Giving birth to an idea is extraordinary, and far too few people make that life choice.