Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 494 posts

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#411

Post by whatshisface »

adrianN wrote: post #327
ldp01 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 biolo…

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.

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#414

Post by sangnoir »

fulafel wrote: post #353
Heya4 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that's a problem in developing countries, but population increase is very slow in the US. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/us/usa-population-grow...

It does not make sense to quantize this based on national borders. We're all in the same atmosphere and biosphere. And of course, any growth is bad in the current situation since the current level is so unsustainable - population should decrease, not increase.

> And of course, any growth is bad in the current situation since the current level is so unsustainable

Which resources are currently constrained? You'll find most of the growth is occuring in "low-maintanance" developing economies that don't consume as much (energy, food, goods, or any random metric per capita) as developed economies.

My counter-thesis: it's not the growth that's unsustainable, but the wasteful and environmentally unfriendly throw-away consumerist lifestyles.

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#415

Post by hycaria »

rayiner wrote: post #262
randyrand wrote: post #140

Being anti discrimination started with not discriminating people for things they can't control. Race, gender, etc. Now we're moving into territory of not discriminating against optional things people choose (having children). This is a very significant change, IMO. I wonder how far it can be taken. I think there's a fair argument that since pregnancy only affects women then it counts as gender discrimination. However…

It's a "choice" in the same sense that eating or drinking water is a choice. You can choose not to do it, but at a societal level if you do that everything quickly ceases to exist.

Yeah, we're so close to that, better worry right now.

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#416

Post by kadenshep »

vkbandi wrote: post #413
kadenshep wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds contrived, at the very least extremely anecdotal with a bit of hyperbole sprinkled on top.

Account deleted

There is both an abnormal amount of promotions that you have somehow personally witnessed -- doesn't sound like you were even involved with, we'll also ignore implicit psychological biases here -- while you happened to overhear THE core group of people involved in some conspiracy to enable your overall incredibly inordinary talking point.

There's a word for this: contrived.

It is extremely unlikely that such a company would exist in the current landscape, one willing to needlessly promote women, especially when considering their prior or current pregnancy status. I'm having myself a pretty big giggle.

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#418

Post by vkbandi »

kadenshep wrote: post #416
vkbandi wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Account deleted

There is both an abnormal amount of promotions that you have somehow personally witnessed -- doesn't sound like you were even involved with, we'll also ignore implicit psychological biases here -- while you happened to overhear THE core group of people involved in some conspiracy to enable your overall incredibly inordinary talking point. There's a word for this: contrived. It is extremely unlikely that such a compan…

Account deleted

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#419

Post by eps »

fabatka wrote: post #370
eps wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with them saying that?

Because the timeliness of paternity/maternity leave is determined by the childbirth's date, not by anything else.

That's obvious to anyone who knows how humans replicate.

The sentiment of the comment was that the timing was unfortunate because the kid was born in the same period that had presumably something else going on on the work side. Not that the child was born. So either the OP had some prior "history" with his manager, which changed the literal meaning of the comment, or he is reading too much into it.

Re: Pregnancy Discrimination Is Rampant Inside America’s Biggest Companies

#420

Post by overton »

I'll fully get behind mat leave if it's taken as bonus paid vacation time that's available to everyone. Having a child is a choice, and a selfish one at that, the world being as overpopulated as it is. No problem with that. You want a kid, I want to take time off to make music and travel.
Post reply on HN