6 ms·

> The only solution is to essentially force fathers to stop working as well during this time That isn't the only solution, but it's one that could work and wou

> The only solution is to essentially force fathers to stop working as well during this time That isn't the only solution, but it's one that could work and would make the world a better place.

bluedevil2k 6y ago
Why would it possibly make the world a better place if fathers were forced to not work?! Forcing someone to stop working would likely piss a lot of people off, and would generally hurt the companies these fathers work for.
- jkinudsjknds 6y ago
  Pretty sure less than 1% of the population would be pissed off by being told not to work but still getting paid. Also, its far more likely that men will be pressured into working despite this.
- lukebitts 6y ago
  The first few weeks can be really difficult for parents, having both of them free of work can be beneficial for the couple and the child.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- car 6y ago
  Why would it possibly make the world a better place if fathers were forced to not work?! Because they would be able to bond with their children during paternity leave, which is a huge positive for father and child. Forcing someone to stop working would likely piss a lot of people off, and would generally hurt the companies these fathers work for. So it’s better to hurt children then ‘companies’? Edit: I agree that fathers should not literally be forced to take leave. That would be dictatorial. The grandparent poster used the term essentially forced, which implies strongly encouraging both parents to take the offered leave. For example, if they would still receive most of their salary during this time, and their position were protected.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "So it’s better to hurt children then ‘companies’?" It's your subjective opinion that not having 'dad's around 24/7 is going to 'hurt babies'. In all pragmatism, there's no need for 'a second parent' to take 30 days off, and I'll bet most guys, while they wouldn't mind 'some time' - probably don't need or want 30 days. 7-14 days is reasonable for second parent. There's no optimizations here, I think we are 'mostly past' these issues, whatever tinkering we do is academic. Subsidized childcare is a different story though, that has major impact, for better or for worse, there's still a lot of experimentation going on there. For example, we all pretty much agree at least on 'kindergarten' before that, it's still different from place to place.
    - maccard 6y ago
      Why is the father the second parent in all of this? The implication in your reply is that the mother is the "primary" parent. > In all pragmatism, there's no need for 'a second parent' to take 30 days off, and I'll bet most guys, while they wouldn't mind 'some time' - probably don't need or want 30 days. Speaking of subjective opinions, here's another one. Nobody is forcing a parent to take 30 days, or 3 months off to spend with a child. If you get the time off and want to spend it golfing, go for it. But it means that the large number of fathers who _do_ want to take time off are now able to, and more importantly, a mother isn't forced to take 6-9 months out and suffer in their career for it.
    - zepolen 6y ago
      Do you have kids?
  - buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    The father should be able to choose when and how he bonds with his children. It isn’t for the state to decide the fathers work schedule that is best for him to raise a child. That’s government overreach. It’s one thing for the government to say you may stop working. It’s another thing entirely for them to force you to do so.
    - 6y ago
- renewiltord 6y ago
  It's a worldview that's pretty common. You equalize inherent advantages by denying everyone them when you cannot add them to some people. For instance, you cannot operate a store of a certain size without accommodating disabled people. i.e. even non-disabled people are denied the ability to shop there. Another example (that is very different) is where UC Berkeley was forced to pull course videos it had put up because it didn't have a disabled-accessible version of them. The videos presented an advantage to normative people. The world-view does not admit Pareto-optimal changes since benefit to some slice of humanity that is chosen based on immutable (or socially-considered inherent - like religion) characteristics is implicitly assumed to push everyone else back unless the benefit accrues to them as well.
  - klipt 6y ago
    I wonder if someday it'll be considered woke to oppose abortion because trans women can't have abortions.
  - bluedevil2k 6y ago
    > equalize inherent advantages by denying everyone them when you cannot add them to some people So should we force men to take testosterone blocking drugs since testosterone gives an unfair advantage? The hormone is a main driver of competitive-ness and aggression and strength, which in business overall and especially some fields is a huge advantage. Or give smart people some drugs to make them a little less smart, to even them out with everyone else. The world is full of inequities, that’s a part of life.
- markdown 6y ago
  Fathers would certainly not be pissed off. They'd get to work on being a father. > Forcing someone to stop working would likely piss a lot of people off Which people? Most humans are going to be parents some day, and even those that aren't can see that living in a world where every child has same opportunity in terms of having both parents with them for the first few days, weeks, or months of their lives is a net positive for society. Which father doesn't want time off to be with their children if it doesn't otherwise impact them negatively (ie. they were taken of by their fellow man)? > and would generally hurt the companies these fathers work for. I don't believe that to be true. A company is a group of humans. Giving those humans time off to parent makes healthier, happy humans and a healthier and more effective workforce.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Mandating 40 weeks off strikes me as excessive, but I think there are reasonable arguments for mandating 2 weeks or a month - it's hardly an unprecedented imposition. Forcing people to not work is a common strategy for addressing systemic issues. For example, many bankers are required to take a contiguous 2 week vacation at least once a year as an anti-fraud measure.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    FWIW, Canada's leave is not mandatory to take, and employers aren't beholden to continue providing compensation. The parent on leave receives Employment Insurance from the Feds. The restriction on employers is that the parent on leave must be able to resume their employment after leave unless their position has been removed entirely, and even so that can cause problems for employers.
dleslie 6y ago
Let's start with making it an available option before making it mandatory. ;)

> The only solution is to essentially force fathers to stop working as well during this time That isn't the only solution, but it's one that could work and would make the world a better place.

bluedevil2k 6y ago

Why would it possibly make the world a better place if fathers were forced to not work?! Forcing someone to stop working would likely piss a lot of people off, and would generally hurt the companies these fathers work for.

jkinudsjknds 6y ago
Pretty sure less than 1% of the population would be pissed off by being told not to work but still getting paid. Also, its far more likely that men will be pressured into working despite this.
lukebitts 6y ago
The first few weeks can be really difficult for parents, having both of them free of work can be beneficial for the couple and the child.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
car 6y ago
Why would it possibly make the world a better place if fathers were forced to not work?! Because they would be able to bond with their children during paternity leave, which is a huge positive for father and child. Forcing someone to stop working would likely piss a lot of people off, and would generally hurt the companies these fathers work for. So it’s better to hurt children then ‘companies’? Edit: I agree that fathers should not literally be forced to take leave. That would be dictatorial. The grandparent poster used the term essentially forced, which implies strongly encouraging both parents to take the offered leave. For example, if they would still receive most of their salary during this time, and their position were protected.
- jariel 6y ago
  "So it’s better to hurt children then ‘companies’?" It's your subjective opinion that not having 'dad's around 24/7 is going to 'hurt babies'. In all pragmatism, there's no need for 'a second parent' to take 30 days off, and I'll bet most guys, while they wouldn't mind 'some time' - probably don't need or want 30 days. 7-14 days is reasonable for second parent. There's no optimizations here, I think we are 'mostly past' these issues, whatever tinkering we do is academic. Subsidized childcare is a different story though, that has major impact, for better or for worse, there's still a lot of experimentation going on there. For example, we all pretty much agree at least on 'kindergarten' before that, it's still different from place to place.
  - maccard 6y ago
    Why is the father the second parent in all of this? The implication in your reply is that the mother is the "primary" parent. > In all pragmatism, there's no need for 'a second parent' to take 30 days off, and I'll bet most guys, while they wouldn't mind 'some time' - probably don't need or want 30 days. Speaking of subjective opinions, here's another one. Nobody is forcing a parent to take 30 days, or 3 months off to spend with a child. If you get the time off and want to spend it golfing, go for it. But it means that the large number of fathers who _do_ want to take time off are now able to, and more importantly, a mother isn't forced to take 6-9 months out and suffer in their career for it.
  - zepolen 6y ago
    Do you have kids?
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  The father should be able to choose when and how he bonds with his children. It isn’t for the state to decide the fathers work schedule that is best for him to raise a child. That’s government overreach. It’s one thing for the government to say you may stop working. It’s another thing entirely for them to force you to do so.
  - 6y ago
renewiltord 6y ago
It's a worldview that's pretty common. You equalize inherent advantages by denying everyone them when you cannot add them to some people. For instance, you cannot operate a store of a certain size without accommodating disabled people. i.e. even non-disabled people are denied the ability to shop there. Another example (that is very different) is where UC Berkeley was forced to pull course videos it had put up because it didn't have a disabled-accessible version of them. The videos presented an advantage to normative people. The world-view does not admit Pareto-optimal changes since benefit to some slice of humanity that is chosen based on immutable (or socially-considered inherent - like religion) characteristics is implicitly assumed to push everyone else back unless the benefit accrues to them as well.
- klipt 6y ago
  I wonder if someday it'll be considered woke to oppose abortion because trans women can't have abortions.
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  > equalize inherent advantages by denying everyone them when you cannot add them to some people So should we force men to take testosterone blocking drugs since testosterone gives an unfair advantage? The hormone is a main driver of competitive-ness and aggression and strength, which in business overall and especially some fields is a huge advantage. Or give smart people some drugs to make them a little less smart, to even them out with everyone else. The world is full of inequities, that’s a part of life.
markdown 6y ago
Fathers would certainly not be pissed off. They'd get to work on being a father. > Forcing someone to stop working would likely piss a lot of people off Which people? Most humans are going to be parents some day, and even those that aren't can see that living in a world where every child has same opportunity in terms of having both parents with them for the first few days, weeks, or months of their lives is a net positive for society. Which father doesn't want time off to be with their children if it doesn't otherwise impact them negatively (ie. they were taken of by their fellow man)? > and would generally hurt the companies these fathers work for. I don't believe that to be true. A company is a group of humans. Giving those humans time off to parent makes healthier, happy humans and a healthier and more effective workforce.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Mandating 40 weeks off strikes me as excessive, but I think there are reasonable arguments for mandating 2 weeks or a month - it's hardly an unprecedented imposition. Forcing people to not work is a common strategy for addressing systemic issues. For example, many bankers are required to take a contiguous 2 week vacation at least once a year as an anti-fraud measure.
- dleslie 6y ago
  FWIW, Canada's leave is not mandatory to take, and employers aren't beholden to continue providing compensation. The parent on leave receives Employment Insurance from the Feds. The restriction on employers is that the parent on leave must be able to resume their employment after leave unless their position has been removed entirely, and even so that can cause problems for employers.

dleslie 6y ago

Let's start with making it an available option before making it mandatory. ;)