Hacker News Reader

> 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.

My mother was bed-bound for several months during pregnancy. It's more common than you think.

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.

>> 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.

> 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.

Interesting, thanks! I was basing my opinion mainly on an Economist article (IIRC), great to hear a first-hand opinion!

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.

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.