Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluthru | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that different paternity/maternity times makes employers view women as more hazardous. This also reinforces the sexist notion that fathers aren't as integral to early childhood development. I'm sure a new mother would love the extra help for another 8 weeks!

Also, lets say that you're a child adopted by a homosexual married couple and you only get 8 weeks. How is that fair to the adopted child versus 16 weeks for a birthed child?

Equality means treating people equally--including men and children.

View on HN

If there was a separate allowance for recovering from childbirth, that would make sense.

For example, 16 weeks for a woman who adopts vs. 8 for a man who does exactly the same thing is just discriminatory.

It would be. That probably explains why yahoo has a policy that both parents get 8 weeks after adoption. Its in the article.

The point at which your politics leads you to claim that sex (in this case we rather aren't talking gender, but actual sex) experiences in childbirth should be treated precisely equally is the point at which you need to sit down with your politics and have a long, heartfelt discussion vis a vis your politics' connection to reality.

Some recognition of the differences in experience and particularly in consequences are called for, I think. Because they exist.

bluthru's more important point is that by offering different amounts of time off for men and women you're disincentivizing managers from hiring women.

The simplest way of removing this "hidden tax" on hiring women is to make the tax the same for men.

A proper policy would give equal maternal/paternal time off for both parents for either birth or adoption, and also have some sort of paid medical leave program in place for complicated pregnancies (and of course, all other medical problems).

> have some sort of paid medical leave program in place for complicated pregnancies

Anecdotally, lots of women in Italy have "difficult pregnancies" because the incentives are there for it. They're happy to have extra time off, and doctors, when in doubt, are not going to choose the riskier option.

In the US, similar: it is standard for doctors to prescribe 6 weeks of rest, for use with employers and insurance companies that are moved by such a thing.

In Sweden, both parents get 16 months paid to split between them as they see fit. And even here in the most gender-equal nation, the actual distribution of parental leave between women and men is 76/24.

Since a few years back there's a bonus for parents who split the leave equally, but it's going to take generations until everyone does it. (All of my peers do it, but they're university educated upper middle class that can afford it)

Let me reiterate my point: If those differences exist to companies (different amounts of time off), then companies have a reason to prefer one sex over the other.

Childbirth is not an injury. Childbirth is literally essential for society. Whatever extra profit that can be squeezed out of a new dad is meaningless next to the importance of equality and assistance to the new mother. Somehow I think our GDP will be ok.

>Equality means treating people equally--including men and children

All things aren't equal in this case. Child birth can be incredibly taxing on a woman's body. Some women would need more time to recover.

Wouldn't that woman want her husband around to help her recover then?

Not always. Similarly, you could conceivably need to take a sick day without needing your partner to stay home to take care of you.

The difference being that there's also a newborn in this case.

That's medical disability.

If you gave birth, 16 weeks. If you didn't, 8.

Now there is an equal metric regardless of the sex. Happy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com