4 ms·

I realise that you're now being deliberately obtuse but still; what is parental leave if not child-rearing? The biological part is a couple of weeks, child-rea

by jahaja 6y ago

I realise that you're now being deliberately obtuse but still; what is parental leave if not child-rearing? The biological part is a couple of weeks, child-rearing that parental leave is a part of is for at least 12 months until daycare can take over. Fathers can and should do that as well. So in the end the amount of time away from work should be the roughly equal. So once again, if this sums up to equal portions away from work, which there is no reason not to, is there a biological argument for lower wage etc for women? Do you also think that pregnant women get their salary deducted for their supposed loss in "productivity"? Please let me know why this statement isn't true: > To assume that men need not take part in child-rearing before the child is ready for daycare is a sexist assumption.

fastball 6y ago
I am not being deliberately obtuse about anything, though I am starting to question your reading comprehension if I'm totally honest. Most of the questions in your comment can be answered if you'd care to actually read over my previous comments again. And then there is the last bit. > Please let me know why this statement isn't true: >> To assume that men need not take part in child-rearing before the child is ready for daycare is a sexist assumption. This can be answered quite simply with: that statement is in fact true. Not sure why you feel like I should answer such a question, as I haven't implied anything like that.
- jahaja 6y ago
  You have implied that: > Any "disadvantage" occurs naturally as a result of loss in real usefulness (for a time) when it comes to employment. Now, you want to compensate for that natural loss in productivity by mandating that men artificially lose productivity in the form of paternity leave. You call men caring for the child as artificial. But the fact is that beyond a couple of weeks the mother's "loss in productivity" is just as artificial as the father's, or do you actually think that women usually start to work again after just a couple of weeks on average?
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    I hate pulling the I've been around for a long time card. But I'll pull it now. What I noticed is the time out for having children doesn't really interrupt a woman's working career that much. Not to mention women typically work up till the 7 to 8th month of pregnancy. So what gone for six months, two years? Out of 40-45 years of working? That's a couple of percent. But boy does the system punish them for it.
  - fastball 6y ago
    > But the fact is that beyond a couple of weeks the mother's "loss in productivity" is just as artificial as the father's Yes, this is true. Neither the actual mother nor the actual father is required to care for the baby after delivery. Believe it or not, this is how adoption works. That is one half of the point I've been making this whole time. But now, if you go back and read my original comment, you will see the bit about how extending the leave of someone who is already on one is much easier than setting up two leave-of-absences. This has nothing to do with sex/sexism and "believing women should stay home and raise the kids" and everything to do with the fact that this is just the reality of replacing someone with actual responsibility. If you've never been responsible for replacing someone who quit/took leave, then this might not be obvious to you, but it takes much more time and effort to replace two people for T/2 amount of time (each) than it does to replace one person for T amount of time. Hopefully you can see how this then relates to maternity/paternity leave. And that is the second half of the point I've been making since my original comment.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      > Yes, this is true. So what happened to the "it's actually just biological" argument? > how extending the leave of someone who is already on one is much easier than setting up two leave-of-absences So your argument relies on that it's more of a hassle for managers to arrange two parental leaves rather than one even though they have ~6 months to prepare? This might be the weakest rationalization I've ever heard. This is blatantly sexist also. "Well, it's easier to just extend one, and whoops, this just happens to always be the mother". The result of this strange rationalization is of course a deep skew to mothers being home and bearing the brunt of the negative effects of it. This "well, it's more of a hassle to managers" when it's usually entirely different workplaces, different managers and 6 months to prepare it is frankly laughable. How could you think that that is of even remotely proportional importance to the negative effects of always extending the mother's leave?

by jahaja 6y ago

fastball 6y ago

I am not being deliberately obtuse about anything, though I am starting to question your reading comprehension if I'm totally honest. Most of the questions in your comment can be answered if you'd care to actually read over my previous comments again. And then there is the last bit. > Please let me know why this statement isn't true: >> To assume that men need not take part in child-rearing before the child is ready for daycare is a sexist assumption. This can be answered quite simply with: that statement is in fact true. Not sure why you feel like I should answer such a question, as I haven't implied anything like that.

jahaja 6y ago
You have implied that: > Any "disadvantage" occurs naturally as a result of loss in real usefulness (for a time) when it comes to employment. Now, you want to compensate for that natural loss in productivity by mandating that men artificially lose productivity in the form of paternity leave. You call men caring for the child as artificial. But the fact is that beyond a couple of weeks the mother's "loss in productivity" is just as artificial as the father's, or do you actually think that women usually start to work again after just a couple of weeks on average?
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  I hate pulling the I've been around for a long time card. But I'll pull it now. What I noticed is the time out for having children doesn't really interrupt a woman's working career that much. Not to mention women typically work up till the 7 to 8th month of pregnancy. So what gone for six months, two years? Out of 40-45 years of working? That's a couple of percent. But boy does the system punish them for it.
- fastball 6y ago
  > But the fact is that beyond a couple of weeks the mother's "loss in productivity" is just as artificial as the father's Yes, this is true. Neither the actual mother nor the actual father is required to care for the baby after delivery. Believe it or not, this is how adoption works. That is one half of the point I've been making this whole time. But now, if you go back and read my original comment, you will see the bit about how extending the leave of someone who is already on one is much easier than setting up two leave-of-absences. This has nothing to do with sex/sexism and "believing women should stay home and raise the kids" and everything to do with the fact that this is just the reality of replacing someone with actual responsibility. If you've never been responsible for replacing someone who quit/took leave, then this might not be obvious to you, but it takes much more time and effort to replace two people for T/2 amount of time (each) than it does to replace one person for T amount of time. Hopefully you can see how this then relates to maternity/paternity leave. And that is the second half of the point I've been making since my original comment.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    > Yes, this is true. So what happened to the "it's actually just biological" argument? > how extending the leave of someone who is already on one is much easier than setting up two leave-of-absences So your argument relies on that it's more of a hassle for managers to arrange two parental leaves rather than one even though they have ~6 months to prepare? This might be the weakest rationalization I've ever heard. This is blatantly sexist also. "Well, it's easier to just extend one, and whoops, this just happens to always be the mother". The result of this strange rationalization is of course a deep skew to mothers being home and bearing the brunt of the negative effects of it. This "well, it's more of a hassle to managers" when it's usually entirely different workplaces, different managers and 6 months to prepare it is frankly laughable. How could you think that that is of even remotely proportional importance to the negative effects of always extending the mother's leave?