[as300]

Unfortunately I just don't think it's a tenable position to assert that women (or men) should be able to take 2-4 years off of work and not be disadvantaged in their career for doing so.

I wholeheartedly support the idea that, as a society, we ought to value childcare/child-rearing and (perhaps monetarily) support those who perform this service. But I don't believe corporations ought to be the ones making a space for that.

[sbierwagen]

>But I don't believe corporations ought to be the ones making a space for that.

Something of a chicken and egg problem there.

If you want companies to stop talking about gender, you need to get the NYT to stop writing articles about how a gender ratio any lower than 50:50 in any role at a company is proof positive that the company is evil and must be destroyed.

This would require that culture, broadly, stop believing women need to have a formal job. Such cultures exist, but I feel there would be a certain amount of resistance in moving the West to such a model.

[Chris2048]

> This would require that culture, broadly, stop believing women need to have a formal job

No it doesn't, the gender imbalance in one industry can cancel out over all industries.

[Proziam]

I think the point the commenter above was making was this:

"If women cannot work while simultaneously having/raising children there will always be at least a slight difference in the amount of men vs women in the workforce."

[Chris2048]

But OP specifically mentions NYT articles saying:

  a gender ratio any lower than 50:50 in any role at a company is proof positive that the company is evil

This can happen even if women overall spend as much time in the workforce.

[ljf]

Genuine question, who should?

[AnimalMuppet]

The society as a whole seems to be as300's idea - which, in practice, means the government. If parents give up 10% of their career in order to give their kids a better childhood, are we willing to pay to make it up to them? My money is on "no way".

If not that, the only other answer is the parents. Are you as parents willing to give your kids a better childhood at the price of throwing away 10% of your career, with no (monetary) compensation? I suspect, very few. (More will do so with only one parent giving up the years.)

"You can have it all" is a lie. You can't both have a wonderful career, a great marriage, and give your kids all they need from their parents. You can't. What we really need is for people to stop believing that "having it all" is possible, and therefore expecting that someone owes it to them. Instead, people need to prioritize and choose what they want out of the tradeoffs that reality imposes.

[sangnoir]

> You can't both have a wonderful career, a great marriage, and give your kids all they need from their parents. What we really need is for people to stop believing that "having it all" is possible, and therefore expecting that someone owes it to them.

I think the brutal/ultra-competitive work culture is uniquely American - Europe seems to do OK with giving working parents generous amounts of time (and money!) to be with their kids; 4 weeks PTO per year is unthinkable in the US, but I'm sure its a multiplier for good parenting.

I do not know if it is possible to change the work-culture when money is king.

[shard]

>I think the brutal/ultra-competitive work culture is uniquely American

American work culture is only moderately competitive. Many Asian work cultures are much more competitive than the US, where women taking a break to have children will basically end their career (and indeed this is how many women plan their careers), and paternity leave greater than 2-3 days have only started to show up in the past few years. Most of the drive towards more parent-friendly policies actually come from the government, as they try to stem the tide of low birthrates emptying out the countryside.

[sangnoir]

The upside for many asian countries also commonly have multi-generational households/having more than just a core-family living in one home, so grandparents/cousins/siblings can hold the fort.

[AnimalMuppet]

Four weeks vacation, and 6 months (?) parental leave. Four years is a big reach, even for Europe.

But yes, Europe does much better at this than the US. Can the US culture change enough to give what Europe gives? Maybe, but I'm doubtful.

But until it does, my point remains - in the world we actually live in, you can't have it all. You have to choose between various less-than-what-you-want options.

[lazyasciiart]

One year parental leave in the countries I am familiar with.

[MrGando]

Chile has 6 paid months of leave for the mother (it's a law, not subject to the employer).

[nicoburns]

Not to mention 35-40 hour work weeks.

[AussieWog93]

> Are you as parents willing to give your kids a better childhood at the price of throwing away 10% of your career, with no (monetary) compensation? I suspect, very few.

Literally every single person that has children does this. That covers almost 90% of the population.

[AnimalMuppet]

Every single person who has children takes 2-4 years off from work? (as300's original comment, five posts parent to this one.) No, I'm pretty sure that 90% of the population does not do that.

[kaitai]

I just don't understand why 2-4 years off work is the ideal. Have you spent 2-4 years with a baby/toddler? The moments of delight are interspersed with poop and boredom and any human would want a break. I think the neo-American ideal of having a single adult human hover over a child non-stop for four years to give them the "best possible childhood" is really f(*&ed up. As a child certainly my parents were important but playing without them, with other kids, out in nature were all highlights! Children are not hothouse plants.

[AussieWog93]

Ahh, fair. I didn't realise that's what he was talking about specifically. I thought he was referring to the (real) monetary losses that come from people shifting priorities away from career and towards family.

[as300]

No, I'm not saying we compensate people for the opportunity cost for not having kids. I'm saying we compensate them according to the value to society of them having them and spending time raising them.

[yibg]

Depends on how you look at having children I think. If you:

1) See having children as a right and benefit to society, then society should shoulder at least some of the "burden" of it. By providing child care, (paid) maternity and paternity leave etc. Many countries already do this.

2) See having children as a privilege and a choice made by individuals knowing there will be sacrifices in time, finances, career etc. In this case, the individual (or couple) deals with the consequences. In some cases, incentives can align such that companies provide paid leave, but at least right now it's not the norm.

Looking at countries that provide paid leave vs those that don't, the ones that do seems to have a healthier society.