But will they force Dads to take it? As a Dad who had two kids, I would much rather pay for childcare than take paternity leave. Would someone like me be held back artificially to promote equality?
EDIT: Not a freak, don't care for the infant stage. Happy to dote when they start to turn into people.
It is just that the days get wasted if you don't take them. So you would be stupid not to do it.
> Not a freak, don't care for the infant stage. Happy to dote when they start to turn into people.
That is kind of a selfish attitude. The early stage is a lot of work, but why should you skip the work while your wife has to do it all?
I remember back in that time. I was quite happy to go back to work the first weeks, because I found it quite exhausting with the first child. Work was super relaxing in comparison.
I think it is only fair and square that one shares the load. I had my parental leave when my kids were 8 months or so. I actually forget exactly the time. But it was quit manageable by then and while a fair amount of work it was also a rewarding experience.
> Would someone like me be held back artificially to promote equality?
What about your wife's career. Isn't she held back if she had to spend all the time taking care of the kids? Why should she not be given similar opportunities as you?
Speaking only for my personal situation, my partner is a stay at home parent. They have no career, do not want a career, and only want to be a full time parent (which I fully support). I use my resources to enable that, and make their life as easy as possible (hired help around the house, childcare, etc).
You can still enable them in ways that don't involve working at a formal job. Doing chores, dealing with household issues, that kind of thing. Having a kid generally means that there's a lot of stressful work to do around the house, and you would be in the right position to deal with that.
The kids build their connection to you in weird ways, smell, touch etc. Avoiding that 100% until they speak could have weird effects in their attachment (said without any actual proof).
It's of course your choice, but just saying that that choice could end up biting you or the kid in the end.
No it's not fun hanging around kids all the time, but it takes a lot of not fun moments to get to the good parts.
Being indoors all the time or having to care for a child 24/7 can be extremely isolating even in the best circumstances (where one isn't dealing with recovering from giving birth).
>Being indoors all the time or having to care for a child 24/7 can be extremely isolating
This doesn't jibe with my experience at all. My wife is quite enjoying being at home with the baby, and gets to spend as much time outdoors as she cares for, even in the harsh Canadian winter.
Sure there are some sleepless nights (for both of us), but I'm not sure where this idea comes from that caring for a baby is a 24/7 slog. Close friends of ours had 3 children in 4.5 years, and even they don't talk like it's utter drudgery. I guess YMMV.
"This doesn't jibe with my experience at all. My wife is quite enjoying being at home with the baby, and gets to spend as much time outdoors as she cares for, even in the harsh Canadian winter."
But that isn't true for all mothers. If a mother needs to socialize with other adults, or wants to chill with a drink with her friends, or go to a book club, etc. having a child that she must be solely responsible for 24/7 can be extremely mentally unhealthy. Maybe try Mother of all Podcasts? It's about comedian mothers talking about motherhood and being a comedian.
Yes, and I am indicating that, to the idea that 24/7 childcare indoors to be the optimal case for women as according to one's own lives, I am arguing that may not be the case due to social isolation.
I find it puzzling that someone would choose to embark on the paternity experience, but be very selective about what to experience. Life is not just what we like, and understanding that makes us more balanced individuals. One might think you're spoiled and incapable of dealing with adversity.
Life is what you make of it. You call it spoiled, I call it privilege constructed from skill, determination, and luck.
I’ve had enough adversity for one lifetime, my soul is weary, and refuse to submit to any additional unnecessary suffering. Without knowing my life, you’re not qualified to comment on it. I’m simply sharing my perspective having had my own kids and paternity leave offered.
But kids dont really require one parent for the rest of that parents' life? So they then resume a non-existing career, or do they just stay home when the kids are in school etc? Living in Sweden this has always seemed a bit weird to me, since "stay at home parent" basically doesnt exist here, unless you are (involuntarily) unemployed.
In my experience from spending several years in Japan where a lot of women opt out of continuing their career after getting married/having a child: a lot of time is spent socializing with other housewives. But the harsh economic realities mean that more and more women have to work to keep the household afloat, whether they want to or not.
> Speaking only for my personal situation, my partner is a stay at home parent.
Of course everybody's situation is different. My wife is actually currently at home as well. But you cannot advocate a system that just works for you.
You got to have a system that benefits the population at large. Many women want a career and independence and many men would enjoy spending more time with their children.
They should be given a chance to do that.
You also have to consider that when a lot of people do like you guys, you keep promoting gender inequality. Men like you working long hours naturally get valued. Bosses come to expect men to be more dependable and flexible workers because they have no obligations at home.
Women in contrast hit a glass ceiling because a company will expect that she will not have the same flexibility as a man. Men will be prioritized in career advancements and get higher salaries.
Hence you get stuck in this gender pattern. Women end up staying home because they simply cannot compete salary-wise with men.
I am not blaming you. I am just pointing out that if too many people make the kind of choices you make, it really holds back women's advancement in the workplace.
> I use my resources to enable that, and make their life as easy as possible (hired help around the house, childcare, etc).
Sounds great, but keep in mind there is a downside to this. It promotes the view that every parent is available for long work hours, because "hey just pay some help." For people with less fancy jobs that is not a simple option. One has to think of what role models one are. I find it somewhat disturbing when these higher powered women brag about being back at work the day after birth. It signals to everyone further down the chain that they are lazy asses if they don't do the same. Reality is that these are women with large amounts of resources who can hire a lot of help and don't have physically demanding jobs.
I don't expect you to agree with me, because it is probably not in your culture to think like this. But at least in Scandinavia where both independence and solidarity are considered important values, we do think a lot about being good role models and showing solidarity with others.
E.g. in Norwegian neighborhoods of all income levels people participate in "dugnad" which is a communal work together thing. Everybody clean up and fix up their neighborhood. The rich could have hired people to do it. But it is considered an important value even among rich Norwegians to physically contribute like this and be like everybody else once in a while.
It affects the children you raise. I notice children from countries where rich people hire a lot of help are exceptionally spoiled.
Do you think women will ever be able to compete on a level footing with men in the labor market/workplace if enough men prioritize status, wealth, and their career above being primarily a father? Honest question, not intended to be incendiary. You propose in this thread about culture changing, but what if it doesn't because of the drive for status? To seek status and wealth are core human values. You can’t squeeze the humanity out of people with policy.
Valuing those who value their career above all else isn't gender inequality; that's valuing a work ethic, not a specific gender (women also make the choice to prioritize a career above being a mother at all). You as an individual have a choice not to prioritize your work above all else, but you should not then be penalizing those with public policy who don't in the name of equality.
> The early stage is a lot of work, but why should you skip the work while your wife has to do it all?
> What about your wife's career. Isn't she held back if she had to spend all the time taking care of the kids? Why should she not be given similar opportunities as you?
He is working, and perhaps his wife prefers caring for their child to working a job. If it's working for them, why criticize? Why is it wrong for this couple to distribute the work in the way that optimizes for their happiness?
>The early stage is a lot of work, but why should you skip the work while your wife has to do it all?
"Skip the work"? He literally said he's working..a job. Unfortunately, in the society we've built it is considered the most important work, since it pays the bills and enables the ability to start a family.
I agree it's important that both people share the burden of parenthood, but let's not swing it so far the other way that your sole source of income isn't considered "work".
But this is why the paternity leave is being offered. So that your 'sole source of income' is not stopped while you can do the 'work' and share equally in the workload of rearing the child that YOU decided you wanted.
The original commenter is insinuating that even with this facility he will prefer to go to his 'real work' esp when the kid is small and the child-rearing work is not satisfactory enough and that frankly is quite selfish.
My partner and I agreed ahead of time how the workload would be divided. Is the problem that you take issue with how it's divided? Why must the workload be shared equally?
Nobody forces the moms either (though I do understand that dads don't breast-feed every 3 hours without sleep).
The point is that this means the "she will be off for X months" becomes less of a biological parts thing against women and more of a life-stage thing. Though the ageism might still strike here, as people plan to have kids later in their lives.
> Happy to dote when they start to turn into people.
Also specifically for the leave itself, a significant part of my paternity leave was just partner support by picking up everything else that was previously shared including shopping, cooking, laundry. Otherwise, it was just about generally being awake without worrying about the clock.
This all came to highlight when I went back to work after 3 months away, the transition to a 9-5 schedule was bad for everyone involved.
In the UK the mother is required to take minimum 2 weeks off work (4 weeks for factory workers) and employers commit a criminal offence if they 'allow' the mother to work during this period (ie it's stricter than simply banning employers from asking).
I'm not a big "babies" guy either. I'd love if you could delay this leave till they were older. But are you really telling me you'd rather go to work and pay for child care than take 7 months off, fully paid, and be at home? You could take the leave, pay for child care and go hiking every day if you wanted...
I can't speak for how they do it in Finland, but at least in Norway you can take the paternity leave over a period of 3 years. I think most people take it out in full, but a lot of self-employed people do that in order to keep things running.
That's really smart. I get the health impacts are different for women, but I never saw the point of spending time with new borns, compared to 18-36month olds.
No, the point is to offer an incentive. Even the mother may not take any of her leave if she wants. But by providing an incentive, you do change how most men consider normal for raising the kids.
> Not a freak, don't care for the infant stage. Happy to dote when they start to turn into people.
It seems like you may not care, but that infant stage is the most critical for bonding and attachment. You're potentially sacrificing your ability to have a strong or deep relationship with your children in the long-term, regardless of how present you are later on. But as I said, perhaps you're making that tradeoff knowingly.
My in-laws were with us for 6 months after our little girl was born. My wife and I took over almost everything childcare related to be with her except for things like cooking meals and catch up naps during the day sometimes. Some parents do want to spend time with their children you know!
Some people have no support such that you describe, and are entirely out of pocket for childcare costs because they have no family to rely on (either due to apathy, or death). If your spouse is a stay at home parent, none of these costs are tax deductible (US centric).
I am aware of that. My wife was working part time and had to take vacation days to stay home. I was working full time for FAANG and had to take vacation days for paternity leave, too. I stayed home for 3 weeks, the most I could take. There was no such thing as paternity/maternity leaves prior to 2016 I believe even for big tech companies. I remembered Microsoft was one of the 1st to offer such thing in 2017.
I don't think they'd ever force anyone to take time off if they don't want to. They'd give you the right to take time off to be with your kids, but if you don't want to take them up on that offer, then that will always be your prerogative.
How much would it take to get you to perform a temporary job you don’t want? The same compensation as for a job you do enjoy? Or more? Or is there no amount you’d take?
For example, having two kids, there is literally no amount of compensation or benefits you could provide as an employer or nation state to convince me to have more.
> No, after. I want them to thrive, but they're not at an age yet where I can fully appreciate time with them.
You know that first 3 years of our lives are most forming on our deeper personalities. How people are calm, energized, focused, or somehow broken... they have started developing personalities while still in the womb. That they have no verbal way to express themselves doesn't mean anything. They do appreciate every second with their parents. They are building the foundations of their personalities for the rest of their lives.
You being absent (and seemingly pretty cold/distant personality) doesn't work work well with your claimed intent for them to thrive. Unless you mean that they will be one of these uber-competitive, never-happy but probably wealthy types which are mostly just sad stories once you know them well. If that's the case, you are probably well on course, and unfortunately they are too...
Parenting is time when 'me' focus changes to 'it' focus, it being the kid. For me and my wife, the transition was automatic and smooth, nobody needn't to tell us anything. I've been given plenty as a child and now I am giving back to next generation. Without thinking about what will come for me or my wife.
Nobody ever did a full A/B study on that, it would require damaging many babies for rest of their lives. We're over Mengele's approach for quite some time and time machine isn't a thing yet.
But there are tons of stories that babies neglected/suffering perform much worse for rest of their lives. Deep mental issues, lower IQ etc. Some proof might be stories I read from some specifically cruel communist Romania orphanage, where children were neglected, often caged or chained. Something like 90% of them struggled significantly in the society in their later lives.
> Nobody ever did a full A/B study on that, it would require damaging many babies for rest of their lives. We're over Mengele's approach for quite some time and time machine isn't a thing yet.
It doesn't have to be interventional study.
> But there are tons of stories that babies neglected/suffering perform much worse for rest of their lives. Deep mental issues, lower IQ etc. Some proof might be stories I read from some specifically cruel communist Romania orphanage, where children were neglected, often caged or chained. Something like 90% of them struggled significantly in the society in their later lives.
Children being caged and chained having long lasting consequences is so far from from the original claim that first 3 years of our lives are most forming on our deeper personalities. It appears there is no reason to consider that claim true.
Have you never been involved in a long project that was initially unfruitful but ultimately rewarding when you stuck at it? It's not supposed to be enjoyable, you're nurturing your child to establish the foundation on which your life together is built and to help them prosper.
You're right, it's extremely mentally challenging in those first months before they start to communicate with you directly (as opposed to general communication of crying!). But it's part of the whole experience that bonds you together in a way I'd never have imagined was possible.
Maybe it is mentally challaging because you worry about the job you have to go to next day? I'm fairly weak mentally but I didn't find that period a challange. I was up every night singing lullabies over and over again but when he slept during the day I slept as well. Most kids sleep a ton during this time and if you sleep when kid sleep most parents will sleep more than ever. Providing comfort and calming him was amazing to me.
I think even if you didn't want to take the leave for its own sake you might find taking it would let the mother have some time and rest which didn't involve caring for a tiny-human non-stop.
But to answer the question more literally I suspect there would be no penalty.
In the US, I have seen cases of both parents taking company leave, and still putting their kids in childcare so that they can do house projects. Defeats the purpose... culture takes time to change
Of course. Just as when they’re old enough they’ll learn about all of my other successes and failures as a human. May they make better choices than I to lead a better life than I have.
> Research has shown this to be optimal (time spent with your children later in life closer to adolescent years matters more than their younger years).
> they're not at an age yet where I can fully appreciate time with them.
Now that sounds closer to the truth. It's not about what's best for "them", it's about how you can _enjoy yourself_ more.
This comment is not substantive and does not add to the discussion in a constructive way — these types of comments are generally not welcome on this forum.
There's a difference between the minimal standard of raising a child to functioning adulthood, which is what orphanages generally manage, and raising a well-adjusted, emotionally healthy person who's not held back, having been given only the bare minimum of rearing.
All the research points to active parenting/interaction with children from day 1 being extremely beneficial.
Crossing into personal attack like that will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong or provocative another comment is. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN, we'd be grateful.
It's a paid leave, so you'd be losing money by paying someone to keep your kids so that you can work and earn the exact same money you'd earn by staying home.
I would rather pay for someone else to do what I consider dreck work (changings, feedings, monitoring while they sleep) while still making time each evening to spend with them.
Research has shown this to be optimal (time spent with your children later in life closer to adolescent years matters more than their younger years).
Your child is not a human-to-be, that's a trap I fell into. They are a human now, your son or daughter. We might think we're educating, nurturing them, growing them so they become good adults -- but it's the journey as much as the destination. Children deserve fulfillment in their lives too, not just a hope of future fulfillment. For a baby that means warm cuddles, soft voices, smiles, the care of those that love them -- despite their infirmity and dependency.
I think you're both missing out substantially if you think you can just jump in later after all the messy, hard, stuff is over.
EDIT: Not a freak, don't care for the infant stage. Happy to dote when they start to turn into people.