361–370 of 617 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mothers already have a year of maternal leave, this is about fathers getting decent amount of leave as well. No one is taking anything away from you.
The government is putting some money in it. I would prefer that money was used to extend the mother’s leave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, after. I want them to thrive, but they're not at an age yet where I can fully appreciate time with them.
Wowser, what work do you do? Have you never been involved in a long project that was initially unfruitful but ultimately rewarding when you stuck at it? It's not supposed to be enjoyable, you're nurturing your child to establish the foundation on which your life together is built and to help them prosper. You're right, it's extremely mentally challenging in those first months before they start to communicate with you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Finally, a country that understands that one of the driving forces of gender inequality is the asymmetry of experience caused by maternal leave. The asymmetry of experience is actually caused by child bearing, which can only be done by women. Maternal leave is downstream from that.
Disagreed. Child bearing is only an initial factor; after the baby is out it goes away. The problem is breastfeeding, but there are ways around that (and some mothers, for a variety of reasons or impediments, don't breastfeed; in that case it's completely moot). So minus breastfeeding, the asymmetry has a large component of "it was always done like this", plus the mistaken idea some employers have that the leave is s…
Men do not produce milk.
As an American, I find it hard to be patriotic about my country when my fellow citizens can’t muster up the political will to ensure any paid parental leave for most people. Edit: changed parental leave to paid parental leave
I'm not opposed to paid parental leave, but it's not equitable at all. It benefits the rich the most, and may even punish the poor. For example, there's no reason a senior investment banker should be paid high 6 figures to take care of their kids. They should have more than enough money saved up themselves to take unpaid time off. Meanwhile, the most vulnerable will have are even harder time finding full time employm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't buy this narrative, sorry. I think you may have missed their point, as there's not much to "buy". I hadn't considered it before, and it strikes me as interesting. I believe what they're saying is that women being introduced into the work force en-masse, and therefore nearly doubling the working population, has driven down wages. The lower wages made it harder for a single bread-winner to support a family, w…
> as there's not much to "buy" Well, you have to buy that the data actually supports this (which your last sentence implies it's not a given) and there's the implication that women voluntarily entering into the workforce have somehow made things worse for other women; that's the implied "narrative". And of course, that women in the workforce are a major factor in lowering wages, and that there are no ways to stop the…
Got it, so you're saying you don't think the mass influx of new workers drove down wages? It seems like a pretty straight forward argument. Would love to hear your thoughts that contradict it.
> ... and there's the implication that women voluntarily entering into the workforce have somehow made things worse for other women; that's the implied "narrative".
That would be the outcome if this were true, wouldn't it? I don't think they're suggesting any kind of intent, but if their premise is correct, it would in fact have made life harder for single income households.
> ... there are no ways to stop the erosion of wages without driving women away from the workforce. As you can see, there are many narratives at play here that you can either buy into or not.
I didn't see this in the comment you responded to.
As an American, I find it hard to be patriotic about my country when my fellow citizens can’t muster up the political will to ensure any paid parental leave for most people. Edit: changed parental leave to paid parental leave
But... we are doing this. The President brought it up during the State of the Union. > The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires large organizations to offer employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a new child, sick relative or their own illness. Although a growing number of states have passed or are considering paid family leave laws, there is no nationwide equivalent. https://www.shrm.org/resour…
As a dad, if I were to choose, I'd rather spend a larger chunk of time with my kid from 2 and up. That is a very good period of time when the kid forms important habits and through games lots of things can be taught. This is actually a goal of mine, I want to save enough and take a few years off from work (or maybe find a part-time gig) and spend some good quality time with my kid.
I'm a dad (of three) and I am not convinced that time spent at the very start of their lives is as significant as that later in their lives (note the "as", I am not saying it has no value!) when you can really nurture their passions, knowledge, etc. I did spend a lot of time with my children in their earliest days because it was the right thing to do, but I don't feel either they or I particularly gained from it (tha…
I think this is missing the point of equal parental leave and how it creates equality - it's for the mum just as much as the dad, so she can now get a bit of her life back earlier. I took 3 months leave (wish it was more) when my daughter was born, spread out through the year a month at a time. I loved each month for different reasons and I know each month helped me understand what my wife was dealing with better and…
It's no longer a bigger risk for companies to hire late 20-s women compared to late 20-s men - both will go on leave if they get kids.
At my job, I also see way more dads staying home with sick kids or going to "planning day" or similar, compared to when I was growing up.
I love a good, "X Nordic Country provides Y for FREE -- so should the United States!" Where Y is some socialized benefit. Let's put this in perspective: Finland's population is around 5.5 million people. That's somewhere between the populations of South Carolina and Minnesota. Get a grip people -- The United States is not even remotely equivalent to Finland in terms of demographics and population. Find a nice U.S. St…
Reading thru the comments, it sounds like New Jersey has great parental benefits, but you will be sharing them with a few more million people than Denmark, so ymmv.
It comes down to this: you sound like a complete idiot comparing social programs of these small Countries to large Country. Stop.
The US, federally, already gives dads he same parental leave as moms. (It's crap, but it's the same crap.)