Hacker News Reader

"Long working hours and oncall requirements..." are not benefits and they are only increasing now for childless people, while the parents get multiple weeks of free vacation.

You've engaged in a slight of hand here by describing the demands of a job that are somewhat easier for the childless to meet, and then turning around and treating these demands like they're "...policies that favor the childless...".

View on HN

How is a demand that is easier for the childless to meet, even if only slightly, not a policy that favors the childless? That's not sleight of hand. It's just English.

Because a demand isn't a favor? A demand to someone implies a loss on their part, of time or effort or value. It doesn't matter how easy it is for them to do. If I say that ice cream vendors must give out their ice cream for free, it's not a policy that favors them just because they can more easily meet the demand then someone without an ice cream business.

You're being very slippery with different meanings of "demand" here. I have no interest in engaging with such sophistry, as I'm sure honest readers already knew what I meant.

You are being very slippery with different meanings of "policy" here. Of course, we have to engage with -- and reject -- such sophistry.

A demand is not a favor, it's not a benefit, and it's not a policy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com