4 ms·

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,

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.
  - markdown 6y ago
    Every worker deserves the same opportunity to spend time with their children. The government wouldn't be forcing any father to do anything. The government would be forcing companies to provide all workers the privilege of time off for parenting. A father who didn't want to bond with his children could use the time off to go fishing, take up woodworking, watch youtube videos, or work on a side-business.
    - dleslie 6y ago
      > A father who didn't want to bond with his children could use the time off to go fishing, take up woodworking, watch youtube videos I mean, you can do these things with your kids.
    - jariel 6y ago
      Forcing them to step away from work is 100% 'forcing' them to do something. Enough with this, and the 'Swedish shaming' as noted above. People are offered leave, that's good, if they don't want to take it, it's none of anyone's business really.
      - didibus 6y ago
        > People are offered leave, that's good, if they don't want to take it, it's none of anyone's business really Hum... wouldn't that depend on why you're not taking them? Say you're not taking them because of social pressure? Say you don't want to take them because doing so will put you up for promotion before your co-workers who do? Say you don't want to take them because it result in a loss of money (if say employer offers reduced pay only) And maybe others. But I feel some of those reasons call for further discussion. Like, it shouldn't be that you don't take them due to social pressure, lower pay, or to get ahead. None of these seem equally fair to all employees. If you really just really were someone whose favourite thing to do is go to work day in, day out, then ok sure. It be hard to argue against that, but like... really?
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.

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.
- markdown 6y ago
  Every worker deserves the same opportunity to spend time with their children. The government wouldn't be forcing any father to do anything. The government would be forcing companies to provide all workers the privilege of time off for parenting. A father who didn't want to bond with his children could use the time off to go fishing, take up woodworking, watch youtube videos, or work on a side-business.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    > A father who didn't want to bond with his children could use the time off to go fishing, take up woodworking, watch youtube videos I mean, you can do these things with your kids.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Forcing them to step away from work is 100% 'forcing' them to do something. Enough with this, and the 'Swedish shaming' as noted above. People are offered leave, that's good, if they don't want to take it, it's none of anyone's business really.
    - didibus 6y ago
      > People are offered leave, that's good, if they don't want to take it, it's none of anyone's business really Hum... wouldn't that depend on why you're not taking them? Say you're not taking them because of social pressure? Say you don't want to take them because doing so will put you up for promotion before your co-workers who do? Say you don't want to take them because it result in a loss of money (if say employer offers reduced pay only) And maybe others. But I feel some of those reasons call for further discussion. Like, it shouldn't be that you don't take them due to social pressure, lower pay, or to get ahead. None of these seem equally fair to all employees. If you really just really were someone whose favourite thing to do is go to work day in, day out, then ok sure. It be hard to argue against that, but like... really?

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.