I don't get this... Male engineers have kids and date too. Female employees, engineer or not, get pregnant. "As a female engineer" I would prefer if people -- including fellow women -- stopped treating us like we are some kind of exotic species.
I mean, they're important questions, but the stereotype seems rather blatant here.
[As others have pointed out, it's the 4th article in a series so they are not "starting out" with stereotypical questions]
Even before I read this, I expected the comment section to be full of comments being like "why can't it be ask an engineer" or "why are they asking questions about kids, men have kids too". I've noticed a pattern where if there's any social issue on hacker news that is politically polarized (i.e. women's issues in tech, BLM, diversity in hiring, etc.) you can expect a a huge wave of comments that criticize the article from authors who don't actually read it.
The funny thing is that when you get into social issues that are not that polarizing (i.e. living wages, ethical issues of AI, privacy) the community tends to have a much more intelligent, civil discussion.
well I mean when I search people for a job I mostly look at their performance and if they actually can't meet my requirements I need to say no. Well now guess what happens if I have 20 canidates and I now pick the canidate with the highest performance, the chance is pretty high that I also indirectly support the split, it's just because a minority will sometimes stay a minority which doesn't actually happen because you treat them differently, but because they either don't have the chance to get better or because some jobs are just not attractive for them. So the only way to solve the problem is just to stop treating people differently. Discussion is good, but overly discuss it is not, yeah there was a problem in the past, but I think it actually got better, while the last years somehow made it worse by unnecessary discussions or by people who actually seeked attention and actually put even more salt into the wounds. And the internet made it worse since it makes it hard to differentiate between attention seekers and truly suppressed people.
This is exactly the type of discussion I'd like to have more of on Hacker News, I'm just making a broader call for us to do better as a community (and try to read the article if you are going to comment).
You're basically talking about reparations to a gender.
Why?
There are undeniable differences between women and men, and pretending that they don't exists, as you suggest, doesn't make them go away. It merely means that one of the groups will not have their specific requirements considered.
To be fair - if these questions were asked to a male engineer, I would criticize the article too.
The funny thing is that these questions are not asked to male engineers.
I do agree that every question in this article is just as relevant to men.
Rather, why are they asking questions about kids. This is "ask female engineers" not "Ask Mommy Engineers."
Previous posts:
http://themacro.com/articles/2016/09/introducing-ask-a-femal...
http://themacro.com/articles/2016/09/ask-a-female-engineer-2...
http://themacro.com/articles/2016/10/ask-a-female-engineer-3...
Except they didn't "start out" with this post. I believe this is the 4th of the series.
The industry is crawling. We'd like it to be running, but we need to be patient and allow it to walk first. You cannot build mutual understanding without patience.
I support extending maternity/paternity leave for everyone. But if I take 3 months off work every year for 4 years in a row I shouldn't expect to get the same raises and promotions as everyone else. If at N years of tenure I get more vacation days? Time spent on paternity leave shouldn't count towards that. It's the same as if I chose to take 3 months off to section hike the Appalachian Trail.
Only it isn't. If you don't hike, nothing happens. If you (or someone) doesn't take care of your sick child, including doctor's visits if needed and so on, that is a criminal act. You are responsible for your child.
We need folks to take care of their children. Both men and women. I'm more than willing to give parents extra time off work to do so. I support both maternity and paternity leave and I wish both would take it. I'm saying this as a childless woman.
And I think since our children are important, both for families and society in the present and future - I don't think folks should be punished for doing so. This includes holding future promotions and days off against them for doing the very things society thinks they should be doing - namely, parenting.
> This includes holding future promotions and days off against them for doing the very things society thinks they should be doing - namely, parenting.
You ignore the parent poster. His point seems to be the idea that a person can take upto 3 months off of work shouldn't be equivalent to someone who didn't take that 3 month block off regardless of the reason, child rearing or hiking the Appalachian Trail.
If I took that much time off and a coworker didn't, especially year after year, I wouldn't expect them to get more raises, more seniority.
This idea me at home taking care of my kid is the same as people at work is silly. Promotions shouldn't be given just because someone has worked at a place for an amount of time. The exception being cost of living increases. Seniority on the team, responsibility and the increases in compensation that come with that should be according to ability, time dedicated and skills, etc.
On the flip side, if my time is spent engaged with my child then it can't be on increasing my career if I'm at home full-time parenting. This isn't about working parents but, during maternity/bonding leave. It's either one or the other.
"It's either one or the other"
The problem is that once a woman gets pregnant, you have different physical needs. Lots of women need healing time afterwards, and sometimes needs time off pre-birth. Especially if you have a cesarean. In a sense, this is just like punishing someone for having their appendix taken out or having a heart attack and needing time off.
Folks are generally willing to look over that sort of thing and give promotions based on the time they spend at work. Even if they wind up seriously sick or need surgery 2-3 times over 5/6 years - which more closely imitates the time folks take off with children. Actually, it is a bit better as a company can plan for the time off with children much better than a sickness or surgery.
Do some women take a very short break to give birth? Yes.
And that is just part of the health aspect. Nevermind that the maternity leave helps with knowing how the non-verbal little human operates and I've read somewhere that it helps descrease post-partum depression - or that it can be difficult (and more expensive) to find childcare for infants.
I recognize I'm in the minority for some of those. I'm not suggesting people who want their employers involved in their reproductive choices are "wrong," because I honestly don't feel like there's a right or wrong here. It's just that it's foreign to me to view my employer in that way.
You are, but it's a responsibility you chose.
If I choose to go camping instead, should my company pay for the permit because not having one would be a criminal act?
> And I think since our children are important, both for families and society in the present and future - I don't think folks should be punished for doing so.
So let's raise everyone's taxes to reimburse private companies for the cost. But let's not punish companies for hiring parents.
I don't think the employer should have to pay the camping fees any more than I think they are responsible for directly paying for school-related costs for children: However, I do think paid vacations should be a standard thing for everyone, to the point you can take a month off to do that hiking. Even if you work at some fast food place. So in a round-about way, yes. You should bet paid for that through some manner.
I'm also very much supportive of comprehensive sick time so that you can take 2 months off after surgery and not have that held against you.
> So let's raise everyone's taxes to reimburse private companies for the cost. But let's not punish companies for hiring parents
First, I fully agree with having higher taxes for this purpose. I don't view taxes as a punishment, in general, though I have the understanding that applied correctly, they can be a deterrent or encouragement. This, to me, is on par with everyone being taxed to provide education to children. I don't mind because education is important and society improves because of it... even if I don't have children.
Heck, I'm willfully living in a country that does exactly this. There are a few downsides. Some folks do abuse it (true with any sick leave policy, really), and stuff costs a bit more. On the other hand, they credit these sorts of policies to better equality and things like that.
What difference does this make? It means deciding to have a child is a much bigger decision than deciding to go camping, but doesn't suddenly push the burden of that decision onto anyone else. Taking care of a sick child should be the kind of risk you accept when deciding to have a child - your responsibility.
Now, you may be right and in the minority that this preference is wrong, and we should allow leaves of all kinds. But you will have to convince people to vote for legislators who will mandate those sort of policies.
[1] Evidence that society wants people to raise kids: child tax credits, FMLA policies, demand from the leading presidential candidate for increased parental leave etc
A child is not the same thing as hiking the Appalachian Trail and should not be treated that way in policy.
I'm all for laws giving parents leeway to have extra time off to take care of kids, job protections for maternity/paternity leave, even the government chipping in for the extra days. Of course, I think everyone should be entitled to sick days - jsut parents have more.
You know, because they have more responsibility than I do - which actually makes parents more productive overall than someone like me it. It just doesn't all show at work.
Another option is immigration which has its own pro cons.
There are arguments that our society should support parents, but they're moral arguments, not practical ones. Society doesn't need to encourage people to breed. It's ingrained in our nature and enough will do it anyways that we'll be fine.
> You also pretend that culture and cultural attitudes are not important and potentially conducive to the success that a region has.
I'm not pretending that...I'm acknowledging that more diverse areas consistently outperform areas with monocultures. Adding people with new perspectives almost always improves a situation. Why do you think there's such an emphasis on getting more women and minorities into tech? Hint: it's not just bad PR. Those new perspectives will make the workplace environments and the products and services they produce better.
Lots of people have kids. If a company is receptive of family issues, then those people will be happy and stay at the company.
If it is not then they will lose those valuable and expensive to replace employees.
For me personally, it give me the creeps when my employer encourages or discourages behavior in my personal life. It's why even though I've never even smoked pot a single time in my life I'm opposed to workplace drug tests unless you operate heavy machinery or something. I'm as upset as anybody that Hobby Lobby gets to exert some ethical control over its employees personal health choices by not offering insurance that covers abortions or birth control. If it's not your employer's business when you choose to not have children (birth control/abortions), why is it their business when you do choose to have children?
It's not that people who want that stuff are wrong. I just honestly can't relate to wanting my employer to be involved in my personal decisions.
If you hugely (and it is hugely) subsidise your employees breeding, then you are under-compensating the ones that aren't.
I don't think there is a strong correlation between the productivity of workers with or without kids.
I was a productive employee when I had no spawn. I am still a productive employee now that I have a mini-me.
* I can't possibly know that, but I am confident that I am a very productive employee.
I'll just copy-paste this from another comment of mine:
don't counter with "someone really good and a parent is better than a mediocre one without children", since you'll find that I said nothing implying otherwise, because of course that's true
But also:
> I don't think there is a strong correlation between the productivity of workers with or without kids.
Do you think that still holds in countries that give a year or more in paid parental leave?
To me being away for a few years will obviously make your career lag by a few years.
I don't think employers offer Appalachian trail leave, simply because they're not mandated to. They are mandated to offer leave via FMLA. Maybe REI offers it.
http://family.findlaw.com/paternity/fathers-rights-and-fmla....
"Both or either covered parent may take 12 weeks for the birth of a newborn or the placement of an adopted or foster child. If both parents work in positions covered by the FMLA, they will both be entitled to leave for an expanding family."
In a family with an expectant mother and father, both are allowed 12 weeks of leave under FMLA.
You are correct, however, that this leave is unpaid, employers can require you to use all accrued vacation/sick leave prior to FMLA, and you aren't guaranteed your same job back, just an equivalent job.
https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/fmla/10a1.aspx
> A husband and wife who are eligible for FMLA leave and are employed by the same covered employer may be limited to a combined total of 12 weeks of leave during any 12-month period ...
But generally, even if they're both covered, they can both only take 12 weeks if the mother is somehow incapacitated.
>The mother is entitled to FMLA leave for any period of incapacity due to pregnancy, for prenatal care or for her own serious health condition following the birth of a child. The husband is entitled to FMLA leave if needed to care for his pregnant spouse who is incapacitated or if needed to care for her during her prenatal care, or if needed to care for the spouse following the birth of a child if the spouse has a serious health condition. See Serious Health Condition for more information.
What if someone has a rash of deaths in their life? Should the company just fire them for having bad luck because they can't afford to give all other employees and extra X amount of days off so that "everything is equal?"
Parents often refer to it as if it's a second job. And you're not even allowed to take a second job if you have a qualified first job, in my experience.
Bereavement leave and sick leave I'm all for, but parenthood is a choice to spend your effort elsewhere.
Your comment carries the implicit assertion that folks with kids are given special treatment. But what you fail to show is that it actually is "special," except in the context where it is defined to be so.
Perhaps companies shouldn't care at all what people do with their lives outside of work. Perhaps. But, given that we have to hitch ourselves to one to make a living, they damn well better allow people lives outside of work. Let's all be allowed 3 months off each year to do whatever we wish with.
A guy at work this week called in to say his child was sick and had to be taken to the doctor, so he'd be working from home after that.
The company treated him just like the guy who phoned in to say he was going boogie-boarding; as you say, exact same thing.
There are of course shared problems that both men and women face (obviously!) but getting something from a women's perspective is something that people could find useful.
These issues impact men as well, and to move on we need to stop treating one sex differently than another.
I've definitely spent a fair amount of time teaching her things, but it's been in no way her taking advantage of me, and I don't use any of my influence to help her more than I would anyone else. She's earned every accolade and piece of praise she's received, and it's heartbreaking to me to see these kinds of comments directed at her. Even without my help, she'd be incredibly successful - she's one of the smartest people I've ever worked with.
Due to this sort of thing, we keep the relationship fairly private. Some people know, either because we've shared it with them or because neither of us are particularly great at hiding it, but it means that we have to at least attempt to keep something that brings both of us a lot of happiness a secret. Since we have lots of co-workers on facebook, etc, I even have to be extremely conscious in things like tagging us together in group activities. We have to remember to try and keep at least some distance in work related social gatherings. That stuff is hard on me - as much as I try to imagine how hard that is on her, with everything else she deals with at work, I know it's even harder.
I have to quash a desire to be overprotective of her on this sort of thing, and other inappropriate encounters she's had at work, because she's an adult woman who wants to take care of things without me stepping in. I've got to respect that - but I would find it absolutely fantastic to be able to share with her stories of people who have been in similar situations and how they handled it.
I know none of that is expressly what was discussed here, but I think it's a problem that affects females in the workplace a hell of a lot more heavily than it does men, and it's certainly not the only thing. Sexism is alive and well, and I don't see how people talking about it does anything but help.
But is there any possibility that you may be biased and see your girlfriend in a more positive light than your coworkers? Given that "objective assessment" of a coworker is hard to define, yet alone hard to enforce, I don't find it very unusual if other colleagues cast aspersions on her motives in such case.
I'm sure there's some bias, but I think my view is overall pretty objective on her ability and intelligence. Largely because most of my impression of her intelligence was built before I had any feelings for her - and ended up being one of the largest contributions as to why I fell for her in the first place.
She's only a couple of years my junior in age, but went through the whole Bachelors -> Masters thing, so is lagging behind me by more than half a decade in the actual work experience department, so she still makes a fair amount of mistakes when it comes to office politics, and her degree, while related, isn't directly applicable to what we do, so she still has had a fair amount to learn as well. I've tried to stay objective on both sides of this, and point out things she can learn, since I figure that objectivity will help her in the long run.
There's some outside validation as well - she received her first promotion very quickly, and is on the fast track for the next one, based almost entirely on the mountain of positive feedback she's gotten from her work with outside teams and both internal and external customers.
>Given that "objective assessment" of a coworker is hard to define, yet alone hard to enforce, I don't find it very unusual if other colleagues cast aspersions on her motives in such case.
Yeah. I know it's not anything that can be enforced, I just don't think that I'd be receiving anywhere near the same attitude and comments if the tables were turned and she was the more senior engineer. It's also that I have no direct way to help her get ahead outside of feedback to the management, which admittedly carries a decent amount of weight... But it's also something that I've specifically told her I'm not able to provide since I can't guarantee I'll be 100% objective, and something she has no problem with.
Sorry for another long response, but it's something I wrestle with many days of the week, and have thought a lot about.