6 ms·

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 he

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 the slog of looking after a baby as well as the fun bits, and it helped her understand me better too - she really missed our daughter when she did a month's work and saw how going to work every day wasn't such great a holiday from childcare as she thought!

gnud 7y ago
These policies have definitively contributed to a big social change. And while it looks on the surface like this is about "fairness for dad", on a macro level the changes mostly benefit women who want to both have kids and a career. 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.
- lanstin 7y ago
  I think it also establishes a connection between the dad and the kids that makes the dad a better parent down the road. At least spending a lot of time with my infants did change me enough to be a much better parent for the rest of the journey.
  - gnud 7y ago
    Absolutely - and I love the change, in case that wasn't clear. But I think the motivation was about equality for the sexes - and specifically, making it easier for women to work. The rest is just a bonus. A very nice bonus.
  - jonplackett 7y ago
    I very much agree with this. Having an extended amount of time where I was 100% responsible for my daughter made me feel very different compared to the time spent jointly looking after her. I hope it's made me a better parent.
- MadWombat 7y ago
  > 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 True. But now it is a risk to hire people in certain age groups in general. Could this become a "don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive?
  - notSupplied 7y ago
    It would at least least disperse the risk from "don't hire women of a certain age" to "don't hire people of a certain age" which I think is a win on the margin.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    "don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive?" --> "Don't hire people during their most economically productive ages." Not an economically viable strategy for any company looking to stay in business more than a year or two.
    - baddox 7y ago
      Surely whether it's "their most economically productive age" would depend heavily on how many children they have and how much parental leave they are allowed.
      - lazyasciiart 7y ago
        Ah, so "don't hire people who are planning to have multiple children at the peak of their potential economic productivity"?
      - nostrebored 7y ago
        We know that people in most developed countries aren't even hitting replacement rate, so I don't think that 6 months of leave is going to break the bank. In my experience, employees who are bad employees and blame it on time commitment to their children have usually been bad employees to begin with. I have a child, spend upwards of 4 hours a day with them on average, and work at a FAANG, while hitting promotion tracks more quickly than my colleagues without children. I know a bunch of people doing the same.
- scruple 7y ago
  Maybe. As a new father, though, back to the office from parental leave, I'm not pumping breast milk in the lactation room. 3 times per work day, ~40-45 minutes a pop. This is something my wife is actively dealing with today and it causes her a lot of stress, due to the fact that she's essentially MIA on the job despite the fact that everyone is aware of what's going on and she has full support. The perception that she's not pulling her weight is potentially there, and she struggles with it herself because she also feels like she isn't pulling her weight. It's all really complicated and we'll never truly have equality here, I don't think.
vintermann 7y ago
I'm a dad in Norway too, and I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Getting on with their life? It's the time with your kids that's the bit of the life that's more valuable. Likewise, trying to measure how beneficial it is for the kids sort of misses the point. I'm sure it can be beneficial, but whether they draw lasting benefits from it or not, they value it there and then. You do get deeply attuned to your babies as a parent - at least, we did. You got uncannily good at guessing what they want, what they feel, from practice and from the biological connection that they are like you in so many subtle ways most people aren't. And of course, two parents will understand their babies in slightly different ways. They're very capable of appreciating this.
cies 7y ago
Equality before the low == not discriminating in the law. Now if it say "mom has X leave after birth and dad Y", this is discrimination in the law. Please note im not saying this is bad, im just saying it is NOT equality.

gnud 7y ago

These policies have definitively contributed to a big social change. And while it looks on the surface like this is about "fairness for dad", on a macro level the changes mostly benefit women who want to both have kids and a career. 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.

lanstin 7y ago
I think it also establishes a connection between the dad and the kids that makes the dad a better parent down the road. At least spending a lot of time with my infants did change me enough to be a much better parent for the rest of the journey.
- gnud 7y ago
  Absolutely - and I love the change, in case that wasn't clear. But I think the motivation was about equality for the sexes - and specifically, making it easier for women to work. The rest is just a bonus. A very nice bonus.
- jonplackett 7y ago
  I very much agree with this. Having an extended amount of time where I was 100% responsible for my daughter made me feel very different compared to the time spent jointly looking after her. I hope it's made me a better parent.
MadWombat 7y ago
> 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 True. But now it is a risk to hire people in certain age groups in general. Could this become a "don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive?
- notSupplied 7y ago
  It would at least least disperse the risk from "don't hire women of a certain age" to "don't hire people of a certain age" which I think is a win on the margin.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  "don't hire married people in their late 20s and early 30s" incentive?" --> "Don't hire people during their most economically productive ages." Not an economically viable strategy for any company looking to stay in business more than a year or two.
  - baddox 7y ago
    Surely whether it's "their most economically productive age" would depend heavily on how many children they have and how much parental leave they are allowed.
    - lazyasciiart 7y ago
      Ah, so "don't hire people who are planning to have multiple children at the peak of their potential economic productivity"?
    - nostrebored 7y ago
      We know that people in most developed countries aren't even hitting replacement rate, so I don't think that 6 months of leave is going to break the bank. In my experience, employees who are bad employees and blame it on time commitment to their children have usually been bad employees to begin with. I have a child, spend upwards of 4 hours a day with them on average, and work at a FAANG, while hitting promotion tracks more quickly than my colleagues without children. I know a bunch of people doing the same.
scruple 7y ago
Maybe. As a new father, though, back to the office from parental leave, I'm not pumping breast milk in the lactation room. 3 times per work day, ~40-45 minutes a pop. This is something my wife is actively dealing with today and it causes her a lot of stress, due to the fact that she's essentially MIA on the job despite the fact that everyone is aware of what's going on and she has full support. The perception that she's not pulling her weight is potentially there, and she struggles with it herself because she also feels like she isn't pulling her weight. It's all really complicated and we'll never truly have equality here, I don't think.

vintermann 7y ago

I'm a dad in Norway too, and I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Getting on with their life? It's the time with your kids that's the bit of the life that's more valuable. Likewise, trying to measure how beneficial it is for the kids sort of misses the point. I'm sure it can be beneficial, but whether they draw lasting benefits from it or not, they value it there and then. You do get deeply attuned to your babies as a parent - at least, we did. You got uncannily good at guessing what they want, what they feel, from practice and from the biological connection that they are like you in so many subtle ways most people aren't. And of course, two parents will understand their babies in slightly different ways. They're very capable of appreciating this.

cies 7y ago

Equality before the low == not discriminating in the law. Now if it say "mom has X leave after birth and dad Y", this is discrimination in the law. Please note im not saying this is bad, im just saying it is NOT equality.