5 ms·

It actually isn't a biological reality that the woman is away from work for longer. What's actually happening is that the man isn't expected to be away as long

It actually isn't a biological reality that the woman is away from work for longer. What's actually happening is that the man isn't expected to be away as long as the woman, so he doesn't take as much leave. It's a form of discrimination to make it the woman's problem because she's the one laid up in the hospital. Just because women are bearing the physical burden of the pregnancy, it doesn't mean it's solely their burden. We're making the choice that it should be their burden. We could just as easily provide subsidies and insurance to companies to cover family leave. If we value childbirth as a society, then we should put our money where our mouth is and actually pay for it somehow.

tomp 8y ago
How can you say this with a straight face?! It's a fact that (some) women need to stay off work (bed-ridden before birth, in hospital after birth). It's also a fact that men don't need to. Obviously, men don't need to work and women don't need to take care of the kids (above and beyond what's biologically required of them), but (1) on average, outcomes will be influenced by underlying biological reality, and (2) it's a fantasy thinking that people can take time off work - e.g. a poor family with a newborn, you really think that any parent will take off more time than they absolutely need to, biologically? Finally (3) yeah there are possible social levers we can use to counter this biological reality and enforce equality of outcomes, but ultimately, we need to decide what we want - why is women working more better than women spending more time with the children? Personally, I look up to Netherlands, one of the happiest countries on Earth, where many women work just part-time.
- ldp01 8y ago
  > How can you say this with a straight face?! It's a fact that (some) women need to stay off work (bed-ridden before birth, in hospital after birth). It's also a fact that men don't need to. You're referring to a timescale of days which a woman will likely need to spend in hospital. I believe jschwartzi is referring to the weeks/months of maternity/paternity leave following the initial birth. There isn't a hard biological reason not to evenly share the load after the immediate medical concerns are completed.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    My mother was bed-bound for several months during pregnancy. It's more common than you think.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      What you're describing is a special medical scenario, not a universal burden shared by all women. Health problems can disable people of any gender.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  >> It's a fact that (some) women need to stay off work (bed-ridden before birth, in hospital after birth). Note: some pregnant women need to stay off work, but all women are treated in the same way by their employers. That is unfair.
- jschwartzi 8y ago
  The only reason you're looking at it as a biological reality is that you're looking for ways for pregnancy to be disadvantageous in our society as our social customs and mores are today. You're assuming that the social structures and mores can't change. The reason it's not a biological disadvantage in my mind is because society doesn't have to be structured to disadvantage people because of that biology. Other posters have made the point that if men simply took the same time off as women do then that would weaken discrimination against pregnant women. And others have suggested social insurance for companies who have to fill temporary vacancies due to childbirth. So again, we've structured our society so that pregnancy is a disadvantage and it doesn't have to be. The disconnect is that you keep saying how things are and we keep telling you that things don't have to be this way.
  - tomp 8y ago
    I’m actually thinking the other way round. If you want to change the society, you first need to know the (biological) truth instead of denying it. If we’re talking about salaried employees, clearly people who cannot work as many hours (pregnant women) will be less valuable than people who can work more (everybody else). You won’t change this reality by legislating that employers shouldn’t be realistic. On the other hand, you might nudge reality (i.e. make pregnant women worth comparatively more to employers) by e.g. awarding companies that hire pregnant women (i.e. a direct monetary payoff to offset the implicit loss of a less productive worker). But noone is talking about such solutions because they’re too busy lying with straight faces for their own political benefit.
- daniel_software 8y ago
  > Personally, I look up to Netherlands, one of the happiest countries on Earth, where many women work just part-time. As a Dutch person: this stereotype needs to stop. The Netherlands is a country like any other, with big problems and defenitely not the happiest people on earth. The Many women work part-time here because the tax is so high due to corruption its not rewarding to actually work. Last year suicide was the most common cause of death among people between 20 and 40 years. The Netherlands is the country where most drugs worldwide are made, transported and used. XTC is the biggest export of this country, which leads to high criminality and assassinations on the streets.
  - tomp 8y ago
    Interesting, thanks! I was basing my opinion mainly on an Economist article (IIRC), great to hear a first-hand opinion!
golemiprague 8y ago
It is a biological reality and always has been, trying to get women not to raise their kids is just causing problems to everyone in the family. It is time to admit that this experience has failed miserably and instead of putting the kids on ritalin and moms on prozak we should bring back the natural way that always worked, women raising their young children, preferably while they are still young and healthy. All we have to do is change the time line of women careers, instead of making it similiar to men it should start later after the kids are already in school, much more simple than the all the gymnastics we try to do now to get women to become corporate minions at age 22 and bring kids at age 32 rather than the opposite.
edanm 8y ago
> it actually isn't a biological reality that the woman is away from work for longer. What's actually happening is that the man isn't expected to be away as long as the woman, so he doesn't take as much leave. It's a form of discrimination to make it the woman's problem because she's the one laid up in the hospital. That's not completely correct when you factor in breastfeeding. Nowadays we do have the ability to overcome this with pumping, but if the parents decide they want to only breastfeed their baby naturally, without a bottle, this pretty much requires the mother to be with the baby for at least a few months. This is a pretty common choice and situation for various reasons.
- ejstronge 8y ago
  I think you're continuing to add variables that disfavor women - but it's feasible to grant breaks so that women can feed their children in the middle of the day. This feels like a problem of will, and maybe male chauvinism, not biology.
  - edanm 8y ago
    I didn't say it isn't. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's not an analgous situation between men and women. This is not even mentioning the fact of the pregnancy itself, which ranges from no biggie, to several months of severely reduced capability. My wife basically couldn't function (as in curled up in bed) for almost two months during her pregnancy.
    - ejstronge 8y ago
      I'm not writing this out of any sort of pique - I just think this is an opportunity to think 'outside the box'. Your wife's (very unfortunate) experience is not typical - most women won't require two months of bed rest. Let's consider people with depression: most will perform their jobs normally, while some will require months of medically-mandated time off. Should employers discriminate based on the possibility to develop depression? I'd say it's far more likely than becoming pregnant if one accounts for the entire workforce.

tomp 8y ago

How can you say this with a straight face?! It's a fact that (some) women need to stay off work (bed-ridden before birth, in hospital after birth). It's also a fact that men don't need to. Obviously, men don't need to work and women don't need to take care of the kids (above and beyond what's biologically required of them), but (1) on average, outcomes will be influenced by underlying biological reality, and (2) it's a fantasy thinking that people can take time off work - e.g. a poor family with a newborn, you really think that any parent will take off more time than they absolutely need to, biologically? Finally (3) yeah there are possible social levers we can use to counter this biological reality and enforce equality of outcomes, but ultimately, we need to decide what we want - why is women working more better than women spending more time with the children? Personally, I look up to Netherlands, one of the happiest countries on Earth, where many women work just part-time.

ldp01 8y ago
> How can you say this with a straight face?! It's a fact that (some) women need to stay off work (bed-ridden before birth, in hospital after birth). It's also a fact that men don't need to. You're referring to a timescale of days which a woman will likely need to spend in hospital. I believe jschwartzi is referring to the weeks/months of maternity/paternity leave following the initial birth. There isn't a hard biological reason not to evenly share the load after the immediate medical concerns are completed.
- adrianN 8y ago
  My mother was bed-bound for several months during pregnancy. It's more common than you think.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    What you're describing is a special medical scenario, not a universal burden shared by all women. Health problems can disable people of any gender.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> It's a fact that (some) women need to stay off work (bed-ridden before birth, in hospital after birth). Note: some pregnant women need to stay off work, but all women are treated in the same way by their employers. That is unfair.
jschwartzi 8y ago
The only reason you're looking at it as a biological reality is that you're looking for ways for pregnancy to be disadvantageous in our society as our social customs and mores are today. You're assuming that the social structures and mores can't change. The reason it's not a biological disadvantage in my mind is because society doesn't have to be structured to disadvantage people because of that biology. Other posters have made the point that if men simply took the same time off as women do then that would weaken discrimination against pregnant women. And others have suggested social insurance for companies who have to fill temporary vacancies due to childbirth. So again, we've structured our society so that pregnancy is a disadvantage and it doesn't have to be. The disconnect is that you keep saying how things are and we keep telling you that things don't have to be this way.
- tomp 8y ago
  I’m actually thinking the other way round. If you want to change the society, you first need to know the (biological) truth instead of denying it. If we’re talking about salaried employees, clearly people who cannot work as many hours (pregnant women) will be less valuable than people who can work more (everybody else). You won’t change this reality by legislating that employers shouldn’t be realistic. On the other hand, you might nudge reality (i.e. make pregnant women worth comparatively more to employers) by e.g. awarding companies that hire pregnant women (i.e. a direct monetary payoff to offset the implicit loss of a less productive worker). But noone is talking about such solutions because they’re too busy lying with straight faces for their own political benefit.
daniel_software 8y ago
> Personally, I look up to Netherlands, one of the happiest countries on Earth, where many women work just part-time. As a Dutch person: this stereotype needs to stop. The Netherlands is a country like any other, with big problems and defenitely not the happiest people on earth. The Many women work part-time here because the tax is so high due to corruption its not rewarding to actually work. Last year suicide was the most common cause of death among people between 20 and 40 years. The Netherlands is the country where most drugs worldwide are made, transported and used. XTC is the biggest export of this country, which leads to high criminality and assassinations on the streets.
- tomp 8y ago
  Interesting, thanks! I was basing my opinion mainly on an Economist article (IIRC), great to hear a first-hand opinion!

golemiprague 8y ago

It is a biological reality and always has been, trying to get women not to raise their kids is just causing problems to everyone in the family. It is time to admit that this experience has failed miserably and instead of putting the kids on ritalin and moms on prozak we should bring back the natural way that always worked, women raising their young children, preferably while they are still young and healthy. All we have to do is change the time line of women careers, instead of making it similiar to men it should start later after the kids are already in school, much more simple than the all the gymnastics we try to do now to get women to become corporate minions at age 22 and bring kids at age 32 rather than the opposite.

edanm 8y ago

> it actually isn't a biological reality that the woman is away from work for longer. What's actually happening is that the man isn't expected to be away as long as the woman, so he doesn't take as much leave. It's a form of discrimination to make it the woman's problem because she's the one laid up in the hospital. That's not completely correct when you factor in breastfeeding. Nowadays we do have the ability to overcome this with pumping, but if the parents decide they want to only breastfeed their baby naturally, without a bottle, this pretty much requires the mother to be with the baby for at least a few months. This is a pretty common choice and situation for various reasons.

ejstronge 8y ago
I think you're continuing to add variables that disfavor women - but it's feasible to grant breaks so that women can feed their children in the middle of the day. This feels like a problem of will, and maybe male chauvinism, not biology.
- edanm 8y ago
  I didn't say it isn't. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's not an analgous situation between men and women. This is not even mentioning the fact of the pregnancy itself, which ranges from no biggie, to several months of severely reduced capability. My wife basically couldn't function (as in curled up in bed) for almost two months during her pregnancy.
  - ejstronge 8y ago
    I'm not writing this out of any sort of pique - I just think this is an opportunity to think 'outside the box'. Your wife's (very unfortunate) experience is not typical - most women won't require two months of bed rest. Let's consider people with depression: most will perform their jobs normally, while some will require months of medically-mandated time off. Should employers discriminate based on the possibility to develop depression? I'd say it's far more likely than becoming pregnant if one accounts for the entire workforce.