
Paid maternity leave world maps for mothers and fathers - br0ke
http://www.global-moms.com/tag/maternity-leave/
======
rayiner
Paid leave is nice, but I'm much more concerned about daycare. I think it's a
travesty as well as a remnant of patriarchy that you can deduct a steakhouse
lunch as the "cost of doing business" but not deduct daycare as a cost of
being able to work. I'm in envy of countries with functioning public daycare
systems.

~~~
massysett
In the USA there is a child care tax credit; to be eligible, the child care
expenses must have enabled the taxpayer to work or to look for work.

[http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc602.html](http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc602.html)

~~~
clarkevans
It's $3k for each working parent -- far, far short of typical expenses. In the
end, it means that women in a 2-earner family often take a break in their
career, which then further separates income difference between men/women.

~~~
rayiner
I believe it's $3k per child, up to $6k max.

------
gilgoomesh
Out of date for Australia. Australia has had 18 weeks paid parental leave
since 2011:

[http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink...](http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/parental-
leave-pay)

~~~
furyg3
Which leaves: The United States†, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and Liberia.

† It appears as though CA, NJ, WA (DC?) have _some_ paid compensation for all
workers. Still, it seems pretty paltry compared with nearly everywhere else in
the world.

------
RyanMcGreal
Among the list of things about the United States that are incomprehensible to
me (a Canadian), the absence of paid maternal (let alone parental) leave ranks
pretty close to the top.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I find it incomprehensible why paid maternal leave would be mandatory.

Why should companies (in particular the ones who hire women) be forced to pay
for the life choices of their employees? And why maternity specifically, as
opposed to all sorts of other life choices?

~~~
marquis
So women have the opportunity to give birth and raise children in a safe,
welcoming society, so you have a healthy population and grandkids around to
pay for elderly social services? Is 'paying it forward' anathema?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Why should companies who hire a larger number of women bear a disproportionate
portion of these costs?

~~~
sentenza
You are aware that it's not the company that pays the wage compensation during
the maternity leave?

At least here in Germany, you get 60% of your salary (up to an upper limit)
for 12 months (14 if both parents take part of the leave) _from the state_.

These schemes are usually designed in such a way that they are either cost-
neutral or beneficial to companies that employ women.

~~~
yummyfajitas
You are aware that there are still costs for keeping non-producing employees
around, right?

For example, either their work goes undone, or else you need to hire someone
who might become superfluous if they return. In the meantime their skills
might atrophy or they may become unnecessary (but getting rid of them in this
case is legally risky).

(The latter is not hypothetical - I know of a specific case, namely a large
but shrinking company that is firing everyone who is either below average or
has been pregnant recently. )

~~~
furyg3
So you support firing someone who is pregnant?

There are costs for using humans to do your work. Sometimes they get sick,
sometimes they get pregnant, sometimes they have a super-productive day and
sometimes they don't.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I don't think companies should be obligated to give people the choice to
vanish from the workforce and return a year later to an equal or better job.

I would also enjoy the option to take a year off and have a job when I return
(for other life choices than having children), I just don't see why my
employer should be obligated to hold my job open.

~~~
furyg3
I'm not prescribing what the duration should be, surely there is some middle
ground between _zero_ and a year.

Where I am currently living (NL) it is a few months (three I believe), happily
paid for by the taxpayers. Where I lived before (US-CA) it was a few weeks of
partially paid leave, paid by the employer.

I'm also not completely convinced that the weeks surrounding a childbirth are
the most productive working weeks.

------
rmc
The patriarchy says men can't take care of babies. Us feminists think men can
take care of babies and should have the same leave / similar entitlement as
women.

~~~
aroch
Really? Because it seems that feminists say men can't take care of children,
particularly by so convincing the US judicial system that only women can care
for children that it takes extraordinary circumstances for a father to get
custody. Modern, vocal feminists have, by and large, become severely anti-men
in many of their policies. From convincing the world that all men are rapists
and manipulating definitions of rape to induce male perpetrators. To the
lovely Tumble feministas /SJW who spread vile, hate-filled messages against
men. To a court system and public that's been convinced by the feminist
political machine that women need to be protected and there's no way they
could possibly rape someone or lie about being raped.

There's no such thing as the patriarchy in modern culture. Feminists like
using that word as a scapegoat and explanation for everything they do and
don't like.

~~~
rayiner
M-W defines "patriarchy" as: "a family, group, or government controlled by a
man or a group of men."

90% of Congressmen, 95% of Fortune 500 CEO's, and 90% of Forbes 400 are men.
The government and the most important corporations that people work for, along
with the richest people in the country, are overwhelmingly controlled by men.
That's the _literal definition_ of patriarchy.

~~~
lhnz
There's a massive difference between high-status men and low-status men.

High-status men are almost certainly part of a patriarchy, but as you've
probably noticed are loved and admired by millions of women.

Low-status men in contrast have very little power and wealth, but get almost
all of the flak for the patriarchy and in contrast significantly less access
to women.

This term patriarchy is rarely used by a woman against men that she respects
or admires even if they are extremely privileged. Most of the time it's a
rationalisation for why she hates the average man that is uninteresting to her
sexually.

So, yes, there is a patriarchy, but it's an integral part of the sexual
politics which forces men to aggressively shoot for the top or receive
nothing; it's not something that you can get rid of without the macro desires
of women changing considerably; we're all part of the same system - one which
orders men and women around masculine elitism.

~~~
rmc
_There 's a massive difference between high-status men and low-status men._

This is called "intersectionality". Sometimes people have advantages from
being one thing (e.g. male), but they also have disadvantages due to being
other things (e.g. a low-status person). You could have a gay white low-status
male. They're male, so they have some advantages there, they're low status, so
they have some disadvantages, white, so they have some advantages, and gay, so
they have some disadvantages. Not everyone who is male automatically is
disadvantage free. It's the intersection of all these things that are
important in different situtations.

You've discovered intersectionality, doesn't mean male priviliege and the
patriarchy doesn't exist. It just means that for many people "It's
complicated"

~~~
lhnz
>> You've discovered intersectionality

I read about that years ago and I don't take kindly to others trying to
humiliate me with condescending statements like that.

>> doesn't mean male priviliege and the patriarchy doesn't exist

That is why I said: "So, yes, there is a patriarchy."

But you miss the whole point as what I said has nothing to do with
intersectionality. I'm trying to make the point that "men" even without some
kind of obvious status disqualifiers are not always on the top of the status
hierarchy. This is the case with almost all big groups. It's not so simple. I
was also trying to point out that it's the lowest status men that get derided
for being patriarchal as high status is attractive and untouchable.

------
tbrownaw
Why is it considered a _good_ thing when the government foists responsibility
for the social safety net off on people's employers? Especially when it only
applies to sufficiently large employers?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why is it considered a good thing when the government foists responsibility
> for the social safety net off on people's employers?

Countries that mandate paid maternity leave often don't; the pay often comes
from public funds, the mandate on the employer is, in that case, not to
provide the social safety net but to not punish the employee for using it.

~~~
phamilton
Putting who pays for the leave aside, employees will always be punished to
some degree when they take a leave of absence. Employers are disadvantaged
(again, to some degree) by the missing employee. For example, they have to
invest in training a temporary replacement only to let the go when the leave
ends. That disadvantage will, intentionally or not, affect the employee.

------
mcenedella
The correct title for the map is “Countries where employers are fined or
threatened with jail time for not providing maternity leave”.

Despite what our ‘enlightened’ friends the world over think about the dark,
backwards, USA, it is not, in fact, illegal to provide paid maternity leave in
the US.

This map, and the comments in this thread, support mandatory, government-
backed maternity leave in the amount and style which the government believes
is appropriate. Honest differences in preferences or opinions are subject to
government punishment.

In the USA, we are skeptical of the benefits of the government making it a law
to do mothering the way the government wants you to. We ask “Why is it noble
to force people to forgo higher wages and other benefits for an in-kind
contribution to a particular type of maternal care?”

The argument against government-mandated benefits has been made elsewhere in
great detail. Facts, evidence, history, and common sense indicate that forcing
people to consume their wages the way the government wants, in the the style
the government wants, decreases the success of the overall community. That’s
why every people who has ever had the chance to overthrow communism, has. And
that’s why the children of all these states in Europe find that jobs are very
difficult to get, and many of them, particularly the entrepreneurial ones,
come to America.

Fewer rules imposed on people lead to greater growth, which leads to greater
health, happiness, wealth, and longevity.

Further, there is something immoral about threatening to throw people in jail,
or fine them, if they don’t do exactly what the government says on something
as basic as raising your children.

To those who say that we should go ahead and follow “The Man” and be happy for
these gifts, you have to realize that we are paying for the benefits, not the
government, so forcing us to do it the way “they” want it, in a one-size-fits-
all manner is not really a benefit to anybody.

You may say that it is only fair, or right, or just, that there be 3 months,
or 12 months, or 24 months of paid maternity leave. 24/7/365 child care is
bliss for many mothers — perhaps most. But for others, they may prefer to
spend those dollars on better daycare, or weeklong breaks interspersed with
work, or a 4-day week, or they may be just fine with working a full week and
spending a more focused, quality time with their child on their days off.

Demanding that one size fits all, that the government has figured out the
correct style of maternal care once and for all time, (when, it should be
noted, every government legislature in the world is still majority male), and
that those who disagree should be fined or thrown in jail, is not, in fact, a
kind or compassionate policy, but a kind of abuse.

Incorrectly titled maps may be great for click bait, but they shouldn’t pass
for deep analysis here on HackerNews.

~~~
posabsolute
Your wrong on how maternity leaves work, at least in Canada. Employers do not
pay for the maternity, they just can't fire you (& you don't have to take the
leave, lol like they force you to do that...)

It's the society (government) that pays for leaves. In canada it looks like
this: the parental benefit is 7 weeks at 70%, followed by 25 weeks at 55% from
salary on a maximum of 50-60k salary

For me what you say is backwards, but I guess you are right, there is clearly
no gain in life for a mother to take the time she need to adapt & connect with
her children for a year.

Then again it is the poors that suffer that cannot in anyway take some time
off from work. Or maybe it is the argument that you should not pay for others.

I guess you can keep being skeptical

~~~
TruthElixirX
>It's the society (government) that pays for leaves.

So the companies in Canada don't pay taxes? Sign me up!

~~~
a3n
Like most decisions that society makes as a group, the cost is spread over
most of the group, over time, so that more people can benefit from the policy.
It's the very nature of how government works. Yes, because it costs everyone,
such policies should be given close scrutiny. But merely being paid by
everyone through taxes is not reason enough to condemn a policy; the logical
conclusion to that is no government at all, which comes with its own costs and
benefits.

------
joliv
I'm sure Somalia has a great time enforcing their maternity leave laws.

