> My understanding is that this idea would imply paid mandatory leave. It would be bad for the individuals if it was mandatory unpaid leave. That was understoo

> My understanding is that this idea would imply paid mandatory leave. It would be bad for the individuals if it was mandatory unpaid leave. That was understood in my post. Long periods of paid leave inhibits earnings growth and leaves you vulnerable to replacement regardless of gender. This is what was meant by "Fixing the pay gap between never-married women and mothers will solve the gender pay gap as a corollary." > Women are being treated differently here because when a man and woman decide to have a child, the woman is guaranteed to have to take leave. Yes there is a guaranteed recovery period. And, yes, depending on how long you are absent this leave will effect earnings. But... > men don't get the same treatment despite being fathers Men who take long paternity leave suffer the same income stagnation as women. "Still, most men can’t afford to take more than a few days off after the birth of a new child. Especially because parental leave can depress long-term earnings [...] regardless of gender."[1] Compelling paternity leave does not increase the earnings of mothers. It decreases the earnings of fathers. Which may very well shrink the gender wage gap but it makes families poorer and less able to provide for themselves and their children. To be trite, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. > I view this more as spreading the burden This, I believe, is our fundamental disagreement. You think a burden is being spread more thinly whereas I think you've created additional burdens. In my opinion, and I believe the data backs me up, this strategy reduces fathers and does nothing to help mothers (economically). 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/the-risky-business-of-paternity-leave/282688/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/the-ris...