Comment by dzink | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dzink | Hacker News Reader

Here is entirely anecdotal speculation as to why this is happening (credentials - mom of two). In the late stages of pregnancy the uterus starts preparing for birth by doing Braxton hicks contractions. The uterus flexes its muscles. They get stronger and physically push the baby down like a ping pong ball coming out of a balloon. BH contractions are also like clock ticks to pregnancy, the closer you get to delivery the more frequent and stronger they get. If you get dehydrated, they accelerate. If you get stressed out or exhausted, they accelerate. If you skip a meal, they accelerate. Late stage pregnancy mothers legitimately need less physical strain and more opportunity to take care of their bodies or the baby comes early. Keeping the same active pace of work for a few weeks in the third trimester can cost years of additional effort and suffering as a premature baby may accrue permanent damage. Remote work allows for your body to rest while your brains can work at full speed for longer. It is challenging to make “remote“ work right now, but for my part, I’m constantly prototyping and brainstorming ways to make the experience better. We can do so much more in our lifetimes if reduce the dangerous commutes.

I would think that stress levels are higher now...

Mental stress may be high, but you can also turn off the news. Physiological stress is much lower when you have drinks, food, and bathroom within reach every 20 minutes for most of the day. It also helps not having to strut around an office for 10 hours with a giant ball of water and human resting on your internal organs and sloshing back and forth with every movement, throwing you off balance. During pregnancy your body is a machine taken over by a different process you have zero control over, and any resource shortage hits that process first. Meds you take, foods you eat, lack of sleep or other deprivations. You are really an observer of someone else’s work (evolution) and the months of pregnancy teach you to pay attention to your contractions and body reactions, to the baby’s kicks, and any other data outputs, and how they affect the baby. Your amigdala grows and your empathy remains high for life (it grows equally in men who become primary caregivers too). Empathy in this case is the ability to put yourself in another person’s shoes, foresee deeper into layers of potential consequences and prevent undesirable circumstances.

Depends on how much media you consume. Go outside, walks even, read classics, breathe, write in a journal, get some sunshine.

> Late stage pregnancy mothers legitimately need less physical strain and more opportunity to take care of their bodies or the baby comes early. Keeping the same active pace of work for a few weeks in the third trimester can cost years of additional effort and suffering as a premature baby may accrue permanent damage.

You are rediscovering why in traditional societies woman stop working when getting pregnant. This is not a plot by the so-called patriarchy but something that have been intuitively understood by humanity for millennia: woman need lot of rest before and after the baby is born.

That should be the option (and a socially acceptable one) in all societies IMO. Working until delivery and dumping a newborn to a daycare at 6 months old is insane IMO.

Having a baby is such a crucial and important event in any woman's life that a mandated pre-delivery-full-pay leave seems like a viable mandated right I would whole-heartedly support.

As an employer, why would you choose to hire women who you knew you would have to pay a mandated pre-delivery-full-pay leave to as opposed to a man without that risk?

Because you're aware of the broader picture around employing practices that are sustainable for society at large, and not only focused on your immediate selfish return of investment?

Because you value the diversity in your workforce, not only because it looks good, but because it brings a unique culture to your company (as well as being fair)?

The hand-wavy hippie arguments are "because it's the right thing to do" but of course the real answer needs to be "because we made the benefit equal for dads to remove just the situation you refer to".

Most developed countries have figured this out. Some set amount of parental leave can be used by the parents of the child with the government paying some percentage of their usual salary instead of the employer. In Sweden the parents get a total of 480 days paid at 80% of their salary.

This has already been solved in multiple countries. For instance here in Norway, the leave goes for both parents. There is something like 12 months that can be shared between the parents, and both have around a month of leave just at the birth.

Even asking about pregnancy/child plans in a interview is illegal.

This is why paid maternal leave is forced on employers in European countries, so that they have no choice but to do so.

Employers factor in that risk in their employee payment budget, build up reserves for it in accounting (same as they do with people falling sick or having regular PTO), in some cases governments step in and subsidize wages and that's it.

Employers as a class in general will not ever hand away such things voluntarily, they had to be fought for violently over a hundred years ago in collective action.

Because ultimately as a company you need workers past the current generation. If women stop making babies due to having to bear a financial and occupational burden, then your company will quickly disappear due to a lack of workers and customers.

The pay during maternity leave is covered by the state. I am guessing this holds for all countries but I can only say for sure for my country.

It is somewhat annoying for the employer to "lose" the employee for a year but there is ample notice (eight months or so :) ) so the employer can prepare for the absence.

Exactly, when the state pays the maternity leave, it doesn't create a disincentive for the employers.

Should be obvious, but somehow is not. Even if you make laws like "the employer cannot ask about ...", well, they cannot ask, but they can still make a guess, right? (And then make up an excuse, because guessing is also illegal, of course.) Instead, if the maternity leave is paid by the state, the employer does not bear the cost, the mother doesn't have to worry about the employer going out of business during her pregnancy, etc.

Generally, as a rule of thumb, if the "society wants" something, it should be paid by taxes, not thrown as an additional burden of the employers. That way, employers are incentivized to try to avoid the extra costs by doing things that are socially wrong, and the employees are not dependent of having a good and wealthy employer, and even the unemployed can get the same benefits by the same channels.

For example, if you want to prevent crime, you don't say "the employers should provide police to protect their employees", but instead you pay the police from taxes, and leave the employers out of it. Exactly the same logic applies to health care, parental leave, etc.

Not arguing either way, but there is a natural disincentive for employers to have to plan around their employees being gone for those long periods of time, plus the ramp-up time upon their return, depending on the job.

One of the reasons I love my employer is that they offer 6 months full pay to both men and women, with the option to have up to a year off (for women this moves to basic pay, men zero) after the 6 months - if you are having or adopting a child.

This way as someone who interviews people it doesn't matter if they are men or women, you know that some will have children, some won't, but we will cope when they are away. And they will be back again. Far far more of our men and women return to work and stay with the company after having children than the UK average. I haven't personally benefitted from this (I had my kids when at another company with just 2 week paternity leave) but it makes me happy to see colleagues able to use this time to grow close to their child and also return to work rested and happy.

We also have great flexibility in working patterns that has only increased since the pandemic. Happy humans deliver great work.

This question is exactly why the federal govt has to level the playing field. It should be a tax incentive for companies to have workers on leave for reasons that support the health of society.

Would it be illegal for a newly pregnant woman to go and interview for 10 jobs, each of which she then never sets foot in because she immediately goes on pregnancy leave while still being paid for them all? Asking for a friend...

If you work in a place where labour laws allow working 1000 percent, why not?

If I understand correctly, in Germany that works fine and is a lot less profitable than you’re expecting because the maternity pay is based on how much you were earning a year ago.

Caveat: I’m still learning German, and this is a second-hand description from a coworker who is a father but isn’t an employment lawyer

The plot by patriarchy is not asking women to stop working during the third trimester. The plot is to ignore those needs and punish women who stop working by not paying them maternity leave or holding their pregnancy against them when they come back to the workforce.

I think we need to move past the genderization of capitalism (an abstract force) into "patriarchy" -- Capitalism has no interest in gender, age, or pretty much anything relating to human qualities. The trending force for capitalism is to have humans automated away -- let alone be given free money to have a baby.

I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism?

I happen to support capitalism as a means of production -- but it should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force like an optimization algorithm. "Patriarchy" is a red herring.

> I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism?

"Patriarchy" is intertwined with the means of production but is also distinct therefrom. Women in Victorian England were not fully legally recognized as persons and did not have the same property rights as their husbands, and this is in a period during which capitalism obtained in England. This arrangement with men as the "patriarch" of the household, exercising control over subaltern women, predates capitalism by millenia (c.f. Roman "pater familias").

This "patriarchy" doesn't only consist of formal law, but may exist in tradition and social mores. For example adultery may be technically equally penalized for men and women but carry a vastly greater stigma and punishment in practice for women, as in feudal China. As another example, women may technically have recourse to the law if they are subjected to domestic violence but be prevented from doing this by the fear of social opprobrium and further mistreatment by family and community, as was again the case in Victorian England. "Patriarchy" doesn't refer to any concerted effort or plot, but is a description of the outcome of social institutions and cultural attitudes which, AS A SYSTEM, disadvantage women.

> capitalism ... should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force

Capitalism, and patriarchy, are BOTH generally understood as being systemic: i.e. properties of human institutions. The concepts DO NOT inherently place blame on individuals, or even make judgments about the morality of the system.

Whether or not our society exhibits patriarchy is an empirical question, to be answered with reference to data. Arising from but separate from this, there is the ethical question of value-judgment about the society. But there is absolutely no basis to call the notion of patriarchy "sexist".

> I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism?

Given that women didn’t have a vote when the Industrial Age made coal mining into a primary power source, and given that marriage was seen as making the concept of rape logically impossible until 1992 in the UK [0], I disagree.

Separately, I would argue that while capitalism will exploit such prejudices, I don’t think it is the origin of them.

[0] obvious trigger warning applies: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/12.html

> Given that women didn’t have a vote when the Industrial Age made coal mining into a primary power source, and given that marriage was seen as making the concept of rape logically impossible until 1992 in the UK [0], I disagree.

I'm not following how this relates to the comment you're replying to. Are you saying that women are the original victims of capitalism? Or that capitalism was created by men? Or something else?

I’m denying the claim “were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism?”

Lots of men had their humanity disregarded, but women were treated worse, and that legacy continued for a very long time.

These issues still exist in some places, based on what I’ve seen reported by trans people who transition so successfully that people who knew them before the transition mistook them for their own opposite gendered siblings and treated them differently in accordance with gender stereotypes rather than by merit.

As an aside, playing the ‘who is the greater victim game’ is a meaningless exercise that doesn’t focus on the simple facts of life: there is suffering, be a friend to those in need.

Those examples don't contradict the claim you're denying. The claim wasn't "men had it worse than women". It was that capitalism originally hurt men (coal miners, specifically). The commenter was arguing that capitalism is not a plot by the patriarchy devised to oppress women. To contradict their claim, you need an example of capitalism originally victimizing women.

I doubt anyone here would disagree that women have suffered more from sexism.

Incidentally, and unrelated to that point, you chose oddly mild examples of bad treatment of women. I'd much rather live in a society where I couldn't vote or charge my spouse with rape than be a coal miner and suffer from black lung and be in significant danger of dying in a workplace accident. You could have gone with the awful treatment of women under the Taliban, to name one example.

Noted, and thanks for keeping it polite. :)

I find your preferences shocking, considering when childbirth anaesthetic was invented, when abortions and woman-centric contraceptives became commonplace, and when the idea of doctors washing their hands between autopsies and the maternity ward became common sense rather than being treated as an insult.

I really couldn’t use the Taliban. They’re (1) modern day and (2) primarily a theocracy.

I think we're just interpreting how the hypothetical choice works differently. You're right, I wouldn't want to live in the 18th or 19th century at all. But I'd prefer to not be able to vote (in isolation of other factors) to being a coal miner (in isolation of other factors).

Thank you. I'm all for the Simone de Beauvoir flavor of feminism. I understand that women want more power, even if it is in a corrupt system -- but the problem I have with "Lean In" feminism is that it serves as cover for exploitation... it is, in our cultural zeitgeist, somehow "okay" for a black woman like Condoleeza Rice to bomb Iraqis -- does blackness and femininty now serve as the perfect mask and disguise for capital and oppression?... should we not elevate our consciousness towards an overarching view of the system?

Yes, the industrial system was not built for women... it was built to make cheap knick-knacks... which has no relation to having babies. It is indifferent to women, not beneficial by design to men... the scape-goating is counter-productive, and behind the male mask -- falls to deaf ears. That is my point.

Funny thing is, wifes in mining areas did earn own money, for themselves and kids, because males were dying much sooner then women.

slaps knee Thank you.

I thought the plot by patriarchy was trying to keep women at home instead of in the workforce?

It’s not 1962. It’s not that simplistic. But talk to literally any mother in literally any white collar job. “I’m expecting” or even “we’re thinking of having kids” results in fewer projects, getting turned down for promotions, and if you’re in a technical role, you’re pushed into management ASAP. I get that I’m a stranger on the internet, but you gotta trust me on this. This isn’t random/sometimes — this is CONSTANT. And it’s not even all malicious! It just comes from a place of, I would say, well-intended ignorance.

So you are saying that the plot of patriarchy used to be to keep women out of the workspace, but now the plot is the opposite, to keep them out of the home? It sounds like the patriarchs need to get together and make up their minds.

There is no contradiction as "keeping them home" was staying all the time at home with no income and advancement.

And being forced to work here means "being punished for talking about possible pregnancy or needing more rest in the last few weeks or it or in case of health issues".

Whether patriarchy or not, these are not contradictory.

Is it really impossible to imagine that things change?

Or, less succinctly -- that there isn't an actual literal plot, there's just people reacting to incentives, and those incentives change?

The hard thing to imagine is the in-between time. These two plots are so opposite one another that in the middle of switching between the two the patriarchy must’ve had a coup, or had a meeting where the head of the patriarchy laid down the law and everyone tied the line, or there was mass confusion. Did the old patriarchs get replaced by new patriarchs with a new plot? Did they purposefully change their plot and women currently are unwittingly playing their game? Did they just give in to the inevitable and then devise a new plot?

It's not ignorance, it's common business sense. Suppose you couldn't work full-time because of reason X. It doesn't matter what reason X is, I can not use your work in the same way, if for no other reason than Brooks's law applying.

Unless you're an anti-natalist, you can argue that X=pregnancy is really important to society as a whole, but then the burden should be carried by the whole of society, not just the slice that happens to run a business.

Either way, we have to admit that you can't be a mother and have equal career prospects to someone who stays childless, just like you can't put the same amount of work into two different careers and still get the same result for each as if you had put all the work into just one.

Sorry to hear about these experiences. It reminds me of the prisoners dilemma in game theory. Business leaders may (wrongly, or not) think that putting women on projects that will get delayed by pregnancy will put them at a competitive disadvantage.

The prisoners dilemma can only ever be solved by an entity that sees the whole picture, i.e. the federal govt. They have to mandate everyone play by the same rule, or else those who stick their head out for charity’s sake may endure all the sacrifice that entails (which is not fair).

Aren't most women's rights advocates asking for more maternity leave, not less?

In Denmark, maternity leave usually starts 4 weeks before the expected birth day. This actually seems to be shorter than the EU average, many countries start the leave 8 or more weeks before birth.

Why should women stop working entirely after having a child? Given sufficient maternity leave, they can take care of their bodies when it is required, and then get back to work when they can.

> You are rediscovering why in traditional societies woman stop working when getting pregnant.

Which "traditional" societies? Because you sure as hell didn't stop working in any pre-agrarian, post-agrarian, industrial or ... you know any society on Earth prior to the invention of the white-collar job.

If you lived in a multi-generational household, your share of the household labor absolutely decreased. And neighbors also picked up some of the slack.

I'm talking about early 1900s, based on stories from my grandparents about what life was like.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com