I want this

[Guest Raidne]

An article in Slate about an American Dad experiencing Swedish paternity leave. Which tons of men now take in Sweden, reshaping the whole idea of what masculinity means.

Seriously, this makes so much sense, why don't we do this? I mean, sure, we don't have 18 months paid leave for anyone, so not that, but the penalty for both partners not taking leave - let's do that. 6 months if one partner takes it, and 8 months if both do. Or something like that. Any small financial incentive at all (i.e. avoiding the cost of day care for two months) will make companies - the majority of them - accept it like they accept maternity leave. And men will then actually take leave.

And then we can live in a society where people no longer associate childrearing with femininity. And then I might calm down and not complain about anything for a few years.

For me, it's so sad that we don't do this that I practically feel the twinge physically. Why doesn't everyone want this?

On some days, the open preschools are crammed with groups of too-cool dudes lounging on the floor in trucker hats, designer T-shirts, and capri-length pants. Then there are the mousey guys alone in the corner—the equivalent of shy moms, I suppose—and usually a tattooed man or two in the kitchen smushing a bit of banana onto a spoon for his baby.

Hot. Seriously.

[Galactus]

Honestly, it wouldn't be much use unless you got a proper parental leave scheme going, no?

[Lord of Oop North]

And then I might calm down and not complain about anything for a few years.

I reject this premise :P

[Guest Raidne]

Yeah, probably not. I don't know how you'd work it out between employers - why does Dad's employer have to give him time off because Mom's employer gave her time off?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So...the company itself is legally obligated to pay someone not to work for a year and a half? Really? Good luck getting that shit passed.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So...the company itself is legally obligated to pay someone not to work for a year and a half? Really? Good luck getting that shit passed.

You're just against parenting. Or something like that.

[Prince of the North]

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this! I would have loved the opportunity to take some paternity leave with my kids. My wife took a few months of maternity leave with both our children but I was not able to take paternity leave as my workplace does not offer it. It's not all bad, however, as my workplace does offer a nice baby-at-work policy until they are 6 months old and I had my son at work with me for about 3 months. I didn't bring my daughter to work because she spent about 2.5 months in the NICU and with maternity leave on top of that she was ready to go to daycare when her Mom went back to work.

Also, on the masculinity thing - I can't think of anything much more manly than nurturung one's children. I think any man who can't or, worse yet, won't do whatever it takes for his child(ren) isn't much of a man. Now, there are exceptions to this, of course (e.g. a father becomes injured, etc.) What I'm really getting at is those men who won't care for their kids or pull bullshit like refusing to change diapers or whatever. Ah well, that's just my opinion. All those other men are probably like me and don't really give a shit about others' opinion of their masculinity :D

My wife often says I'm better with the kids than she is. She's being overly generous, of course, but I appreciate that she says it anyway :)

The bottom line is I think we're making headway in the US (e.g. my baby at work policy, etc.) but I do wish we had more paternity leave as well. Are others seeing more paternity leave pop up in workplaces?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

You're just against parenting. Or something like that.

Well yeah. Kids are bad for the environment. Also, how are we going to accomplish the Arabian invasion of Europe and the Hispanic invasion of America if white people keep having babies? Clearly you haven't been reading the libertarian memos.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this! I would have loved the opportunity to take some paternity leave with my kids. My wife took a few months of maternity leave with both our children but I was not able to take paternity leave as my workplace does not offer it. It's not all bad, however, as my workplace does offer a nice baby-at-work policy until they are 6 months old and I had my son at work with me for about 3 months. I didn't bring my daughter to work because she spent about 2.5 months in the NICU and with maternity leave on top of that she was ready to go to daycare when her Mom went back to work.

Also, on the masculinity thing - I can't think of anything much more manly than nurturung one's children. I think any man who can't or, worse yet, won't do whatever it takes for his child(ren) isn't much of a man. Now, there are exceptions to this, of course (e.g. a father becomes injured, etc.) What I'm really getting at is those men who won't care for their kids or pull bullshit like refusing to change diapers or whatever. Ah well, that's just my opinion. All those other men are probably like me and don't really give a shit about others' opinion of their masculinity :D

My wife often says I'm better with the kids than she is. She's being overly generous, of course, but I appreciate that she says it anyway :)

The bottom line is I think we're making headway in the US (e.g. my baby at work policy, etc.) but I do wish we had more paternity leave as well. Are others seeing more paternity leave pop up in workplaces?

Well, the Family and Medical Leave Act does give men the same rights as women to take leave to care for a child. Of course, your employer must have at least 50 employees, you must have worked there for a year, etc. You just don't get paid for it. But then, you're not working, so why should you?

[mormont]

There was an article about this on the BBC website the other day too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11086630

Although I have many issues with how the article is presented, and it's very superficial, it gets to the essential point: paternity leave is a non-starter unless it's paid at a decent rate.

After welcoming new daughter Florence into the world, Prime Minister David Cameron is taking his statutory paternity leave to be with his wife Samantha.

But it is an experience that not all his fellow fathers feel they can justify. Thanks to decades of shifting attitudes, their reluctance is not based chiefly on chauvinism or a belief that childcare is woman's work. The problem, instead, is money.

Some 45% of new fathers said they did not take paternity leave, according to a 2009 report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Of those, 88% said they would have liked to have done so, and 49% said they could not afford it.

As it stands, new fathers with long enough service are entitled to £124.88 a week for two weeks, or 90% of their average weekly wage if that is lower. Assuming a 40-hour working week, it is a figure that comes in well below the minimum wage.

Fathers can take an additional 13 weeks off, unpaid, before the child turns five and, from April 2011, new mothers will be able to transfer the second half of their year-long maternity leave to the father. But this too will be unpaid, thus, again, of little help to those without the necessary savings.

For many families, the situation reinforces the traditional norm that the father is the breadwinner and the mother the homemaker.

And yet this comes at a time when public attitudes appear to reject such gender roles. The EHRC study found that only 29% believed childcare was the mother's primary role.

That about sums up my take. We need to move towards a system where parental leave is shared between parents and paid properly. I realise, better than most, that this is difficult for small employers, and there has to be government help for that reason. But it's entirely necessary. So long as paid time off work is only for mothers, we're going to keep institutionalising inequality in the labour market, which is bad for the economy and wrong: and we're going to keep preventing fathers from spending time with their babies, which is wrong too. It's a losing situation all round.

[Galactus]

So...the company itself is legally obligated to pay someone not to work for a year and a half? Really? Good luck getting that shit passed.

Only indirectly (via taxes and such) it's the government who pays for parental leave.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

There was an article about this on the BBC website the other day too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11086630

Although I have many issues with how the article is presented, and it's very superficial, it gets to the essential point: paternity leave is a non-starter unless it's paid at a decent rate.

That about sums up my take. We need to move towards a system where parental leave is shared between parents and paid properly. I realise, better than most, that this is difficult for small employers, and there has to be government help for that reason. But it's entirely necessary. So long as paid time off work is only for mothers, we're going to keep institutionalising inequality in the labour market, which is bad for the economy and wrong: and we're going to keep preventing fathers from spending time with their babies, which is wrong too. It's a losing situation all round.

I don't get it. Can't the couple just decide on their own to have mom return to work sooner, and dad get some time off? Same total time off, but just split between the parents? Why can't the couple arrange the equalization themselves if they so chose? This country has survived quite well, raising hundreds of millions of babies, without taxpayers footing the bill for daddy to take off work to be with his kids. I don't think many taxpayers are too keen on footing the bill for some guy to sit home on his ass. He wants to sit home, he does it without living off other people's sweat.

And yes, I'm a dad, and have been a single dad.

[kairparavel]

And here I've been thinking Canadian parental leave was pretty indulgent and dreamy sweet.

Parental benefits are payable either to the biological or adoptive parents while they are caring for a new-born or an adopted child, up to a maximum of 35 weeks. To receive parental benefits you are required to have worked for 600 hours in the last 52 weeks or since your last claim. You must sign a statement declaring the newborn's date of birth, or, when there is an adoption, the child's date of placement for the purpose of the adoption, and the name and address of the adoption authority.

Parental benefits can be claimed by one parent or shared between the two partners but will not exceed a combined maximum of 35 weeks.

What would the cost-savings be, to parents who stay home to look after their kids at a reduced wage, versus having to spend on daycare? And this is another area where job-sharing could come in handy.

As for the idea of 'not working, so why get paid?' that's why Canadian parental leave falls under 'Employment Insurance'. And it seems to work. Naturally, your opinion may vary.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Only indirectly (via taxes and such) it's the government who pays for parental leave.

Aha. Come back to me then when the US Government is running a surplus large enough to cover the cost of such a program. Seriously, no one in this country should even be mentioning "new spending", until every cent that is going out is covered by existing revenue.

[Galactus]

Aha. Come back to me then when the US Government is running a surplus large enough to cover the cost of such a program. Seriously, no one in this country should even be mentioning "new spending", until every cent that is going out is covered by existing revenue.

You didn't react immediately with disgust and hatred when the word "government" was mentioned!?

Who are you and what have you done with the real Tormund!? :blink:

[peterbound]

I know the DOD/GS system has instituted something similar to this here in the US. I think it's 30 days max though, and it has to come out of you regular leave, but they /can't/ deny it.

So I guess it's not really paternity leave, just guaranteed leave on grounds of paternity.

[mormont]

I don't get it. Can't the couple just decide on their own to have mom return to work sooner, and dad get some time off?

Not in the UK at present, no. That's what I would like: that the leave would be fully transferable, so the parents could decide between themselves how to split it.

I don't think many taxpayers are too keen on footing the bill for some guy to sit home on his ass. He wants to sit home, he does it without living off other people's sweat.

Well, you could leave employers to foot the bill entirely, but that would be unfair to them in many cases and render the concept of split leave futile in many others.

As for those who're opposed to the employer paying: to be consistent on this point, you'd need to be opposed to paid leave for any reason whatsoever. Sick pay, holidays, everything. I don't imagine any of you take this position?

[kairparavel]

This country has survived quite well, raising hundreds of millions of babies, without taxpayers footing the bill for daddy to take off work to be with his kids. I don't think many taxpayers are too keen on footing the bill for some guy to sit home on his ass. He wants to sit home, he does it without living off other people's sweat.

And yes, I'm a dad, and have been a single dad.

It's nice to know that staying home to take care of the kids is nothing more than sitting on one's ass. Or is it only toil and work when mom does it? Or if the daycare or babysitter or au pair does it?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

You didn't react immediately with disgust and hatred when the word "government" was mentioned!?

Who are you and what have you done with the real Tormund!? :blink:

The real Tormund is at his friend's cabin in the mountains, shooting guns of a ridiculous and possibly illegal caliber, drinking moonshine, and partaking in substances banned by multiple laws.

This guy here is sitting at his desk at home, working for the man and moderating his tone somewhat, trying to at least get people to agree that if they can't be fiscally conservative, they can at least be fiscally rational.

ETA:

As for those who're opposed to the employer paying: to be consistent on this point, you'd need to be opposed to paid leave for any reason whatsoever. Sick pay, holidays, everything. I don't imagine any of you take this position?

In most places in the United States, employers are not obligated to offer any kind of paid leave.

[Prince of the North]

Then again there's always the business argument for parent-friendly policies. Just as one anecdotal example, when my workplace was contemplating their baby-to-work policy they did a little calculatin' and figured that having an experienced employee operating at less than 100% for a few months was less expensive than starting over with, and investing in, a new employee to replace them. Thus, the baby-at-work policy was happily adopted. I wonder if paid parental leave wouldn't be similar (at least in some cases)?

I also agree that this whole idea isn't very realistic under our current economic situation but, hey, a guy can dream, right? :D