5 ms·

I'm in favour of a set amount of parental leave that can be shared between spouses in whatever ratio they choose. I don't understand how depriving families of c

I'm in favour of a set amount of parental leave that can be shared between spouses in whatever ratio they choose. I don't understand how depriving families of choices is going to be a good thing. Example: You and your husband would like to breastfeed your baby for the first 6 months but you are unable to express? Too bad, your husband has to take paternity leave and you will have to go back to work. From my experience, there is a connection between mother and child from birth that is nurtured and strengthened through breastfeeding. I would vehemently oppose the state enforcing any interruption in my child's wellbeing as we see fit as parents.

matt4077 8y ago
> From my experience, there is a connection between mother and child from birth That's not "experience", it's just the 1950's dogma on the role of men and women dressed up in think-of-the-children. And even then: nutritional benefits of breastfeeding don't require the mother's presence, or men could choose a period after weaning for their leave.
- damagednoob 8y ago
  I'm not thinking-of-the-children, I'm thinking-of-my-children. I don't care how other parents choose to allocate their parental leave. If they want it to be more equitable, then more power to them. And it's not dogma it's just a biological fact that men can't breastfeed and thus women spend more time with the child. There is a snowball effect to this that makes the connection stronger which seems to be pretty self-evident. > And even then: nutritional benefits of breastfeeding don't require the mother's presence Did you understand the point about not being able to express? If the mother can't express (which many find too painful or just can't) how are the nutritional benefits of breastfeeding supposed to be delivered to the child?
michaelt 8y ago
I don't understand how depriving families of choices is going to be a good thing. There are loads of situations where being deprived of choices is a good thing. Consider the prisoners' dilemma [1], where the global optimum is for neither side to defect, but the Nash equilibrium is for both sides to defect. If both sides could be deprived of the choice to defect, both would enjoy a better outcome. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
lovich 8y ago
The state already imposes interruptions in what parents see as their childs well being. Requiring vaccinations to attend school, preventing parents from including children in dangerous religious events like snake handling, stopping underage marriages even when the parent thinks it's in the child best economic interest, etc. Unless you are against state intervention in cases like these, then you are already accepting that the state can interfere. At that point the question is a matter of degree
- damagednoob 8y ago
  > Unless you are against state intervention in cases like these, then you are already accepting that the state can interfere. Okay, fair enough. I will vehemently oppose any state interruption that goes against medical recommendations. You will not believe the string of NHS nurses and caregivers who tried to ensure that we breastfed our child.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Yeah that makes sense. I dont see how giving father's the same parental leave as women is an issue there though. Companies aren't going to give extra leave to women instead of giving it to men
- Bizarro 8y ago
  Unless you are against state intervention in cases like these, then you are already accepting that the state can interfere. At that point the question is a matter of degree I just can't be charitable with the whole "well the state already does..." arguments. In free societies, the state interfering with child rearing is a serious matter. In totalitarian regimes, it's par for the course.

matt4077 8y ago

> From my experience, there is a connection between mother and child from birth That's not "experience", it's just the 1950's dogma on the role of men and women dressed up in think-of-the-children. And even then: nutritional benefits of breastfeeding don't require the mother's presence, or men could choose a period after weaning for their leave.

damagednoob 8y ago
I'm not thinking-of-the-children, I'm thinking-of-my-children. I don't care how other parents choose to allocate their parental leave. If they want it to be more equitable, then more power to them. And it's not dogma it's just a biological fact that men can't breastfeed and thus women spend more time with the child. There is a snowball effect to this that makes the connection stronger which seems to be pretty self-evident. > And even then: nutritional benefits of breastfeeding don't require the mother's presence Did you understand the point about not being able to express? If the mother can't express (which many find too painful or just can't) how are the nutritional benefits of breastfeeding supposed to be delivered to the child?

michaelt 8y ago

I don't understand how depriving families of choices is going to be a good thing. There are loads of situations where being deprived of choices is a good thing. Consider the prisoners' dilemma [1], where the global optimum is for neither side to defect, but the Nash equilibrium is for both sides to defect. If both sides could be deprived of the choice to defect, both would enjoy a better outcome. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

lovich 8y ago

The state already imposes interruptions in what parents see as their childs well being. Requiring vaccinations to attend school, preventing parents from including children in dangerous religious events like snake handling, stopping underage marriages even when the parent thinks it's in the child best economic interest, etc. Unless you are against state intervention in cases like these, then you are already accepting that the state can interfere. At that point the question is a matter of degree

damagednoob 8y ago
> Unless you are against state intervention in cases like these, then you are already accepting that the state can interfere. Okay, fair enough. I will vehemently oppose any state interruption that goes against medical recommendations. You will not believe the string of NHS nurses and caregivers who tried to ensure that we breastfed our child.
- lovich 8y ago
  Yeah that makes sense. I dont see how giving father's the same parental leave as women is an issue there though. Companies aren't going to give extra leave to women instead of giving it to men
Bizarro 8y ago
Unless you are against state intervention in cases like these, then you are already accepting that the state can interfere. At that point the question is a matter of degree I just can't be charitable with the whole "well the state already does..." arguments. In free societies, the state interfering with child rearing is a serious matter. In totalitarian regimes, it's par for the course.