Hacker News Reader

I suppose "time away" would work, but that's basically what we mean by "leave" as well. What got my dander up was the implication that me taking leave to be with my spouse and infant child (which I did not get the opportunity to do) is the same as vacation time.

View on HN

I agree that raising children is taxing. However, the mere fact that you _chose_ to do an activity that is taxing does not, to my mind, entitle you to impose costs on your fellow employees. Volunteering for the Peace Corp is taxing, caring for elderly parents is taxing, climbing Mt. Everest is taxing. Yet, alone of all those activities, parents think they deserve to be subsidized.

Only those having children are choosing a taxing activity that essentially everyone who hopes to retire is depending on, since—public or private, defined benefit or defined contribution—virtually every retirement option relies on the economic activity of generations after those of the retiree.

You're suggesting that parents are some kind of limited special-interest class, as if we're snowboarders asking for powder leave, rather than the overwhelming majority of people. The question of how we treat parents is really a question of how we all want to treat each other -- whether we want to give people support when their children are born, or whether we would prefer to force them to choose between work and family. Furthermore, since this is a discussion about paternity in particular, speaking out against paternity leave is speaking out against women working outside the home. I regard this as a very regressive position and unjust to women.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com