Comment by nostrebored | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nostrebored | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>"There are capable women who climb ladders successfully. The other women who couldn't, simply couldn't, just like many men who couldn't." There are fewer women, proportionally, who "climb ladders" successfully. This implies that there are fewer capable women than men in the world.

>"Who said that man doesn't want to take a paternity leave? Every single recent father I know wants to take time off to bond with the kid. Unfortunately, he can't without a cut in pay (in the US). Get this law in and you'll see so many fathers doing it."

The mother being present is not required for a child to be exclusively breastfed anymore. Pumping is quite effective. The only argument for only the woman to be taking the time off and making these career compromises is one that views women as the only capable caregivers.

>"It is always a partnership. Only a partnership works. More often than not, partnership == compromise from all parties involved to WIN."

And this can't be done with both partners sharing in childcare responsibilities and working? The data is out there (see my other posts) to show that SAHM are significantly more angry, depressed, etc. than their working counterparts. Is this a win for the mother and the baby?

Do you think that women are incapable of "playing point guard", i.e. providing for their family?

>"Fine. Do both jobs half-heartedly. Anybody who has been a successful mother knows that it is HARD. If you think it just "happens" you're badly mistaken."

I've stayed at home with child. I know that it's hard. Being a successful PARENT is hard too, and the reason that motherhood is even harder for the majority of the people that I know is their sole responsibility as child-rearer.

>> There are fewer women, proportionally, who "climb ladders" successfully. This implies that there are fewer capable women than men in the world.

Or, they make different life choices.

>> The mother being present is not required for a child to be exclusively breastfed anymore. Pumping is quite effective. The only argument for only the woman to be taking the time off and making these career compromises is one that views women as the only capable caregivers.

Fine. Don't be a good parent. Women are not the only capable caregivers. Men can be equally good. Women can be equally shitty. Unfortunately, law treats women specially. Get this law to treat women the same as men.

>> And this can't be done with both partners sharing in childcare responsibilities and working? The data is out there (see my other posts) to show that SAHM are significantly more angry, depressed, etc. than their working counterparts. Is this a win for the mother and the baby?

Do you think that women are incapable of "playing point guard", i.e. providing for their family?

No. Women certainly can play point guard. But when was the last time you saw a woman date a deadbeat? No woman wants to date a man who sits at home....implicitly, men who are going to become a parent work (or have to work).

Women can play point guards when they start having families with deadbeats.

>> I've stayed at home with child. I know that it's hard. Being a successful PARENT is hard too, and the reason that motherhood is even harder for the majority of the people that I know is their sole responsibility as child-rearer.

It's not the mother's sole responsibility. But at least one partner has to take more care of the kid while the other partner sacrifices their social life for work. You can have men sitting at home taking care of the kid, but I don't see many women married to men like that. Care to set an example?

>>Don't be a good parent.

Nice to see where this is going.

>>Get this law to treat women the same as men.

Wrt to parental leave, that's what I've been advocating for throughout this thread. I think that the social and legal status quo sets up women as the caregiver defaults, which is harmful to women.

>>Women can play point guards when they start having families with deadbeats.

Or, men could leave their jobs and let women return to work at a more reasonable rate. You're again assuming that the male has to be the provider. Why can't a man sacrifice his current career path while his partner continues hers?

>>You can have men sitting at home taking care of the kid, but I don't see many women married to men like that. Care to set an example?

I think you've missed the point. This is exactly what I did. Both my partner and I have CS degrees from a top 10 university, and we decided that her career looked more promising.

> I think that the social and legal status quo sets up women > as the caregiver defaults, which is harmful to women.

That's quite sexist claim.

Not really. Laws in the US default to women as caregivers.

- Women get maternity, men don't - Women get default custody of child in divorce, men don't - Women get to adopt easier than men - Domestic violence on men is ignored/laughed upon, presumably because men are not caregivers but violators by default - Women don't have mandatory military conscription, men do (presumably because men have to be fighters and women have to be caregivers by default)

> Laws in the US default to women as caregivers.

Mostly, they don't.

> Women get maternity, men don't

Well, by definition, its only "maternity" when the mother gets it, but the federal requirement for unpaid, job-protected family leave in FMLA applies equally to parents of both genders, as does (for one example) the California state requirements for job-protected unpaid family (CFRA) and paid family leave (PFL)

> Women get default custody of child in divorce, men don't

There is no legally-specified default custody in divorce; women get custody in divorce more often because they are more likely to request it. Men get custody more often when it is contested between the parties.

> Women get to adopt easier than men

AFAIK, that's true for single women vs. single men in practice, but not an example of a default in the law, since its a result of the practices of private adoption agencies, not a result of a difference in legal requirements.

> Domestic violence on men is ignored/laughed upon, presumably because men are not caregivers but violators by default

Again, to the extent that's true, that's not an example of the law treating them differently; as a matter of law, domestic violence is equally prohibited when a male is the victim.

> Women don't have mandatory military conscription, men do

Well, no, since the draft ended and the all-volunteer force was established, no one has had mandatory military conscription in the US. Men are required to register in preparation for any potential change in that policy, though, so while overstated, this seems to be the single valid example of a legal preference in the direction you suggest on your list.

> There is no legally-specified default custody in divorce; women get custody in divorce more often because they are more likely to request it. Men get custody more often when it is contested between the parties.

> Again, to the extent that's true, that's not an example of the law treating them differently; as a matter of law, domestic violence is equally prohibited when a male is the victim.

You are onto something. The laws seem to treat men and women the same.

So why is there a need for an organizations like "Women who code"? The law, on paper, treats both men and women the same right?

If your answer is that the laws are unfair towards a particular gender, then you yourself contradict the above mentioned points.

else if your answer is that "in practice" women get treated unfairly despite equal on-paper laws, that is exactly what I meant by "US laws default to women as caregivers". Men get treated unfairly in domestic and family issues.

Written law and law as it is enforced and practiced is very very different when it comes to gender issues.

> So why is there a need for an organizations like "Women who code"? The law, on paper, treats both men and women the same right?

There are many social reasons that the situations women face in the programming might be different than those faced by men that have nothing to do with differences in law, either on their face or in practical application.

> If your answer is that the laws are unfair towards a particular gender

But its not, so that's okay.

> else if your answer is that "in practice" women get treated unfairly despite equal on-paper laws

But my answer is not that they in practice get treated unfairly in the execution of the law, either.

>> I think you've missed the point. This is exactly what I did. Both my partner and I have CS degrees from a top 10 university, and we decided that her career looked more promising.

This.

You come from educated backgrounds. Most common folks don't agree with this. A non-working husband will be called a loser.

>The mother being present is not required for a child to be exclusively breastfed anymore. Pumping is quite effective. The only argument for only the woman to be taking the time off and making these career compromises is one that views women as the only capable caregivers.

True that it's not required, but I suspect that when a child is in physical contact with its mother during nursing their are other benefits. For instance, the release of beneficial hormones during this type of bonding is well documented. Do you know of any studies on the impacts of bottle feeding breast milk vs nursing? (hoping I don't sound oppressive)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com