Hacker News Reader

"But it's scary to me to think that women feel the need to make these types of sacrifices, and not take care of their family."

Hmmmm ... the United States does not offer paid maternity leave. So if you needed the money, and weren't a CEO, you would have to go back to work anyway. She is making a choice, but for many other women the choice has been made for them. The US is the only developed country without laws providing paid maternity leave.

And to me, that's barbaric. We're punishing women for following every animal's instinct to procreate. Men don't get equivalently "punished" when they have a child, women have to shoulder that burden. As a society, we need women to bear children. Why do we force her to choose between work and family?

In Canada, we provide 17-52 weeks of maternity leave for new mothers, depending on a few factors. Moreover, we allow for 15 weeks of paid leave for pregnant employees or new mothers, with another 35 weeks of 55% paid parental leave. [1]

In the US, up to 12 weeks of leave is allowed, but there are conditions and exemptions, one of which is that if you're a company of less than 50 employees, you don't have to allow leave.

From [1]: "If a mother has to rush back to work after giving birth because she cannot afford the lack of a paycheck, she may not be as effective at her job compared to if she was rested and had her family life settled."

I would rather have a kickass employee, male or female, be happy to come back to work after their home and family has settled.

If we hire in the US, I'd like to provide equivalent benefits to them as if they were in Canada. Hopefully I can make that happen, but that's an issue for future me to deal with since it's a long ways out.

[1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/ca...

> As a society, we need women to bear children. Why do we force her to choose between work and family?

That's not strictly true. We need some women to bear children, but we don't need nearly as many as currently do it. We have a shortage of many things on this earth, but human beings aren't one of them. Why should society be encouraging women to have children when it's objectively better for society if most of them don't?

Strict population controls, like China's one-child policy, are probably a step too far, but not encouraging parenthood seems like a reasonable middle ground.

Eh... while I agree that overpopulation (on a global scale) is a real problem, it is also true that most highly educated/industrial societies have problems with too few children being born. I seem to recall that the average needs to be around 2.4 children/family for population to not decrease.

The US overall might not exhibit the typical traits of an educated society (family planning) -- I've not looked up the numbers. But with poor social mobility, there would still be a problem.

As for looking at the issues from a global perspective: do we really think importing children from third world countries is a viable, moral and/or sensible approach? If not, the sane plan for the future, is to encourage sustainable family planning everywhere: more children in the rich/highly educated part of the world, better access to contraceptives etc in the poor/less educated parts.

I suspect the argument there is that not offering maternity leave discourages working women from procreating while there is no such disincentive for those not working. And so those often without the means of supporting a child will be the ones having the children.

> Men don't get equivalently "punished" when they have a child

How long is the average paternity leave for new fathers? Or are you suggesting that fathers don't have a right to paternity leave and thus raise their children?

The United States doesn't _require_ companies offer paid maternity leave (at least at a federal level, some states do). That's not the same thing at all as not having maternity leave. Personally I think this is something which can be dealt with most effectively in employment negotiations, with perhaps some regulation at the state level.

Employment negotiations with a union, right? Hard to see how a clerk or factory worker would have enough leverage to get a fair shake.

Many states (e.g. California) do provide paid family leave.

Yes, they do. It is called Family Temporary Disability Insurance. More here: http://www.edd.ca.gov/disability/paid_family_leave.htm

Just FYI, being home around the first few months isn't that important. If I were doing it over again, I'd take the first few weeks off to help my wife, then a longer month or so when the baby is a little older (3-9mo).

Really the baby is barely conscious of its surroundings for the first 3 months. Humans have a 12 month gestational period, it's just they get pushed out 3 months early because otherwise our big heads wouldn't fit...

Exactly, and this is not something many first time parents would realise. Early on, your child is still developing sight so your opportunities to interact with them (besides nuzzling, helping your partner, etc) are quite limited. Your baby will be sleeping or feeding at the breast of your partner. You will be able to help out with nappy changes or bottle feeding from expressed milk, but other than that, your leave might be better saved for later months (or even years) when they can make out your expressions or grasp objects at least.

By virtue of circumstance, I will never understand what a mother has to deal with in these circumstances...

"By virtue of circumstances, I will never understand what a comet is like." <- said no one ever after we landed a robot on one.

This attitude is anti-intellectualism. It denies the ability to gain understanding about the world by gathering information and reasoning.

It's a bit scary that anti-intellectualism has become almost a social necessity when discussing many important topics. If intellectualism were permitted, I wonder what we might learn?

I was just trying to say that I have a penis, and because I don't have a vagina, I cannot bear children and experience the physical and emotional roller coaster that entails.

Of course I can do my best to gain understanding about it. That's why my wife is my life partner. She'll definitely do her best to make me "understand" it. :-)

Agree that the read was horrifying based on my family's experience, but we should try to reserve judgement because as males we won't ever have to make quite the same decision that the author made. I doubt the author "feels her company is more valuable than her child". I think more likely she just wound up in an impossible situation. Also, keep in mind that people can't always perfectly time when a pregnancy will begin/end.

> as males we won't ever have to make quite the same decision that the author made

Millions of men--gay and straight--all over the world take care of their children by themselves, and face exactly the same choices the author does. So why anyone would ever suggest that men don't face these choices or have to make these decisions is entirely unclear.

Men are parents too. Many men are single parents. Many married men are as or more involved in care-giving than their partner. We are in a minority, but times change.

Fifteen or twenty years ago I was frequently the only man at the pool or the park with small children. Today I'm gratified to see lots of young men--often heavily tattooed and looking like they'd happily go a few rounds with a grizzly bear for fun--out with their wee ones.

One day we might even imagine a world were everyone doesn't assume that simply because I'm a man I don't know how to change a diaper or cook a nutritious meal or comfort a crying child.

Men are enormously short-changed by this attitude that somehow we aren't and can't ever be the primary care-giver for our children. It diminishes us and limits our choices and pushes our lives into narrow, sterile, avenues.

I forgot about this perspective, and I'm glad you described, since it does resonate with me.

However, the fact is, we do not have the anatomy required to actually bear children. Everything you identified is certainly true, but there are definitely certain aspects to child bearing that are uniquely female in nature. Those are things that I can do my best to understand, but that's difficult being a male.

The parent comment to yours is certainly correct: a pregnant female is in a different position than a male parent. There are certainly parallels and similarities, but some things are unique to a mother.

In addition, if she is a good CEO she probably feels responsible for her employee's well being. They're not her children nor are they helpless infants, but it is another responsibility that each person values differently in her position.

FWIW, I am a woman and I was a full time mom for many years. Here is my comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8732852

This comment touches on an important issue. Hypercompetition at work[1], in other words, leads to local, not globsl maximization.

[1] You stop to tie your shoelaces and someone will subtly hint your contributions to the company are in marked decline this quarter. etc

Very well said. I am in a very similar position, although at least a few months apart, if not more. Just out of curiosity: where you will build your company, and what will the company do?

We're building the company in Toronto and SF Bay Area, and we're building an operating system for commercial buildings.