[Smushman]

I think the primary point of the article is that this flexible planning is not functioning as an equalizer in the workplace (Title: Want Equality? Make New Dads Stay Home...) and that it could, and should. To turn it into more direct phrasing; a woman has to take a significant chunk of time off during a pregnancy by virtue of the condition, and this has a net effect on her career.

When a woman takes off for pregnancy it is known up front it is for several months, and she is also indisposed during that time (can't answer questions or take quick phone calls, because she is not able to perform at peak levels while convalescing). So an employer accounts for the loss of that duty in different ways such as shifting responsibilities. And many of these ways become a limit to career success. Imagine she is closing a large sales deal but has to leave before close due to pregnancy - so she is no longer the clear performer in that sale, as it is closed by someone else. This reduces her effectiveness on paper (becomes a detractor) due to gender differences (becomes unequal).

A man has been given flexibility to give and take that same time in a way that permits some juggling of work and family supporting efforts - i.e your example case. You worked part time, she could really not do that in her case. This lets you stay active in your role (little effect on your responsibilities) when she could not.

[oconnore]

My point basically boils down to this: making parental leave about something other than enabling parents to recover and take care of their kids is really kludgey, and probably would have made our experience of raising our son more difficult unless it was really, really long (like one year long).

The wage gap is a problem, but there is nothing that says we have to solve it (or that it can be solved) using this particular knob.

[Smushman]

I am trying to decide if I like the updated title the submitter gave to this article.

As submitted and on article: Want Equality? Make New Dads Stay Home

Updated: Mandatory paternity leave would help close the wage gap

[Smushman]

I see your meaning clearly now - but your point then is obviously tangential.

To your argument I also personally don't know there is any reliable way to equalize this problem. Men and women are created differently, and nature is unfair - just ask the fly and the spider. The social contract means we so far mostly anyway agree it is better treat equally than to force equality (shades of Bergeron is poignant - and yes this inches us closer).

[wpietri]

Any intervention like this won't be perfect for some people. Just like the status quo isn't perfect. The question is not, "Would change X be equally great for all people?" but "Is change X net less bad?"

If you think that there's a change X' that would be better yet, you should definitely propose it. But if you're just saying, "I don't care about fixing a problem that benefits me if the solution isn't perfect for me," you can see how that's not the most compelling of arguments.

[gumby]

> When a woman takes off for pregnancy it is known up front it is for several months, and she is also indisposed during that time (can't answer questions or take quick phone calls, because she is not able to perform at peak levels while convalescing).

So wouldn't it be ideal for the mother's partner to be able to participate 24-7 to help her recover and to help both parents bond closely with the child? And not be expected to be tugged back by ties to work?

FWIW I had a lawyer who was messaging with clients from the delivery room. So not sure about your stereotype.

[Smushman]

My 'stereotype' is 2x real world experience.

I know for a fact pregnancy is hard on the body - my experience was nearly 12hrs delivery and my wife was in the ICU for 3 days following. It took months to recover completely.

In your rush to defend your personal 'stereotype'; I hope you understand that being able to message clients from the delivery room is unusual. No matter what your intent in saying this, never underestimate the serious nature of childbirth.

[zimablue]

But women don't have to have children, in fact it would be much better if they didn't. You write your post as if it's all miraculous conception.

Women can make a choice to do something that will impact their career negatively. Men don't have that choice.

People who don't intend to have children subsidising people who do (who are on average already richer and more privileged) is deeply messed up. This only makes sense from a very narrow middle class upper-echelon-gender-equality is the most important thing in society lense.

[jvvw]

But employers know that you might have children and if you are a woman that you will have a certain amount of time off work as a result. So they might choose to employ a man instead even if you don't plan to have children yourself. Obviously illegal in many jurisdictions but extremely hard to prove.

[zimablue]

This is more of a problem of our current system of maternity leave being company funded rather than publically funded which would actually solve this problem overnight.

[michaelt]

  People who don't intend to have children subsidising
  people who do (who are on average already richer and
  more privileged) is deeply messed up.

Assuming you were born yourself, aren't you opposing something you yourself benefited from?

[zimablue]

It sounds good but it doesn't actually hold up...

So if being born means that I have to approve of any measure which causes more births, then logically I should be in favour of for example reducing contraceptive programs in Africa, etc.

Being born doesn't automatically force you to support population increase or be a hypocrite. Even if you had a moral obligation to maximise (total number of people that will ever live), then that number is probably larger (because of humanity surviving into the future) if we drastically cut population in the present.