I want this

[mormont]

My point (if I even have one, I'm kinda tired here :P) is that handing out random leave to everyone, because some need it and you are trying to enforce some equality of outcome, is not a crazy or bad or weird thing.

But where your point falls down is that 'honeymoon leave' isn't leave that people need. Taking a honeymoon really is nothing more a lifestyle choice, I'm afraid: there are no arguments I can imagine as to why it's necessary. To compare it to parental leave would therefore be pretty daft. So the comparison you're making just fails.

[Shryke]

But where your point falls down is that 'honeymoon leave' isn't leave that people need. Taking a honeymoon really is nothing more a lifestyle choice, I'm afraid: there are no arguments I can imagine as to why it's necessary. To compare it to parental leave would therefore be pretty daft. So the comparison you're making just fails.

No it doesn't. You are focusing on the least meaningful and most trivial part of what I'm talking about.

The point is, people were getting time off for X. And other people weren't, because they had no interest in X. And they were all like "WTF?". So the government just said "Fuck it, everyone gets the time off. You can use it for X or Y or Z or whatever the hell else you people do with your time.".

Now having children is a bit different from going on a honeymoon, in no small part because it's more important to get the time off for and there's a good chance you'll be doing it more then once (although that applies to marriage too these days), but that's just a logical reason for some modifications to the general idea. You don't need to cut and paste it.

But the point is some equality o foutcome for those who don't chose to jump on the procreation wheel isn't insane. Would it really be so horribly wrong if everyone got like a year of sabbatical leave at reduced pay if they wanted to take it? You could use it to take care of your kid or to just try to write a book or some bullshit. You'd need to throw in some modifications for people having more then 1 kid, but I don't see what's so wrong with the idea in general.

[Galactus]

No it doesn't. You are focusing on the least meaningful and most trivial part of what I'm talking about.

The point is, people were getting time off for X. And other people weren't, because they had no interest in X. And they were all like "WTF?". So the government just said "Fuck it, everyone gets the time off. You can use it for X or Y or Z or whatever the hell else you people do with your time.".

Now having children is a bit different from going on a honeymoon, in no small part because it's more important to get the time off for and there's a good chance you'll be doing it more then once (although that applies to marriage too these days), but that's just a logical reason for some modifications to the general idea. You don't need to cut and paste it.

But the point is some equality o foutcome for those who don't chose to jump on the procreation wheel isn't insane. Would it really be so horribly wrong if everyone got like a year of sabbatical leave at reduced pay if they wanted to take it? You could use it to take care of your kid or to just try to write a book or some bullshit. You'd need to throw in some modifications for people having more then 1 kid, but I don't see what's so wrong with the idea in general.

The point is that child-rearing isn't "time off"; it's a different kind of work.

[MinDonner]

Would it really be so horribly wrong if everyone got like a year of sabbatical leave at reduced pay if they wanted to take it?

Now this, if it was combined with a requirement to do some kind of voluntary work (whether it be child-rearing or community policing or maintaining national parks) wouldn't be a horrible result. But, while it could be a great forward step for any society, addressing the existing inequalities of parental leave ought to come first.

[Shryke]

The point is that child-rearing isn't "time off"; it's a different kind of work.

And? Again, what does this have to do with what I'm saying?

Now this, if it was combined with a requirement to do some kind of voluntary work (whether it be child-rearing or community policing or maintaining national parks) wouldn't be a horrible result. But, while it could be a great forward step for any society, addressing the existing inequalities of parental leave ought to come first.

Agreed on that. Although I guess coming from a place where parental leave is shitloads less barbaric then it seems to be in the US, I don't usually see it as all that pressing an issue since it's already been mostly dealt with where I come from.

PS - I actually really like your idea of using it as volunteer leave or something. Offer people the opportunity to better themselves and the world around them.

[Guest Raidne]

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.

Yeah, for me they are two separate issues (government paid paternal leave and incentives for gender parity in leave), but as Galactus pointed out, just talking about the latter does put the cart before the horse.

But I'm open to any idea that allows for incentives for gender parity in parental leave, even if that would be done without federally subsidized parental leave.

As long as we're talking about it though, thanks to all the taxpayers for funding my (very minimal) parental leave, should I choose to take it, especially since you refuse to fund it for yourself. Very generous.

I can never get over this - why on god's green earth do you guys willingly pay for all kinds of stuff for government employees that you won't give yourselves? It's a real head-scratcher.

So, okay, there we go - on that same theme - there's what I'm proposing - 6 weeks paid parental leave bumped to 8 if both parents are federal employees and they both take parental leave, to be allocated however they wish.

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.

Yes, precisely. Thanks for putting it so well. This is my real concern.

[mormont]

No it doesn't. You are focusing on the least meaningful and most trivial part of what I'm talking about.

I'm afraid it is the most meaningful part, because it's the reason that 'honeymoon leave' is fundamentally different from parental leave. That being so, that's where the comparison ends and so the point you're trying to make collapses. To illustrate:

The point is, people were getting time off for X. And other people weren't, because they had no interest in X. And they were all like "WTF?"

"

Parental leave isn't X, it isn't even like X, and so you can't insert it in place of X, and so the argument collapses.

I'm not against the idea of sabbatical leave. Many companies can and do offer it (though most smaller companies would find it completely impossible financially). But it doesn't belong in the discussion of parental leave, any more than it would belong in a discussion of sick leave or compassionate leave. It's fundamentally different and so it has no relevance to the topic.

[Guest Raidne]

I do not see any relationship between sabbatical leave and parental leave either, although I would say that the case for a comparison gets stronger the longer the period of parental leave is.

But at 6 weeks? No. Hell, even at 6 months, I don't really think so.

I don't have this feeling that it's "not fair" that my coworker gets to not have to come to work while being kept up all night with a screaming baby, but if I did, I'd remind myself that I also get to take FMLA leave to care for an ailing parent or get cancer. Because not everyone will "get to" deal with those things and "sit at home" while doing them either.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

1) Society needs to keep producing kids in order to ensure its long-term survival

Which has happened just fine without government payments to parents to stay home.

2) It's government's responsibility to ensure equal treatment for all its citizens;

No it isn't. But if you just mean equal treatment under the law, which is a lot more narrow, okay. But in that case, if the government makes payments for neither males nor females, it's treating them equally. Right?

But I should point out that current pregnancy law does permits females to be eligible for benefits for which males are not. But if you insist on equality, the likely result will be that many employers who voluntarily offer paid pregnancy leave to females will stop doing so to avoid unequal treatment claims. Problem solved!

the gender pay-gap is one of the most entrenched examples of inequality, largely perpetuated by the disproportionate amount of child-rearing responsibility placed on women.

Placed on them by whom, exactly? The government?

Hey, then you should be thanking me for a blow I recently struck for equality. I recently won a case in front of my state Supreme Court holding that state administrative regulations mandating reasonable pregnancy leave for women were invalid. So now, employers not subject to the FMLA don't have to offer even unpaid pregancy leave if they don't want to, which means I've made the law more gender-neutral than it was before. Now, they don't have to give leave to anybody, including pregnant women!

[Alexia]

I read an article about Sweden's paternity leave policy a bit ago in the New York Times. Very nice stuff - my company here is too small (9 full time employees) to fall under the FMLA, unfortunately. I would be able to negotiate unpaid leave because of my boss' hatred of the hiring process (she wouldn't want to deal with replacing me) but still...

I would love to see a parental leave model like this one here.

[MinDonner]

Which has happened just fine without government payments to parents to stay home.

If by "just fine" you mean "with a massive gender disparity in the workplace and discrimination against poorer families who couldn't afford to have a stay-at-home parent" then OK. But if we're trying to improve society here, why is quoting past injustices an argument for future ones?

No it isn't. But if you just mean equal treatment under the law, which is a lot more narrow, okay. But in that case, if the government makes payments for neither males nor females, it's treating them equally. Right?

But I should point out that current pregnancy law does permits females to be eligible for benefits for which males are not. But if you insist on equality, the likely result will be that many employers who voluntarily offer paid pregnancy leave to females will stop doing so to avoid unequal treatment claims. Problem solved!

Again with the aim of improving society, which (IMO) any enlightened government should be doing, this narrow legalistic definition of "equality" is quite the opposite of helpful. There's already a disparity of biology which needs to be corrected for in a truly equable system - no father is going to have a medical requirement for time off immediately after the birth, for a start.

Placed on them by whom, exactly? The government?

By biology and by current societal norms and expectations. Equality and fairness means a lot more than just "give everyone exactly the same amount of stuff" - you have to look at what they have to start off with. Come on, this is basic.

Hey, then you should be thanking me for a blow I recently struck for equality. I recently won a case in front of my state Supreme Court holding that state administrative regulations mandating reasonable pregnancy leave for women were invalid. So now, employers not subject to the FMLA don't have to offer even unpaid pregancy leave if they don't want to, which means I've made the law more gender-neutral than it was before. Now, they don't have to give leave to anybody.

*polite applause*

[Lord of Oop North]

Care to take a wild, stab-in-the-dark guess as to which country isn't, has not, and continues not to have any problems with the aforementioned examples?

Contrary to popular belief, Canada does have problems due to immigration policies. They are just less noticeable, because people can't just walk across our borders like they in the southwestern United States. I know dozens of illegal immigrants who flew one way to this country, found a job that pays cash, and somehow continue to receive provincial and government benefits from a system that they pay no taxes towards.

[Lyanna Stark]

Hey, then you should be thanking me for a blow I recently struck for equality. I recently won a case in front of my state Supreme Court holding that state administrative regulations mandating reasonable pregnancy leave for women were invalid. So now, employers not subject to the FMLA don't have to offer even unpaid pregancy leave if they don't want to, which means I've made the law more gender-neutral than it was before. Now, they don't have to give leave to anybody, including pregnant women!

As a woman who had to take early maternity leave due to insane PGP...I can only say, wow.

I am SO GLAD I live in a civilised country. In fact, I feel like writing a letter to the Government thanking them.

EDIT: Anyway, regarding Swedish parental leave, apart from all the brahaaing about how awful it is for the employers etc etc. it actually works out pretty well in the end for employers and the state alike that parents take leave.

1. When parents take leave, companies often have the incentive to hire someone short term to fill their spot. This can often be someone of less experience who will get the needed experience. Often people covering parental leave end up being hired for good and if not, they get useful work experience making it easier for them to get a job and becoming more productive members of society = they are going to pay more tax to the State.

2. Since both parents are still employed they are still both paying taxes = more tax money for the State.

3. Since parents are getting two incomes it is less likely they need to severely cut down on spending due to significant cuts in income (oh and btw there is a ceiling to how much child care cost you will pay, too. No end to The Awesome in Sweden :) ) which means they will continue to consume and spend = more tax money for the State due to VAT, higher consumer spending meaning more business for businesses.

4. By putting their kids into child care, they are creating jobs for loads and loads of child minders, whose salaries are taxed = more money for the State and more money for businesses since the child minders are also spending.

See where I am going with this?

Basically:

a. it creates a lot of tax revenue to have both parents working

b. it stops employers having to train up new people since they retain staff

c. it stops them from cutting their spending

d. it creates jobs

So, tell me again, what was not to like about this model?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If by "just fine" you mean "with a massive gender disparity in the workplace and discrimination against poorer families who couldn't afford to have a stay-at-home parent" then OK. But if we're trying to improve society here, why is quoting past injustices an argument for future ones?

To what "past injustices" are you referring? I could see an argument for that based on recent history when governments started mandating leave. But what are you referring to before government got involved?

Again with the aim of improving society, which (IMO) any enlightened government should be doing, this narrow legalistic definition of "equality" is quite the opposite of helpful. There's already a disparity of biology which needs to be corrected for in a truly equable system - no father is going to have a medical requirement for time off immediately after the birth, for a start.

So now it's the responsibility of government to equalize the results of biological differences? Not discrimination, but biology? What the hell am I saying, I honestly appreciate your directness in this because I think that is, in fact, exactly what your argument amounts to. Which is cool -- we just have an honest moral/value disagree on whether or not that is a proper role of government. I don't think there's any way around such a disagreement, but an honest acknowledgment of the real issue in a discussion is great. And seriously, I'm not being facetious at all.

By biology and by current societal norms and expectations.

I get the biology point, but "current societal norms and expectations" is a copout. Women have the "freedom to choose", right? You don't have to bear a child at all if you don't want to. And if women lack the spine to make the decision they want to make within their marriage because of "societal norms and expectations", they're simply validating all the stereotypes about women being weak that they've been trying to combat for decades. Don't blame "societal norms and expectations" for the critical life choices you make.

Equality and fairness means a lot more than just "give everyone exactly the same amount of stuff" - you have to look at what they have to start off with. Come on, this is basic.

That's why I made the point about equality under the law as being much different than "equality". I don't think it is the responsibility of government to make sure everyone is "equal" to everyone else, and you do. There's no talking our way around that disagreement because it is fundamental. And as I said, I'm fine with that. I think it is futile to try to convince people to change their fundamental moral views. What I do think is worthwhile is getting to the point where the core views are clearly exposed, on both sides.

ETA: I think this excerpt from the NYT article is pretty illuminating:

Swedish mothers still take more time off with children — almost four times as much. And some who thought they wanted their men to help raise baby now find themselves coveting more time at home.

[john]

I think Shryke's freely available lifestyle leave scheme is a reasonable suggestion, maybe not for now but for sometime in the nearish future.

It doesn't really matter if there's a difference in fact between parental leave and lifestyle leave, it only matters if it's worthwhile to treat them as legally different. That's where we're heading anyway. Parental (usually maternal) leave as a societal necessity is a fairly weak justification as it is and the difficulties of getting equal treatment for fathers are going to necessarily follow on from that. It's worth everybody's while to class parental leave as closer to the lifestyle variety of leave than the unavoidable illness variety.

Of course, we'd need a lot more socialisation before that kind of leave could be available in most countries. But everyone loves socialism, right?

[Lyanna Stark]

Swedish mothers still take more time off with children — almost four times as much. And some who thought they wanted their men to help raise baby now find themselves coveting more time at home.

Of course. To expect anything else would be totally idiotic. Do you really think tradition budge this easily? Give it another 30-40 years and you'll probably see around 50% - 50%.

get the biology point, but "current societal norms and expectations" is a copout. Women have the "freedom to choose", right? You don't have to bear a child at all if you don't want to. And if women lack the spine to make the decision they want to make within their marriage because of "societal norms and expectations", they're simply validating all the stereotypes about women being weak that they've been trying to combat for decades. Don't blame "societal norms and expectations" for the critical life choices you make.

Ah, so that "freedom of choice" to NOT have babies should clearly be "if you work, but can't afford to take a couple of years off without pay, while being supported by your spouse, your freedom of choice is to not have kid".

Strangely, that doesn't sound like much of a choice to me, unfortunately.

And what decision are you refering to here, may I ask, where women as a group lack the spine to stand up to societal norms and expectations? The free choice not have a kid due to having to work for a living? In that case I would disagree with you since I don't think it is a free choice.

Bascially, what you are looking at from a greater perspective, is people who can afford to let the mother stay home, and those at the bottom of society who can't afford anything but don't care either way will be the ones who have kids.

All the Average Janes in the middle, meaning people like me and my friends, will have the freedom of choice to not have kids. Showing LOADS of how much spine we have.

Of course, this is hardly an issue in the US since

a. the population increase there is big enough anyway to not matter from a taxation perspective

and

b. the general atmosphere is more socially conservative than in Europe

so whatever works for you really.

What is clear is that a solution like that doesn't work in Europe. The population growth isn't what it ought to be and frankly middle class and lower middle class people are tired of being trod on simply because we are employees who have to work for a living.

We don't want to have the freedom of choice you describe above to not have kids because we will never be able to afford it. I'm sure you'll disagree and say "It's not the Government's job to care for your personal choice", but the thing is, it ISN'T a choice without parental leave. It's a non choice, a choice that doesn't exist. You presenting it as a "lifestyle choice" is not only disingenuous, it is also patently false.

So now it's the responsibility of government to equalize the results of biological differences? Not discrimination, but biology?

Well, obviously this will be the case until they find a working exo-uterus? I'm actually sort of confused why you find this confusing. Isn't it pretty straight forward when discussion pregnancy and parental leave that for biological reasons, a woman will have to consider things like complications and also giving birth, breastfeeding at 3 am and recuperating afterwards. Which is 100% physical and hence biological and can't be any other way, unless we don't want any sort of procreation?

Again, I am sure you disagree, but the procreation of the population and the mechanisms deciding this process ought to be at least interesting to the Government, and probably something they really want to have some say in. After all, the Government needs to plan infrastructure, health care, schools, how many people there will be to tax in 20 years' time, etc etc etc.

[MinDonner]

To what "past injustices" are you referring? I could see an argument for that based on recent history when governments started mandating leave. But what are you referring to before government got involved?

You're thinking too specifically here; I was referring to the whole history of gender discrimination in the workplace, much of which was based around the fact that employers thought that women would just get pregnant and quit, so never hired them. It's probably too big a topic to get into right now though.

So now it's the responsibility of government to equalize the results of biological differences? Not discrimination, but biology? What the hell am I saying, I honestly appreciate your directness in this because I think that is, in fact, exactly what your argument amounts to. Which is cool -- we just have an honest moral/value disagree on whether or not that is a proper role of government. I don't think there's any way around such a disagreement, but an honest acknowledgment of the real issue in a discussion is great. And seriously, I'm not being facetious at all.

Yes, quite seriously, I think it is the job of a government (which, being a Eurocommie, I view as merely the agent of society) to try and mitigate any disadvantages its citizens may experience as a result of biology. For a clearer example, take the issue of disabled access. Do you also disapprove of ramps and wheelchair-lifts?

I get the biology point, but "current societal norms and expectations" is a copout. Women have the "freedom to choose", right? You don't have to bear a child at all if you don't want to. And if women lack the spine to make the decision they want to make within their marriage because of "societal norms and expectations", they're simply validating all the stereotypes about women being weak that they've been trying to combat for decades. Don't blame "societal norms and expectations" for the critical life choices you make.

Again, you're looking at this too narrowly, with parenting as a decision made only by women and unaffected by anything around them. In "societal norms and expectations" I would include the fact that employers don't take paternity leave seriously, meaning that it is almost always the woman whose career has to be interrupted; the fact that a single father is a hero where a single mother is a skank; the fact that progress in the job market is still largely based on a model of presenteeism that makes little allowance for working parents; the fact that advertising and media still invariably portray the woman as the one responsible for child-rearing... I'm not excluding men from this cultural brainwashing either. You can't pretend that these decisions are made in a vacuum.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I can never get over this - why on god's green earth do you guys willingly pay for all kinds of stuff for government employees that you won't give yourselves? It's a real head-scratcher.

Willingly? It's taken under threat of force.

[Guest Raidne]

Hey, then you should be thanking me for a blow I recently struck for equality. I recently won a case in front of my state Supreme Court holding that state administrative regulations mandating reasonable pregnancy leave for women were invalid. So now, employers not subject to the FMLA don't have to offer even unpaid pregancy leave if they don't want to, which means I've made the law more gender-neutral than it was before. Now, they don't have to give leave to anybody, including pregnant women!

Could you parse that out for me? There's not a lot of legally relevant information there and I can't tell what grounds the case were brought on. That the state action requiring reasonable pregnancy leave violated equal protection, or what?

Anyway, for my money, there are two kinds of leave - pregnancy medical leave and parental leave. Obviously, only women need pregnancy medical leave. 6 weeks seems about right, although I'm open to new information on this as I have no idea how long it takes to medically recover from a pregnancy.

Then, there is parental leave. This should be offered equally, or, in America, not at all. Women should not get 6 months while men get nothing. That is discriminatory and sexist.

[Lyanna Stark]

You're thinking too specifically here; I was referring to the whole history of gender discrimination in the workplace, much of which was based around the fact that employers thought that women would just get pregnant and quit, so never hired them. It's probably too big a topic to get into right now though.

Yup, and this still happens sometimes, although it's illegal to do so in most places.

I've had it happen myself once, quite a few years ago. People fishing for whether you are married, have a big family, etc etc. Allowing paternity leave really helps alleviate this problem, since employers can hardly exclude both men and women of "child bearing" age, for fear of them reproducing.

"The Beauty Myth" has some wonderful bits about this.

6 weeks seems about right, although I'm open to new information on this as I have no idea how long it takes to medically recover from a pregnancy.

That depends on how good/bad a delivery you have. Personally I could barely walk after 6 weeks, but YMMV and I had to have an emergency C-section. Some are fine after 2-3 weeks, for some it can take months to become functional again. Luck of the draw, mostly.