[T-hawk]

> isn't it unfair to take a new job and get away for 6 months for parenting purpose?

There's a number of answers to that:

1) Biology is unfair. Birthing a child obviously takes much more effort and time from the mother than the father. We have societally chosen to make up for that a little bit by giving the mother a legally protected break from job demands.

2) It should come out in the wash on the back end. When it's time for reviews and raises, the new mother has three or six months less of productivity and accomplishments, so it's natural and not discriminatory for her to receive less reward here.

3) Maybe it IS unfair and that's why companies would seek to avoid hiring likely-to-become-pregnant women if they were not legally barred from doing so.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of all these, in different situations. Some women can bear a child and not miss a beat in productivity at a job. Some perhaps do use maternity leave as an excuse for a vacation.

[orangecat]

We have societally chosen to make up for that a little bit by giving the mother a legally protected break from job demands.

In which case we should collectively pay for it rather than dumping the burden on her employer, especially since as you note that creates a disincentive to hire any woman of childbearing age.

When it's time for reviews and raises, the new mother has three or six months less of productivity and accomplishments, so it's natural and not discriminatory for her to receive less reward here.

Her attorney might see things differently.

[vidarh]

> In which case we should collectively pay for it rather than dumping the burden on her employer,

And that's how it is in most of Europe, for example. But companies are still known to try to avoid it because of the hassle of getting a replacement for the duration of maternity leave.