Hacker News Reader

Comment by s1artibartfast | Hacker News Reader

It is disturbing because it makes a number of assumptions, which seem skewed from reality.

I don't think the transactional and combative assumption of gender relations is really applicable, or a constructive framework for this kind of analysis.

Specifically, I dont agree with the premise that the man is "convincing" the woman to have "their" child, and shouldn't "get it for free" . It also seems to imply the father is freeloading if they are the primary caretaker and the mother works.

In my reality, women usually want to have children, even more so than men. In a healthy relationship, it is a jointly owned undertaking, not coercion by one partner. Additionally, the role of childrearing is not seen as a cushy reward and payback for going through the hard work of pregnancy.

View on HN

"It is disturbing because it makes a number of assumptions, which seem skewed from reality."

The underlying biological reality is that making children is more costly for women than for men. The rest follows from that.

I think therefore that you have the skewed view.

"I don't think the transactional and combative assumption of gender relations is really applicable"

It is the low level consideration of evolution - other things are layered on top, like the construct of "love" enabling people to stick together.

"the man is "convincing" the woman to have "their" child, and shouldn't "get it for free""

So you don't think a man fathering a child should take care of the mother and child? You wouldn't think it bad style to father a child and then leave mother and child to their own devices?

In any case, as I explained, the mother invests more into bringing the child to life than the father, so doesn't it seem fair if the father tries to even the scales by providing other things?

"In my reality, women usually want to have children, even more so than men."

Sure, but they need food and shelter to succeed in raising those children.

>In any case, as I explained, the mother invests more into bringing the child to life than the father, so doesn't it seem fair if the father tries to even the scales by providing other things?

>Sure, but they need food and shelter to succeed in raising those children.

So it is work when a woman raises the children, but when the man raises the children, they are providing nothing? This premise seems to be the cornerstone of your argument that men who take care of children are freeloaders. You think that women deserve payback, and these men are not providing it.

Pregnancy and birth are work, and most importantly, only women can do it, and they can only do it once every 9 months. It is a skill that is highly in demand (male sperm not so much), so a woman could potentially get a lot more in exchange for it than "nothing".

One thing women usually get in exchange is the privilege to choose to stay home with their children.

Now how hard it is to stay home and provide for the children every couple has to decide for themselves. But yeah, I personally will claim that it is not as hard as most jobs, putting a roof above the families head and so on.

You can also check the cost of household services (cleaning, cooking, washing) to estimate the value a male housekeeper brings to the table. I think a husband as housekeeper is usually more expensive.

Not everything is about financial value. What happens to this calculus when the man enjoys staying home, and the woman values that the man enjoys it?

If it were, you can also check the cost of hiring a surrogate. It looks like pregnancy and birth are worth $20-45k, at least in Canada, and far cheaper if you are willing to travel.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/surrogacy-agencies-expenses-c...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com