> And, to put this delicately, but as something that needs to be stated because it's true and important for the discussion: she has a different relationship wit

> And, to put this delicately, but as something that needs to be stated because it's true and important for the discussion: she has a different relationship with our children precisely because she is their mother. The two of us are not interchangeable. There are a million ways this is true. I'm an attentive and a loving father, but the sound of a crying baby is something that I can compartmentalize when I need to. On my wife, though, it is an unbearable sound with physiological effects even. (One that she uses when pumping milk, for example.) This is a subtle twist you've made to the argument. No one is saying that all relationships a child has are precisely equal. What they're saying is that families should have access to equal leave for both parents when a child comes into their family. There are many reasons why this might be true. But it also has the nice knock-on effect of not giving sexist employers the opportunity to say "women are more expensive/less productive than men." > If you are not emotionally autistic, This little jab is probably why you got downvoted. Please don't make up nonsense about medical conditions or use the autistic spectrum as your synonym for dysfunction. It's not only unfair and uncivil, it's factually incorrect. > Personally, I find that this "gender equality" push winds up being extraordinarily anti-woman in effect, and whenever I see a man preaching it, If your argument is, "men shouldn't push an agenda onto women's rights movements" then I'm all for that message. Of course, what you're actually doing is holding a very narrow definition of "woman" and "femininity" and assuming that rights and options granted to women who don't fit that mold come at the cost of your specific image of women. Rights and freedoms are not obviously a zero sum game. > I assume that he is likely a broken individual in his relationship with the fairer sex, certainly someone that I would care to keep far away from my daughters. So either you're implying that all people who support broader definitions of women's rights are sexual deviants likely to molest your children, or implying that you are afraid that these freethinking individuals might put ideas into your daughter's head that will make them less friendly to your extremely narrow view of femininity. Since clearly the former would get you flagged and banned, and we have an imperative to communicate charitably on Hacker News (and of course statistically the most likely source of child abuse is a relative, making your claim wildly implausible), I choose to wish you the best of luck getting over your reactionary fears of letting your daughters choose their own paths in life. I suspect they will thrive even if you try to stifle them.