Paternity leave, to have any effect on societal norms, must of course be universally offered. To be universally offered it almost certainly needs to be mandated

Paternity leave, to have any effect on societal norms, must of course be universally offered. To be universally offered it almost certainly needs to be mandated and/or subsidized (partially or fully). One can imagine different schemes where large employers are responsible for bearing more of the cost than small and so on, but in the end it almost has to be a national (at least partially) tax-funded scheme. To be accepted for fathers to use, a significant portion of it must be usable by each parent (non-transferable). > But why do virtually zero, say, small businesses like restaurants, cleaners, mechanics, etc. offer leave policies remotely like this? Because these businesses actually need all their workers to actually work, and when they don't, the business actually stops functioning. With a good parental leave system, any business no matter how small must be ready for any employee to disappear for 3-12 months. It’s just the reality of running a business. But again (and this is what’s important) if it’s universally used then the same applies to the restaurant across the street too! It’s not a competitive disadvantage. The same applies for employees: if your manager with 99% certainty took 6-12 months paternal leave with each child, just like every man in the company, then your taking 6-12 months will not be a disadvantage for your career as a man either. > If we really believe that parental leave and parental bonds are beneficial for society, then society should pay for it, instead of hoisting the cost onto companies, where only the richest companies are able to do so. Absolutely 100% agree. This isn’t a benefit for the parent it’s a benefit for the child. Non-transferable tax funded leave of at least 3 months per parent should be par for the course.