3 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 lon

by 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.

by edanm 8y ago

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.