> Women currently have much more choice which gives them an unfair advantage.
Men are free to choose to abstain from PIV intercourse, get vasectomies, or wear condoms, depending on their level of risk acceptance. They can also choose to have sex only when they are on the same page as their partner about what to do in the case of unplanned pregnancy. This requires a pre-coital conversation, and the acceptance that one party may change their mind.
> at the very least the man should have the equal option of "financial abortion"
No. Child support or co-parenting is not a punishment for the father, it is support for a child that exists. Also, men do not have to carry a pregnancy and go through childbirth and any resulting complications, and breastfeeding (if chosen). Let's accept that biology makes this situation unequal and not try to equalize it.
> It is best for society when children grow up with parents who both wanted them.
Possibly/probably. But growing up with two parents who both wanted a child is not the case for many existing people. Let's focus on managing the reality and making sure children grow up with the support of both parents when possible, and not focus on trying to do mental gymnastics to force the idea that any potential consequences of sex should not fall on men.
Support to a child does not go away just because a child has one parent or no parents. Demanding that the payment be done by an unwilling parent rather than society has everything to do with our cultural views. If we truly saw this as the child rights to get support then it should not matter who is paying the bill. The mother, the father, or the government.
Parenthood should be built on consent by both the mother and the father. Biology dictate that women should have the finally decision if she wants to have an abortion, but there is nothing biological to the fact that women have the exclusive right to declare in legal document who will fathering the child. That is just law, which can be changed and rewritten in any form depending on cultural values.
You didn't even try to understand the viewpoint of men objectively here.
You are telling men that they should be choosing to abstain from PIV intercourse, get invasive surgery or wear condoms which can all fail anyway which destroys your point anyway, but even if it didnt then a woman has to do none of these things and she still gets a choice of whether she wants to become a parent or not. Always. A man needs this choice too or it is not fair.
> Child support or co-parenting is not a punishment for the father
The millions of unwilling fathers who have to pay massive amounts of money would violently disagree with that statement. How can you even make such a statement without the alarm bells going off in your head? Just put yourself into their position, you didn't want a child, you still don't want one but now you have to pay money into it. It takes some breathtaking mental gymnastics on your part to shoehorn your ideological beliefs (fatherhood = never bad) into this objectively bad situation that has no equivalent for women.
I suspect you are fighting an ideological battle here, trying to convince everyone and maybe most of all yourself that fatherhood must never be seen as negative when reality just disagrees with you.
> men do not have to carry a pregnancy and go through childbirth and any resulting complications, and breastfeeding
Neither do women, they have the right to an abortion. Again, this just shows that you didn't even attempt to understand what my point was.
> Let's accept that biology makes this situation unequal and not try to equalize it.
Absolutely not, what kind of cruel joke is this? We see an obvious discrepancy with a very fair solution for both sides and you say no. One is inclined to think that there is a profit motive behind this for you if you are arguing like this.
> Let's focus on managing the reality and making sure children grow up with the support of both parents when possible
aka. forcing men into parenthood and an 18 year long huge financial burden against their will, not to mention the emotional burden.
> mental gymnastics to force the idea that any potential consequences of sex should not fall on men
Again: Women do not have to face these potential consequences of sex, so why should men?
Isn't it funny, you say we have to accept these biological differences but only if men suffer for it.
What about the biological reality that the baby is 50% the father's so why should the woman not have to accept this biological reality and be forced to ask the father for permission if she wants to abort it?
But no, of course not. Equality is only something good if it's in favor of women and bad for men. Did I get that right? I think I did even if you deny it.
I'm going to very quickly bottom line this: Women have the right to refuse motherhood whether they abstain from sex or not, men do not have it. This has to be fixed, whether you personally like it when men suffer or not.
> and signing off very early to babysit his young children.
Are you serious with this? Parenting is not "babysitting". Would you call it babysitting if he wasn't a male parent? It's 2019. Both men and women work and share parenting responsibilities.
It sounds like you don't have these outside responsibilities or have delegated them out. However your general tone makes me skeptical about your maturity and objectivity. Your colleague may be in a wrong-fit job, or you may be irrationally funneling all your energy into comparing yourself to him and resenting him. Or somewhere in between. Or maybe there is another reason the founder has not addressed the issue (yet?) that may be none of your business (like having to document poor performance, or giving the guy a chance to find another job).
As others have said, it's just a job. Do your part and don't worry about him. And maybe find some hobbies to give you a reason to leave work and focus on other things. Or if you're that miserable, you are also free to find another job. No need to create drama like "me or him" ultimatums, just find one and give notice like an adult.
I worked in a prison facility for three years, where all the inmates knew my first and last name, which is unique (I'm probably the only person with my first/last name in the world). If you google me, you can find my entire immediate family, including home address, home worth, names, occupation, ages. Many of the inmates were able to observe my car make/model/license plate, my arrival and departure time to work, etc. Though I had good rapport with the inmates and believe I did right by them, I still have a nagging fear that a released inmate could track down a family member or show up at our home. These are not dumb people. In fact they are quite creative with plenty of street smarts.
I am not a unique/unusual/margin case.
Saying "there are some people who have stalkers and such" discounts large swaths of (mostly) women who have been victimized, far more than a non-victim would ever realize.
This is a very real concern for more than an insignificant number of people. We are just people who you would not necessarily realize exist.
I had the opportunity to choose between a used 6 and a new 8 or X after my 5s tragically drowned a couple months ago. After playing with the new ones, I couldn’t justify the price though I can easily afford it. Didn’t see much difference between the 6 and the new models in terms of function. Maybe the camera is a bit better but I don’t have kids nor do I take selfies/use social media so the 6 it is. I don’t feel like I’m missing out.
You could sell it on Craigslist and donate the proceeds to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Not sure how to prevent it from being used for its intended purpose unless you destroy it.
>>>I don't really want to live in a world where anyone on the internet can destroy my income via anonymous complaint. That seems really ripe for abuse.<<<
You already live in this world, because Yelp exists.
Additionally, no one is saying the complaints have to be anonymous, just that one should not need to be a registered user of Airbnb. It’s an important distinction.
This is not a solution. I specialize in cancer treatment and I have spend countless hours trying to track down people who cannot receive calls from our medical center. These people have missed multiple opportunities for more timely appointments, in many cases putting their health at risk. Many of them don't receive the voicemails we leave either. There are many situations where a non-contact would need to reach you and some of those situations could be urgent, so blocking all of them is not a solution. For example my friend's parents were in a car crash and she got a call from the hospital they were at, which obviously wasn't in her contacts. We should be working with whoever has the oversight for this to eliminate robocalls. Not sure if that would be the government or phone companies, or device manufacturers.
This is one of the most obnoxious posts I have ever read on HN. I'm actually feeling a buildup of rage reading it.
First, there is never a justification for using the word 'slaves' in anything but the literal context. Please be more cognizant of this country's history.
Of course going back to your country is an option. You are choosing not to take it because you don't want to disrupt your daughter's life, either by leaving her here or taking her there.
H1B was never meant to be an immigration visa or one that entitles you to permanent residency. It is a "temporary worker" visa. Establishing family and a life in the United States while on this visa, you take the risk that you may have to disrupt this life at some point.
I think there are very few people, if any, who will be sympathetic to your post seeing as how your income and current place of residence places you among the wealthiest and most privileged people in the country and the world. If you have been working for 15 years at even close to your current income, you may be in a position to retire and live anywhere you want, with a very high standard of living. At least, you can go work anywhere else and maintain a high standard of living.
I have so much more I could say but... I can't even right now.*
*I finally understand what this phrase means. I have never used it before but I feel it suddenly and deeply after reading this post.
Men are free to choose to abstain from PIV intercourse, get vasectomies, or wear condoms, depending on their level of risk acceptance. They can also choose to have sex only when they are on the same page as their partner about what to do in the case of unplanned pregnancy. This requires a pre-coital conversation, and the acceptance that one party may change their mind.
> at the very least the man should have the equal option of "financial abortion"
No. Child support or co-parenting is not a punishment for the father, it is support for a child that exists. Also, men do not have to carry a pregnancy and go through childbirth and any resulting complications, and breastfeeding (if chosen). Let's accept that biology makes this situation unequal and not try to equalize it.
> It is best for society when children grow up with parents who both wanted them.
Possibly/probably. But growing up with two parents who both wanted a child is not the case for many existing people. Let's focus on managing the reality and making sure children grow up with the support of both parents when possible, and not focus on trying to do mental gymnastics to force the idea that any potential consequences of sex should not fall on men.