10 ms·

> Late stage pregnancy mothers legitimately need less physical strain and more opportunity to take care of their bodies or the baby comes early. Keeping the sam

> Late stage pregnancy mothers legitimately need less physical strain and more opportunity to take care of their bodies or the baby comes early. Keeping the same active pace of work for a few weeks in the third trimester can cost years of additional effort and suffering as a premature baby may accrue permanent damage. You are rediscovering why in traditional societies woman stop working when getting pregnant. This is not a plot by the so-called patriarchy but something that have been intuitively understood by humanity for millennia: woman need lot of rest before and after the baby is born.

m0zg 6y ago
That should be the option (and a socially acceptable one) in all societies IMO. Working until delivery and dumping a newborn to a daycare at 6 months old is insane IMO.
Fiveplus 6y ago
Having a baby is such a crucial and important event in any woman's life that a mandated pre-delivery-full-pay leave seems like a viable mandated right I would whole-heartedly support.
- ratsoman2 6y ago
  As an employer, why would you choose to hire women who you knew you would have to pay a mandated pre-delivery-full-pay leave to as opposed to a man without that risk?
  - tunnuz 6y ago
    Because you're aware of the broader picture around employing practices that are sustainable for society at large, and not only focused on your immediate selfish return of investment?
  - tunnuz 6y ago
    Because you value the diversity in your workforce, not only because it looks good, but because it brings a unique culture to your company (as well as being fair)?
  - CalRobert 6y ago
    The hand-wavy hippie arguments are "because it's the right thing to do" but of course the real answer needs to be "because we made the benefit equal for dads to remove just the situation you refer to".
  - analbumcover 6y ago
    Most developed countries have figured this out. Some set amount of parental leave can be used by the parents of the child with the government paying some percentage of their usual salary instead of the employer. In Sweden the parents get a total of 480 days paid at 80% of their salary.
  - Ueland 6y ago
    This has already been solved in multiple countries. For instance here in Norway, the leave goes for both parents. There is something like 12 months that can be shared between the parents, and both have around a month of leave just at the birth. Even asking about pregnancy/child plans in a interview is illegal.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    This is why paid maternal leave is forced on employers in European countries, so that they have no choice but to do so. Employers factor in that risk in their employee payment budget, build up reserves for it in accounting (same as they do with people falling sick or having regular PTO), in some cases governments step in and subsidize wages and that's it. Employers as a class in general will not ever hand away such things voluntarily, they had to be fought for violently over a hundred years ago in collective action.
  - nashalo_nighly 6y ago
    Because ultimately as a company you need workers past the current generation. If women stop making babies due to having to bear a financial and occupational burden, then your company will quickly disappear due to a lack of workers and customers.
  - prerok 6y ago
    The pay during maternity leave is covered by the state. I am guessing this holds for all countries but I can only say for sure for my country. It is somewhat annoying for the employer to "lose" the employee for a year but there is ample notice (eight months or so :) ) so the employer can prepare for the absence.
    - Viliam1234 6y ago
      Exactly, when the state pays the maternity leave, it doesn't create a disincentive for the employers. Should be obvious, but somehow is not. Even if you make laws like "the employer cannot ask about ...", well, they cannot ask, but they can still make a guess, right? (And then make up an excuse, because guessing is also illegal, of course.) Instead, if the maternity leave is paid by the state, the employer does not bear the cost, the mother doesn't have to worry about the employer going out of business during her pregnancy, etc. Generally, as a rule of thumb, if the "society wants" something, it should be paid by taxes, not thrown as an additional burden of the employers. That way, employers are incentivized to try to avoid the extra costs by doing things that are socially wrong, and the employees are not dependent of having a good and wealthy employer, and even the unemployed can get the same benefits by the same channels. For example, if you want to prevent crime, you don't say "the employers should provide police to protect their employees", but instead you pay the police from taxes, and leave the employers out of it. Exactly the same logic applies to health care, parental leave, etc.
      - loco5niner 6y ago
        Not arguing either way, but there is a natural disincentive for employers to have to plan around their employees being gone for those long periods of time, plus the ramp-up time upon their return, depending on the job.
  - ljf 6y ago
    One of the reasons I love my employer is that they offer 6 months full pay to both men and women, with the option to have up to a year off (for women this moves to basic pay, men zero) after the 6 months - if you are having or adopting a child. This way as someone who interviews people it doesn't matter if they are men or women, you know that some will have children, some won't, but we will cope when they are away. And they will be back again. Far far more of our men and women return to work and stay with the company after having children than the UK average. I haven't personally benefitted from this (I had my kids when at another company with just 2 week paternity leave) but it makes me happy to see colleagues able to use this time to grow close to their child and also return to work rested and happy. We also have great flexibility in working patterns that has only increased since the pandemic. Happy humans deliver great work.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    This question is exactly why the federal govt has to level the playing field. It should be a tax incentive for companies to have workers on leave for reasons that support the health of society.
- antepodius 6y ago
  Would it be illegal for a newly pregnant woman to go and interview for 10 jobs, each of which she then never sets foot in because she immediately goes on pregnancy leave while still being paid for them all? Asking for a friend...
  - lolc 6y ago
    If you work in a place where labour laws allow working 1000 percent, why not?
  - ben_w 6y ago
    If I understand correctly, in Germany that works fine and is a lot less profitable than you’re expecting because the maternity pay is based on how much you were earning a year ago. Caveat: I’m still learning German, and this is a second-hand description from a coworker who is a father but isn’t an employment lawyer
motakraxxer 6y ago
The plot by patriarchy is not asking women to stop working during the third trimester. The plot is to ignore those needs and punish women who stop working by not paying them maternity leave or holding their pregnancy against them when they come back to the workforce.
- stanfordkid 6y ago
  I think we need to move past the genderization of capitalism (an abstract force) into "patriarchy" -- Capitalism has no interest in gender, age, or pretty much anything relating to human qualities. The trending force for capitalism is to have humans automated away -- let alone be given free money to have a baby. I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism? I happen to support capitalism as a means of production -- but it should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force like an optimization algorithm. "Patriarchy" is a red herring.
  - whotheffknows 6y ago
    The Stanford kid wants to be Peter Thiel when he grows up.
  - flamble 6y ago
    > I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism? "Patriarchy" is intertwined with the means of production but is also distinct therefrom. Women in Victorian England were not fully legally recognized as persons and did not have the same property rights as their husbands, and this is in a period during which capitalism obtained in England. This arrangement with men as the "patriarch" of the household, exercising control over subaltern women, predates capitalism by millenia (c.f. Roman "pater familias"). This "patriarchy" doesn't only consist of formal law, but may exist in tradition and social mores. For example adultery may be technically equally penalized for men and women but carry a vastly greater stigma and punishment in practice for women, as in feudal China. As another example, women may technically have recourse to the law if they are subjected to domestic violence but be prevented from doing this by the fear of social opprobrium and further mistreatment by family and community, as was again the case in Victorian England. "Patriarchy" doesn't refer to any concerted effort or plot, but is a description of the outcome of social institutions and cultural attitudes which, AS A SYSTEM, disadvantage women. > capitalism ... should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force Capitalism, and patriarchy, are BOTH generally understood as being systemic: i.e. properties of human institutions. The concepts DO NOT inherently place blame on individuals, or even make judgments about the morality of the system. Whether or not our society exhibits patriarchy is an empirical question, to be answered with reference to data. Arising from but separate from this, there is the ethical question of value-judgment about the society. But there is absolutely no basis to call the notion of patriarchy "sexist".
edaemon 6y ago
Aren't most women's rights advocates asking for more maternity leave, not less?
- whotheffknows 6y ago
  I think the trick here is alot of people on Hacker News are not women's rights advocates. Hacker News is notoriously one of the most sexist places on earth. I'm a female reader, Staff Software Engineer and I've been reading hacker news everyday (literally) since sophomore yr of college in 2010. This place is sexist af.
  - seamyb88 6y ago
    Male reader. Agreed.
Symbiote 6y ago
In Denmark, maternity leave usually starts 4 weeks before the expected birth day. This actually seems to be shorter than the EU average, many countries start the leave 8 or more weeks before birth.
square_usual 6y ago
Why should women stop working entirely after having a child? Given sufficient maternity leave, they can take care of their bodies when it is required, and then get back to work when they can.
XorNot 6y ago
> You are rediscovering why in traditional societies woman stop working when getting pregnant. Which "traditional" societies? Because you sure as hell didn't stop working in any pre-agrarian, post-agrarian, industrial or ... you know any society on Earth prior to the invention of the white-collar job.
- ballenf 6y ago
  If you lived in a multi-generational household, your share of the household labor absolutely decreased. And neighbors also picked up some of the slack. I'm talking about early 1900s, based on stories from my grandparents about what life was like.

m0zg 6y ago

That should be the option (and a socially acceptable one) in all societies IMO. Working until delivery and dumping a newborn to a daycare at 6 months old is insane IMO.

Fiveplus 6y ago

Having a baby is such a crucial and important event in any woman's life that a mandated pre-delivery-full-pay leave seems like a viable mandated right I would whole-heartedly support.

ratsoman2 6y ago
As an employer, why would you choose to hire women who you knew you would have to pay a mandated pre-delivery-full-pay leave to as opposed to a man without that risk?
- tunnuz 6y ago
  Because you're aware of the broader picture around employing practices that are sustainable for society at large, and not only focused on your immediate selfish return of investment?
- tunnuz 6y ago
  Because you value the diversity in your workforce, not only because it looks good, but because it brings a unique culture to your company (as well as being fair)?
- CalRobert 6y ago
  The hand-wavy hippie arguments are "because it's the right thing to do" but of course the real answer needs to be "because we made the benefit equal for dads to remove just the situation you refer to".
- analbumcover 6y ago
  Most developed countries have figured this out. Some set amount of parental leave can be used by the parents of the child with the government paying some percentage of their usual salary instead of the employer. In Sweden the parents get a total of 480 days paid at 80% of their salary.
- Ueland 6y ago
  This has already been solved in multiple countries. For instance here in Norway, the leave goes for both parents. There is something like 12 months that can be shared between the parents, and both have around a month of leave just at the birth. Even asking about pregnancy/child plans in a interview is illegal.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  This is why paid maternal leave is forced on employers in European countries, so that they have no choice but to do so. Employers factor in that risk in their employee payment budget, build up reserves for it in accounting (same as they do with people falling sick or having regular PTO), in some cases governments step in and subsidize wages and that's it. Employers as a class in general will not ever hand away such things voluntarily, they had to be fought for violently over a hundred years ago in collective action.
- nashalo_nighly 6y ago
  Because ultimately as a company you need workers past the current generation. If women stop making babies due to having to bear a financial and occupational burden, then your company will quickly disappear due to a lack of workers and customers.
- prerok 6y ago
  The pay during maternity leave is covered by the state. I am guessing this holds for all countries but I can only say for sure for my country. It is somewhat annoying for the employer to "lose" the employee for a year but there is ample notice (eight months or so :) ) so the employer can prepare for the absence.
  - Viliam1234 6y ago
    Exactly, when the state pays the maternity leave, it doesn't create a disincentive for the employers. Should be obvious, but somehow is not. Even if you make laws like "the employer cannot ask about ...", well, they cannot ask, but they can still make a guess, right? (And then make up an excuse, because guessing is also illegal, of course.) Instead, if the maternity leave is paid by the state, the employer does not bear the cost, the mother doesn't have to worry about the employer going out of business during her pregnancy, etc. Generally, as a rule of thumb, if the "society wants" something, it should be paid by taxes, not thrown as an additional burden of the employers. That way, employers are incentivized to try to avoid the extra costs by doing things that are socially wrong, and the employees are not dependent of having a good and wealthy employer, and even the unemployed can get the same benefits by the same channels. For example, if you want to prevent crime, you don't say "the employers should provide police to protect their employees", but instead you pay the police from taxes, and leave the employers out of it. Exactly the same logic applies to health care, parental leave, etc.
    - loco5niner 6y ago
      Not arguing either way, but there is a natural disincentive for employers to have to plan around their employees being gone for those long periods of time, plus the ramp-up time upon their return, depending on the job.
- ljf 6y ago
  One of the reasons I love my employer is that they offer 6 months full pay to both men and women, with the option to have up to a year off (for women this moves to basic pay, men zero) after the 6 months - if you are having or adopting a child. This way as someone who interviews people it doesn't matter if they are men or women, you know that some will have children, some won't, but we will cope when they are away. And they will be back again. Far far more of our men and women return to work and stay with the company after having children than the UK average. I haven't personally benefitted from this (I had my kids when at another company with just 2 week paternity leave) but it makes me happy to see colleagues able to use this time to grow close to their child and also return to work rested and happy. We also have great flexibility in working patterns that has only increased since the pandemic. Happy humans deliver great work.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  This question is exactly why the federal govt has to level the playing field. It should be a tax incentive for companies to have workers on leave for reasons that support the health of society.
antepodius 6y ago
Would it be illegal for a newly pregnant woman to go and interview for 10 jobs, each of which she then never sets foot in because she immediately goes on pregnancy leave while still being paid for them all? Asking for a friend...
- lolc 6y ago
  If you work in a place where labour laws allow working 1000 percent, why not?
- ben_w 6y ago
  If I understand correctly, in Germany that works fine and is a lot less profitable than you’re expecting because the maternity pay is based on how much you were earning a year ago. Caveat: I’m still learning German, and this is a second-hand description from a coworker who is a father but isn’t an employment lawyer

motakraxxer 6y ago

The plot by patriarchy is not asking women to stop working during the third trimester. The plot is to ignore those needs and punish women who stop working by not paying them maternity leave or holding their pregnancy against them when they come back to the workforce.

stanfordkid 6y ago
I think we need to move past the genderization of capitalism (an abstract force) into "patriarchy" -- Capitalism has no interest in gender, age, or pretty much anything relating to human qualities. The trending force for capitalism is to have humans automated away -- let alone be given free money to have a baby. I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism? I happen to support capitalism as a means of production -- but it should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force like an optimization algorithm. "Patriarchy" is a red herring.
- whotheffknows 6y ago
  The Stanford kid wants to be Peter Thiel when he grows up.
- flamble 6y ago
  > I actually find the notion of "patriarchy" incredibly sexist -- were not men the canaries in the coalmine -- the original victims -- for the dehumanization of capitalism? "Patriarchy" is intertwined with the means of production but is also distinct therefrom. Women in Victorian England were not fully legally recognized as persons and did not have the same property rights as their husbands, and this is in a period during which capitalism obtained in England. This arrangement with men as the "patriarch" of the household, exercising control over subaltern women, predates capitalism by millenia (c.f. Roman "pater familias"). This "patriarchy" doesn't only consist of formal law, but may exist in tradition and social mores. For example adultery may be technically equally penalized for men and women but carry a vastly greater stigma and punishment in practice for women, as in feudal China. As another example, women may technically have recourse to the law if they are subjected to domestic violence but be prevented from doing this by the fear of social opprobrium and further mistreatment by family and community, as was again the case in Victorian England. "Patriarchy" doesn't refer to any concerted effort or plot, but is a description of the outcome of social institutions and cultural attitudes which, AS A SYSTEM, disadvantage women. > capitalism ... should be understood as an abstract, inhuman force Capitalism, and patriarchy, are BOTH generally understood as being systemic: i.e. properties of human institutions. The concepts DO NOT inherently place blame on individuals, or even make judgments about the morality of the system. Whether or not our society exhibits patriarchy is an empirical question, to be answered with reference to data. Arising from but separate from this, there is the ethical question of value-judgment about the society. But there is absolutely no basis to call the notion of patriarchy "sexist".

edaemon 6y ago

Aren't most women's rights advocates asking for more maternity leave, not less?

whotheffknows 6y ago
I think the trick here is alot of people on Hacker News are not women's rights advocates. Hacker News is notoriously one of the most sexist places on earth. I'm a female reader, Staff Software Engineer and I've been reading hacker news everyday (literally) since sophomore yr of college in 2010. This place is sexist af.
- seamyb88 6y ago
  Male reader. Agreed.

Symbiote 6y ago

In Denmark, maternity leave usually starts 4 weeks before the expected birth day. This actually seems to be shorter than the EU average, many countries start the leave 8 or more weeks before birth.

square_usual 6y ago

Why should women stop working entirely after having a child? Given sufficient maternity leave, they can take care of their bodies when it is required, and then get back to work when they can.

XorNot 6y ago

> You are rediscovering why in traditional societies woman stop working when getting pregnant. Which "traditional" societies? Because you sure as hell didn't stop working in any pre-agrarian, post-agrarian, industrial or ... you know any society on Earth prior to the invention of the white-collar job.

ballenf 6y ago
If you lived in a multi-generational household, your share of the household labor absolutely decreased. And neighbors also picked up some of the slack. I'm talking about early 1900s, based on stories from my grandparents about what life was like.