7 ms·

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 paternit

by 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?

by car 6y ago

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?