5 ms·

This is reasoning that programmers can be mothers not that mothers should be programmers. But one main problem is when children are young mothers are much more

by bugs 17y ago

This is reasoning that programmers can be mothers not that mothers should be programmers. But one main problem is when children are young mothers are much more likely to be tired or worn out running on little sleep and probably have less time/will to work on complicated problems

justinhj 17y ago
You've never looked after a baby have you? Going to work in the morning feels like going on vacation.
- colomon 17y ago
  That's because you're leaving the house and getting away from a constant distraction. This is exactly why trying to work from home at the same time you are being a stay-from-home-parent is incredibly hard. Believe me, I've tried doing programming work during periods while watching our young son, and it is nigh impossible to do any heavy duty work unless he is sleeping. Writing one-line unit tests is doable. Debugging complicated code is just barely possible if you are lucky. Breaking new ground is downright impossible. I suspect the author of the original post is not actually a mother...
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Get a nanny.
    - bumblebird 17y ago
      I'd disagree. Just learn to use time better. When you're feeding a baby, think over problems. When baby's asleep, code them up. When you have less time to hack, you tend to use it more efficiently (I've worked at home most of the time my youngest 2 were babies). I can't imagine having had a nanny and missed out on all that bonding, fun, and awesomeness that is baby/toddlers. (Not to mention things like my son puking up a full bottle of milk straight onto the keyboard of my laptop - I was feeding him and coding at the same time, which was probably a bad idea).
      - tptacek 17y ago
        You can absolutely do both things: have a nanny, and bond with your infant. Work from home, and use the nanny to keep the kid out of your hair when you need to focus. Of course, no nanny costs more than the most junior developer makes. I'm not sure how toddler awesomeness is relevant to the discussion. Nobody's offering a free lunch. But there clearly are jackasses who don't want to hire women because they think maternity leave is going to screw them.
        bumblebird 17y ago
        FWIW I don't see how that's a jackass thing to do. There's a chance that a woman may take maternity leave, then never return. That's an extra cost to the employer. It's a higher risk. I'm of the opinion that real freedom means the freedom to discriminate if you want to. Insurers are freely able to discriminate, it seems like employers should be able to as well (I know in this age of political correctness it's impossible to). Should terminally ill people be able to go on apprenticeships? I'd say on balance no - if they die before they're trained in the job, then the employer who is footing the bill of training them, has lost out.
        tptacek 17y ago
        You shouldn't hire terminally ill people at all. Turnover is expensive. Also, the chronically ill drive up insurance premiums. For that same reason, you shouldn't hire people over 35. Another reason not to hire people over 35 is that people under 35 will work 80 hour weeks for no additional pay. That's also a good reason only to hire offshore developers, or, better yet, H1-Bs from H1-B bodyshops: they can't quit, or they'll be deported.
        bumblebird 17y ago
        Right. And personally, I think those decisions should be up to employers. Similarly, I'm completely against the minimum wage. Give employers the freedom to hire who they want, for whatever wage they want to offer.
tptacek 17y ago
The one main problem with men is when children are young fathers are much more likely to be tired or worn out running on little sleep and probably have less time/will to work on complicated problems. Or at least, that's been the case with me, and with every new father I've ever worked with or known. In a two-career household, you are expected to figure out how to allow both parents their careers. If the mom is the only one awake at night, you're doing it wrong.

by bugs 17y ago

justinhj 17y ago

You've never looked after a baby have you? Going to work in the morning feels like going on vacation.

colomon 17y ago
That's because you're leaving the house and getting away from a constant distraction. This is exactly why trying to work from home at the same time you are being a stay-from-home-parent is incredibly hard. Believe me, I've tried doing programming work during periods while watching our young son, and it is nigh impossible to do any heavy duty work unless he is sleeping. Writing one-line unit tests is doable. Debugging complicated code is just barely possible if you are lucky. Breaking new ground is downright impossible. I suspect the author of the original post is not actually a mother...
- tptacek 17y ago
  Get a nanny.
  - bumblebird 17y ago
    I'd disagree. Just learn to use time better. When you're feeding a baby, think over problems. When baby's asleep, code them up. When you have less time to hack, you tend to use it more efficiently (I've worked at home most of the time my youngest 2 were babies). I can't imagine having had a nanny and missed out on all that bonding, fun, and awesomeness that is baby/toddlers. (Not to mention things like my son puking up a full bottle of milk straight onto the keyboard of my laptop - I was feeding him and coding at the same time, which was probably a bad idea).
    - tptacek 17y ago
      You can absolutely do both things: have a nanny, and bond with your infant. Work from home, and use the nanny to keep the kid out of your hair when you need to focus. Of course, no nanny costs more than the most junior developer makes. I'm not sure how toddler awesomeness is relevant to the discussion. Nobody's offering a free lunch. But there clearly are jackasses who don't want to hire women because they think maternity leave is going to screw them.
      - bumblebird 17y ago
        FWIW I don't see how that's a jackass thing to do. There's a chance that a woman may take maternity leave, then never return. That's an extra cost to the employer. It's a higher risk. I'm of the opinion that real freedom means the freedom to discriminate if you want to. Insurers are freely able to discriminate, it seems like employers should be able to as well (I know in this age of political correctness it's impossible to). Should terminally ill people be able to go on apprenticeships? I'd say on balance no - if they die before they're trained in the job, then the employer who is footing the bill of training them, has lost out.
        tptacek 17y ago
        You shouldn't hire terminally ill people at all. Turnover is expensive. Also, the chronically ill drive up insurance premiums. For that same reason, you shouldn't hire people over 35. Another reason not to hire people over 35 is that people under 35 will work 80 hour weeks for no additional pay. That's also a good reason only to hire offshore developers, or, better yet, H1-Bs from H1-B bodyshops: they can't quit, or they'll be deported.
        bumblebird 17y ago
        Right. And personally, I think those decisions should be up to employers. Similarly, I'm completely against the minimum wage. Give employers the freedom to hire who they want, for whatever wage they want to offer.

tptacek 17y ago

The one main problem with men is when children are young fathers are much more likely to be tired or worn out running on little sleep and probably have less time/will to work on complicated problems. Or at least, that's been the case with me, and with every new father I've ever worked with or known. In a two-career household, you are expected to figure out how to allow both parents their careers. If the mom is the only one awake at night, you're doing it wrong.