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

Restarting my career after motherhood

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 273 posts

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#171

Post by oldsecondhand »

jjeaff wrote: post #100
in_cahoots wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t need to be like this, but that’s what her family chose. One model isn’t superior over the other. It would be great if tech companies supported both family styles, just like they tout their other family-friendly benefits.

I agree that people can do what they want. But I can't help but wish people did not do this. I don't think anyone honestly believes that children are not better off by having more balanced input from both parents where possible. And the more people that do this (where the working parent is a workaholic) the more difficult it makes things for working parents who want to have a more balanced home life. This is similar…

If you want to live among the rich, you have to pay the entry fee.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#172

Post by jseban »

ir123 wrote: post #155
jseban wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm constantly surprised that nobody every says this. With women entering the work force, now the family as a whole needs to work almost twice as much, as before when women were house wives. That's a pretty hefty price to pay for everyone, to save those women who were unlucky to have a cruel or unfair husband. I don't know if it's possible to say if it's "worth it" or not, but this independence sure does not co…

why can't a new law be passed to reduce from 40 hour week to 20 hour week now that women are in workforce?

Yeah this is what I'm wondering too, seems like this is the obvious part of the deal that was somehow missed?

It makes perfect sense, and it would also be fair and benefit both single/childless people as well as people with children.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#173

Post by kelseyfrog »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #169
kelseyfrog wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economists working from first principles can reach horrendous conclusions[1]. 1. https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights

After reading the article, I don't see what's horrendous about it. Yes, having children has a market effect and is even a market unto itself. There's rarely any controversy to think in terms of the financial costs and legal obligations (or lack thereof) when discussing abortions, adoptions, disinheritance, estrangement, etc. All of these actions are connected by a single thread: Generally speaking, no person is owed…

It could be a fun exercise to consider why someone might find it horrendous. You know, just to put yourself in someone else's shoes for a bit.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#174

Post by fnordpiglet »

mmcnl wrote: post #162

Why is at always the mothers who choose to be stay-at-home mothers, and very rarely fathers? In my opinion this makes things extra hard for mothers who want to resume their career, because men are used to working with men who don't take breaks from their career to raise their children. Taking time off to raise your children is a personal choice, but it doesn't make any sense that it's almost never the fathers who sta…

Women tend to make less than men so it makes economic sense for the woman to stay at home. The problem gets worse and the disparity as the man’s career progresses and the woman’s declines, sometimes to the point that day care comes with opportunity cost relative to not working - I.e., the woman’s income doesn’t offset the increased expenses.

This is a systemic and structural tragedy.

That said as a hiring manager I love hiring women returning to work. They have a very clear reason to be there and their productivity is very high, and more than offsets any reduction in hours they might face due to lingering responsibilities.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#175

Post by mmcnl »

tomp wrote: post #167
mmcnl wrote: post #162

Why is at always the mothers who choose to be stay-at-home mothers, and very rarely fathers? In my opinion this makes things extra hard for mothers who want to resume their career, because men are used to working with men who don't take breaks from their career to raise their children. Taking time off to raise your children is a personal choice, but it doesn't make any sense that it's almost never the fathers who sta…

Because biology. Mothers have to take time off work (to give birth), fathers don’t. Freedom of choice is important, but so is specialisation (so the couple can be more efficient), so it makes more sense for mother to specialise for family (sacrificing career), and father to specialise for career (sacrificing family).

This is a very conservative view. Giving birth is something only the mother can do, but there is no biological reason why a mother should raise the child and not the father. This renders you argument about specialization mute. In almost every developed country, it's possible to work 32 hours instead of 40 hours, which means that with 3 days of daycare the mother and father can share the responsibility raising a child equally.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#176

Post by usrn »

pizza234 wrote: post #36
spyremeown wrote: post #9

I strongly disagree with "I remained flat" statement. I mean, you were taking care of your children, weren't you? If you do it right (imho, if you even just try to do it right), it's the biggest accomplishment one can do. I understand how frustrating it must be to stay professionally flat compared to your peers. We absolutely should celebrate people taking their time off to literally raise the next humans, instead we…

> If you do it right (imho, if you even just try to do it right), it's the biggest accomplishment one can do. Family ambitions and personal ambitions are two separate things (although for some people, typically women, they do match). Personally speaking, I do have parental and professional goals, and I don't think of any of the two as neither superior nor compensating respect to the other. > they spent 5~6 years off…

At least for me, starting a family is the only reason I'm an employee. Otherwise I'd just go buy some land in the woods and live in a secluded cabin.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#177

Post by mmcnl »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #163
mmcnl wrote: post #162

Why is at always the mothers who choose to be stay-at-home mothers, and very rarely fathers? In my opinion this makes things extra hard for mothers who want to resume their career, because men are used to working with men who don't take breaks from their career to raise their children. Taking time off to raise your children is a personal choice, but it doesn't make any sense that it's almost never the fathers who sta…

> Why is at always the mothers who choose to be stay-at-home mothers, and very rarely fathers Because on average, fathers tend to make more than mothers. That's not the only calculation, but it's a big one.

Why don't the father and mother both work less? I.e. 4 days (32 hours) instead of 5 days (40 hours). As long as this is not common practice, combined with expensive or inaccessible daycare, women will always face more difficulties in their career. There's no biological justification for this, instead it's entirely the result of cultural conventions and political decisions. I think we should recognize this, because if we don't, gender equality will be out of reach in the near future.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#178

Post by Dracophoenix »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #173
Dracophoenix wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After reading the article, I don't see what's horrendous about it. Yes, having children has a market effect and is even a market unto itself. There's rarely any controversy to think in terms of the financial costs and legal obligations (or lack thereof) when discussing abortions, adoptions, disinheritance, estrangement, etc. All of these actions are connected by a single thread: Generally speaking, no person is owed…

It could be a fun exercise to consider why someone might find it horrendous. You know, just to put yourself in someone else's shoes for a bit.

Instead of my supposing or assuming, I'd rather you speak for your own position. Pretending to be a different person may be a fun exercise, but it doesn't get me any closer to understanding that person's motives or thoughts as they are.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#179

Post by fnordpiglet »

tomp wrote: post #167
mmcnl wrote: post #162

Why is at always the mothers who choose to be stay-at-home mothers, and very rarely fathers? In my opinion this makes things extra hard for mothers who want to resume their career, because men are used to working with men who don't take breaks from their career to raise their children. Taking time off to raise your children is a personal choice, but it doesn't make any sense that it's almost never the fathers who sta…

Because biology. Mothers have to take time off work (to give birth), fathers don’t. Freedom of choice is important, but so is specialisation (so the couple can be more efficient), so it makes more sense for mother to specialise for family (sacrificing career), and father to specialise for career (sacrificing family).

First off, the medical reasons women take time off are protected by employment law in a variety of ways and most professional careers offer generous paid time off with FMLA protection on their careers. So the biological argument is specious. Note many fathers also get equivalent time off with the mom.

The specialization argument makes no sense. Why does it make sense for the mother to specialize for the family than the man? You made a large unexplained logical leap in that one that I don’t think is defensible.

The reason is economic and tradition at this point. Due to unfair compensation practice that rewards women less for the same work it makes more sense for her to not work. Tradition also compels a lot of couples in this direction. Both of these forces work to take women out of the work force.

The return to work force friction is very sad, and I honestly don’t understand it.

Re: Restarting my career after motherhood

#180

Post by tomp »

mmcnl wrote: post #175
tomp wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because biology. Mothers have to take time off work (to give birth), fathers don’t. Freedom of choice is important, but so is specialisation (so the couple can be more efficient), so it makes more sense for mother to specialise for family (sacrificing career), and father to specialise for career (sacrificing family).

This is a very conservative view. Giving birth is something only the mother can do, but there is no biological reason why a mother should raise the child and not the father. This renders you argument about specialization mute. In almost every developed country, it's possible to work 32 hours instead of 40 hours, which means that with 3 days of daycare the mother and father can share the responsibility raising a child…

You misunderstood my argument.

If father specialises for work, he can devote 100%. If mother specialises for work, she can only devote 90% (or whatever, to account for birth & recovery in first year).

Therefore all things being equal (i.e. “controlling for other variables” in statistics) father specialising for work will be more profitable for the family than mother specialising for work. Everyone (well, every couple) is free to choose what they want, weighing tradeoffs along many dimensions (money isn’t everything, but it’s a lot) but don’t be surprised if choices are biased towards “economically sensible”.

Sure, you can also do things “equally” but I estimate you’ll be getting less, on average (i.e. you will earn less per day working 3x per week than 5x (or 6x))

Post reply on HN