Disagreed. Child bearing is only an initial factor; after the baby is out it goes away. The problem is breastfeeding, but there are ways around that (and some mothers, for a variety of reasons or impediments, don't breastfeed; in that case it's completely moot).
So minus breastfeeding, the asymmetry has a large component of "it was always done like this", plus the mistaken idea some employers have that the leave is some sort of "vacation".
As a new father: quality time with my baby is a huge deal and it's unfair that society expects the mom to do all the work (and spend all that time). I think this should be a concern for all fathers; I find my friends who don't prioritize this and dump it on the mother are behaving in an insensitive way. They get to work on "real stuff" and interact with other adults -- even commuting to work can feel like a respite from caring for a newborn -- and when they get home they don't understand why the mother is burned out and grumpy: "but you stayed at home while I worked, why are you so tired and upset?"
A counterpoint: A friend of mine had a kid a year ago and he found it impossible to take care of the baby when he tried being the caretaker while the mom was away (can't breastfeed, milk in a bottle is not the same). The experience has convinced him equal parental leave is a terrible idea.
Counter counter point: I am a father. Took 5 months off. Baby was breastfed. How? Mom was pumping milk at work, after her lunch break. We put it in the freezer. I was waking it up and giving it with a bottle to my daughter. Diapers/food and so on can be taken care by both genders. It is not easy. Actually, at the end, I was looking forward to going back to work and sending my daughter to daycare, once she was 1 year old. It is possible though, and helped me grow up in a sense that I wouldn't have it I didn't go through it.
It also helped us as a couple because I could understand what mom was going through in earlier months and also mom could understand that I am not useless at home and I can take care of our daughter.
With my first child, I took 12 weeks leave, and helped feed the baby using the bottle, and this arrangement worked out great. He didn't care whether it was bottle or breast, was just happy to eat, and still preferred his relationship with his mom more than with me. Oh yes, that's a thing by the way that seems to get lost in these discussions.
With my other 2 kids, they REFUSED the bottle and would ONLY breastfeed. This produced some rather complex scheduling gymnastics that favored my work time over their mother's.
I guess the problem I have with this whole subject is... we really need to restrict the scope of what we even CARE about, when talking about these things. What the Nordic countries have done for parental leave? Awesome. Give people the choice and let them make it.
What happens after that -- even if the long term result is some remaining inequality? -- is not something you or I have a right to change because the opportunity has been given, and reality took over after that. It'd be a bit like complaining about the waves on the beach. I mean sure, you can... but it won't change anything because the ocean won't listen to you. Neither will a baby satisfy the mandates of an ideology over its own wants/needs. If baby decides it only wants mama, well... you'll have to manage. And that has consequences, whether you want to accept that there are or not.
> [the baby] still preferred his relationship with his mom more than with me. Oh yes, that's a thing by the way that seems to get lost in these discussions.
It doesn't get lost. Yes, babies are closer to their mothers. But they are also closer to fathers that interact with them more often than to fathers who interact with them more briefly, all other things equal. And fathers who take more care of their babies also help the mothers not get overwhelmed while at the same time getting to spend more quality time with their babies.
It doesn't have to mean the baby will prefer the father to the mother, which like you said, is unlikely.
To sum up:
- The mom wins, by not being overwhelmed and not being relegated to a housekeeping/babysitting role (if she doesn't want it).
- The father wins, by being more involved in the raising of his kids, and enjoying more time together with them.
- The baby also wins by getting to know his/her father better at an early and fundamental stage.
> helped me grow up in a sense that I wouldn't have it I didn't go through it.
I can certainly relate to this point. My little one has just started nursery and my partner gone back to work. As her companies flexible working is pretty inflexible she works every other weekend (and over January more than that) which means I've suddenly started taking care of the little one on my own much more than I have done until recently.
It's been pretty eye opening if I'm honest. It was way too easy to consider maternity leave a nice long holiday. I wish I'd have had the experience earlier as it would have changed my view on things considerably.
> Baby was breastfed. How? Mom was pumping milk at work, after her lunch break. We put it in the freezer. I was waking it up and giving it with a bottle to my daughter.
This isn't breastfeeding, unfortunately. Your baby was fed breast-milk, but not breastfed. Not a value judgement, but a father feeding a baby from a bottle isn't exactly the same thing developmentally.
This is very condescending. I’m gonna assume the partner nursed the other times she was with the child, like at night. While we can be overly pedantic about the fact that during the day, the baby was bottle fed with breast milk, people have enough stress around breastfeeding as it is; am i doing it right? Does it still count if I pump during the day? Etc etc.
It's not meant to be condescending, and I've updated my comment slightly to try to clarify that. Thanks for pointing out the tone.
I don't think it's overly pedantic in a conversation about fathers spending time as a primary care taker. I think it's actually fairly on topic.
As I understand it (not a doctor), there is a decent bit more going on with breastfeeding than simply the mechanics of delivering milk. Is there a trade-off being made by bottle feeding a baby? Almost definitely. Is it worth it? Sounds like a topic of conversation we could have.
Mothers breastfeed when they can and can pump milk for the times when they can't. Baby still gets the nutritional benefits of breast milk and bonding time with each parent.
Your argument is the same as saying I didn't eat a nourishing home-cooked meal because I heated up last night's leftovers for lunch today. It's still way better than fast food.
> Your argument is the same as saying I didn't eat a nourishing home-cooked meal because I heated up last night's leftovers for lunch today.
Not exactly. My argument is more akin to saying that leftovers aren't the same thing as having a home cooked meal at the dinner table with your family. There is much more going on at a family table than simply nourishing your body.
So because your friend wasn't willing to put in the effort to learn how to be a good parent (no one is born knowing this stuff), no man should have to opportunity to do so?
> mistaken idea some employers have that the leave is some sort of "vacation"
I don't think employers think or care that it's a "vacation" (the experience of the person taking the leave) but rather that it's "paid time off" (the experience of the business paying the leave).
I think it's worth pointing out that in the midst of this brave new world - where every woman is supposedly a kick-ass world-beating entrepreneur if only the damned patriarchy would get off her back - there are plenty of women that have zero interest in having a career, and see the point of their existence as being to have children and be a mother to them; and the erosion of wages as a consequence of womens' entry into the workplace has actually taken away the choice of being a full-time mum for many, by forcing them to work.
> and the erosion of wages as a consequence of womens' entry into the workplace has actually taken away the choice of being a full-time mum for many, by forcing them to work.
I don't buy this narrative, sorry.
Also, of course women who want to stay at home taking care of the babies while the father is less involved in child-rearing are perfectly welcome to do it. It's just that I think it's unfair that society expects this to be the norm.
edit: I also think you're conflating "women who want to have a career and be entrepreneurs" with "mothers and fathers who want to share the load (and joy) of being parents". It's not necessary for the mother to want to be an entrepreneur for this; it's just necessary for the father to take his share of the load.
I think you may have missed their point, as there's not much to "buy". I hadn't considered it before, and it strikes me as interesting. I believe what they're saying is that women being introduced into the work force en-masse, and therefore nearly doubling the working population, has driven down wages. The lower wages made it harder for a single bread-winner to support a family, which then makes it more difficult, or impossible, to have a stay at home mother. I'd love to see some data on this.
Well, you have to buy that the data actually supports this (which your last sentence implies it's not a given) and there's the implication that women voluntarily entering into the workforce have somehow made things worse for other women; that's the implied "narrative". And of course, that women in the workforce are a major factor in lowering wages, and that there are no ways to stop the erosion of wages without driving women away from the workforce. As you can see, there are many narratives at play here that you can either buy into or not.
The comment of the person I was replying to also completely ignored the question of whether fathers actually want to take a more active part in the raising of their children, and whether society supports this decision.
> Well, you have to buy that the data actually supports this (which your last sentence implies it's not a given)
Got it, so you're saying you don't think the mass influx of new workers drove down wages? It seems like a pretty straight forward argument. Would love to hear your thoughts that contradict it.
> ... and there's the implication that women voluntarily entering into the workforce have somehow made things worse for other women; that's the implied "narrative".
That would be the outcome if this were true, wouldn't it? I don't think they're suggesting any kind of intent, but if their premise is correct, it would in fact have made life harder for single income households.
> ... there are no ways to stop the erosion of wages without driving women away from the workforce. As you can see, there are many narratives at play here that you can either buy into or not.
I didn't see this in the comment you responded to.
> so you're saying you don't think the mass influx of new workers drove down wages? It seems like a pretty straight forward argument.
It seems straightforward but it actually isn't. It's not self-evident that women entering the workforce must automatically drive down wages. Maybe other interconnected factors enter into play and cancel it out. Maybe they drive wages slightly lower, but other major factors dwarf this (as someone mentioned in another comment). Maybe... there is no data to support it; like you said, you'd "love" to see the data.
> I didn't see this in the comment you responded to.
I can be mistaken, and the original poster can clarify what they meant, but unfortunately I do see it.
But hang on - you painted a picture of the burnt out tired mother that can't wait to get back to work, away from the drudgery of motherhood. I'm saying that's not a fair representation of many womens' priorities. I could even take it a step further and say that for many women, emancipation in terms of employment has destroyed their chances of having what would really make them happy (a family life) due to the need to put education, building a career etc. ahead of finding a partner and having children. To be provocative I could say women have swapped (or had swapped for them) marriage to a husband for marriage to their employer. Wasn't feminism supposed to be about unshackling women?
There are still stay at home moms, either cause they like it, for children or because it makes economical sense. And there were always women who had to work. At every single point in history.
And to be flippant, it is easier to swap employer when things go wrong, abusive or violent. And practically, ability to earn money do improve this aspect significantly.
It makes things better if husband dies or get sick too.
Also, if the husband is working 12 hours a day in two jobs, you don't get much familly with him either. He kind of becomes wallet.
I didn't bring feminism into this, mind you. I'm also talking about my priorities and rights as a father. I didn't mention and wasn't thinking about feminism or women's rights, though of course those are related topics. Did you notice this?
Emancipation is emancipation. If being "shackled" to a job/employer is destroying someone's chances at a happy life, that's a problem with capitalism at large. I don't see why it has to be about motherhood or parenthood, and not about a blood-sucking system.
The implication that (some? most? many?) women had stay-at-home motherhood "swapped for them" for a career/education is the underlying tone that I dislike in your narrative (and which user seneca "doesn't see" in your post). "Had it swapped for them" is pretty insulting wording, come to think of it.
> Wasn't feminism supposed to be about unshackling women?
The erosion of wages has many causes, not just women having more equal opportunity in the workforce. I’d argue wages have been much more affected by the accumulation of wealth into the top of the food chain.
And that aside, what’s the alternative? Relegate women to work only as teachers and secretaries because some of them want to be stay at home moms?
> And that aside, what’s the alternative? Relegate women to work only as teachers and secretaries because some of them want to be stay at home moms?
I was just pointing out that along with the women who cannot wait to get back to work there are also plenty that are perfectly happy to give up work forever - for some having a child and especially the early years are the most meaningful thing that happens in their entire life. I think it's worth making this point because we have this pro-career consensus that perhaps mainly caters to and benefits a small group of highly exceptional people at the top, and which is not necessarily good for society. This is the paradoxical nature of the thing: attempt to emancipate women; in reality end up making them work like dogs for 40 years and (for many soon it seems) die childless.
> This is the paradoxical nature of the thing: attempt to emancipate women; in reality end up making them work like dogs for 40 years and (for many soon it seems) die childless.
This is begging the question. Nothing you've said has shown this is the reality.
Again, plenty of men want to work like dogs. Some of these provisions now have an element of coercing men not to work as hard. Punishing ambition is now ok?
Men who are ambitious and want to work a lot don't refer to work as "work like a dog". That is expression used by people who are resentful. Even you used that expression to make women working sound undesirable.
And of course, "plenty of men" is massively different then "all men". There are still many men who have jobs they don't like, bosses that hate or who mistreat them and more hours and stress in work that they would like. Other men having jobs they like changes nothing on that.
I'm not so sure a lot of women had the choice of being full-time mothers and have good living standards. My mother worked, and so did her mother, and both households required both parents working to make ends meet.
I'm also not sure there has been wage erosion. Since I've been alive, wages have only been going up. However, cost of living has also been going up, and at a faster rate than wages. So while I don't have any source to support my hunch, I'd guess the problem is that living is more expensive than it ever was, not that women entered the workforce.
There are plenty of men that have zero interest in having a career! Most people get jobs because they have to. Or at the very least, they would choose a shorter work week if they could.
If wages erode, that's a failing of capitalism, not of the idea that more people should have more options. You could restrict supply by having people not work completely at random and get the same effect on wages. I don't know what the best way to fix things is, but making employment based on gender is a dumb way to do it.
> Child bearing is only an initial factor; after the baby is out it goes away.
The effects of spending 9 months in the body of the mother never go away. No more profound experience is imaginable. Nothing else that happens to a human being will ever come close. So, vitally important as fathers are, the asymmetry is fundamental and permanent.
(I'm talking about the typical developmental experience here; I know there are exceptions.)
Yes, pregnancy is a unique experience. For some women it goes away magically after birth; others have lasting physical and mental changes. Whether this is the most profound experience imaginable in human existence is arguable, though I'm inclined to think it's pretty powerful.
However, the "asymmetry" of pregnancy and child birth is neither fundamental nor permanent for the issue under discussion: sharing the load in child raising more equally, and fathers getting to spend more time with their babies. After breastfeeding is over, fathers are perfectly capable of raising a kid without a mother. It's not magic.
I'm talking about the experience for the baby, and what this means for bonding with mother vs. father. It's not symmetrical or interchangeable. It can't be. Of course that doesn't mean that fathers shouldn't raise children or anything like that.
Why did you selectively quote me to exclude the part where I mentioned breastfeeding?
Besides, some women don't produce milk either, or not enough of it. Bonding with a parent is not exclusive to breastfeeding, either (though of course it helps!).
As long as we're being perfectly honest, it seems if you had bothered to read at least the next sentence it would have better qualified you for answering the post and spared you from making a snarky but wrong reply.
All this besides the obviously wrong equivalence you make between child bearing and breast feeding.
The ability to bear children is pretty closely linked with the ability to feed them. It's interesting you find that (and my pointing out your terrible opening statement) 'obviously wrong'.
Closely but not inextricably so. Some mothers can't breastfeed (and some don't want to, as historically happened with some aristocracies). Some babies don't like it (my mother told me I rejected it after 1 month, and fed exclusively on formula after this). Some mothers pump milk and store it in a bottle for caretakers to give the baby. Some babies drink formula. All of this makes your alleged equivalence obviously wrong.
Please don't use child bearing (something that happens before) as an excuse to avoid child raising (something that happens after).
Fathers can take care of babies in the absence of mothers.
If months of parental leave are granted to mothers but not to fathers (something not decided by who has the womb), we should expect to see motherhood being more damaging to a career than fatherhood.
If parental leave is offered equally to mothers and fathers, we should expect the disparity to shrink, though probably not disappear entirely as the womb thing does still remain.
" though probably not disappear entirely as the womb thing does still remain."
The implication that gender, family, and children begin and end with mechanical differences like 'womb' is really reductionist. That we are trying to make things fairer for people is a good thing, but it's become so dogmatic we can't consider other ways of looking at it ... is bad.
My prediction is that in 500 years, no matter what we do, we will still see quite substantial gender differentiation, particularly with respect to early childhood.
I assume the health insurance costs of actually having a baby are quite non-trivial. Of course men tend to get e.g. heart attacks and the like, especially as they age, so I suppose it all balances out in the end.
Yeah, plus (I think) insurers just quote a price per employee, not a price per man/woman etc. So maybe it's easier to "price" the cost of hiring a woman (maternity leave) than a man (heart attacks or whatever)...
We could also stop pressuring women to conform to male standards of behavior and economic performance and instead celebrate the fact that they alone are able to perform the sacred work of growing and nurturing new human life. Then the “problem” that policies like this are trying to fix simply ceases to exist.
"Sacred"? It of course has lots of satisfactions -- why would you have babies otherwise? -- but it's also energy draining and it can drive mothers to exhaustion and a feeling of isolation that can lead to depression.
And it's also bad for the fathers. Why wouldn't you want to spend more time with your kid? You made him/her, after all.
This is a framework to give both, father and mother, a choice. Nobody is pressured to take it, but they are able to if they want. That's the differences.
Effectively it does away a implicit pressure that the mother needs to be home and the father needs to work, i.e., the contrary you suggest. Celebration does nothing to help any side of this, if facing reality when bringing up a child.
Such improvements for equal chances allow to do that though.
As said, nobody is forced too, if they do want to keep the "old fashioned roles", for whatever reason, sensible or not, they may still do so.
The broader issue is that having/raising children doesn't fit with the otherwise fairly materialistic value system our society has.
Childless women earn just as much as men. Forcing fathers to take family leave does fix the asymmetry between parents (mothers vs fathers), but will exacerbate the difference between parents and non-parents by penalizing not just mothers, but also fathers for having children, vs. non-parents who don't (need to) have a career break.
I think that no discussion/policy about parental leave is complete without some kind of incentive for people to have kids (or a discussion about whether we should encourage that at all or not - looks like it might be sensible in Western countries).
It also penalizes non-fathers because employers assume the possibility of you having children, and that has an effect on your pay, even if you never have children.
As a non-father, you have no way to say "I don't want paternity leave" and negotiate a better salary instead.
You can make implicit inferences... e.g. younger people (below 25) are less likely to be parents anytime soon.
Also, there could be post-hiring pressures, motivating employees to not have kids in order to continue their stellar career trajectory (this probably already happens, and I think it's something that should be addressed by some kind of government-provided incentives... I was thinking something like tax-breaks or even tax-rewards for parents, or possibly public housing).
> I think that no discussion/policy about parental leave is complete without some kind of incentive for people to have kids
The simplest way to incentive more kids is to make housing cheap. The biggest downside to most people considering children is the cost of family formation. And by far the biggest component of that is the cost of housing.
Western governments are doing quite the opposite of promoting kids. They're actively pursuing policies that constrict the supply of housing. These favor older post-childrearing homeowners at the expense of young potential families. Abolish zoning and land-use restrictions in metros like San Francisco and New York, and watch fertility rates boom as property prices collapse.
Remembering conclusions from studies done in the past, the fathers in Finland that takes up on the offer and use similar amount of parental leave are going to suffer more in terms of decreased wages and loss of career progress compare to mothers.
People who do not conform to gender expected behavior usually get punished by society, even if politically the same society want the opposite to happen. Giving people the choice to break conformity is still a positive move, and in the long term culture might change enough that taking parental leave (and sick days) won't have a negative effect on both career and wages.
Finally, a country that understands that one of the driving forces of gender inequality is the asymmetry of experience caused by maternal leave.