The problem is that different paternity/maternity times makes employers view women as more hazardous. This also reinforces the sexist notion that fathers aren't as integral to early childhood development. I'm sure a new mother would love the extra help for another 8 weeks!
Also, lets say that you're a child adopted by a homosexual married couple and you only get 8 weeks. How is that fair to the adopted child versus 16 weeks for a birthed child?
Equality means treating people equally--including men and children.
The point at which your politics leads you to claim that sex (in this case we rather aren't talking gender, but actual sex) experiences in childbirth should be treated precisely equally is the point at which you need to sit down with your politics and have a long, heartfelt discussion vis a vis your politics' connection to reality.
Some recognition of the differences in experience and particularly in consequences are called for, I think. Because they exist.
bluthru's more important point is that by offering different amounts of time off for men and women you're disincentivizing managers from hiring women.
The simplest way of removing this "hidden tax" on hiring women is to make the tax the same for men.
A proper policy would give equal maternal/paternal time off for both parents for either birth or adoption, and also have some sort of paid medical leave program in place for complicated pregnancies (and of course, all other medical problems).
In Sweden, both parents get 16 months paid to split between them as they see fit. And even here in the most gender-equal nation, the actual distribution of parental leave between women and men is 76/24.
Since a few years back there's a bonus for parents who split the leave equally, but it's going to take generations until everyone does it. (All of my peers do it, but they're university educated upper middle class that can afford it)
> have some sort of paid medical leave program in place for complicated pregnancies
Anecdotally, lots of women in Italy have "difficult pregnancies" because the incentives are there for it. They're happy to have extra time off, and doctors, when in doubt, are not going to choose the riskier option.
In the US, similar: it is standard for doctors to prescribe 6 weeks of rest, for use with employers and insurance companies that are moved by such a thing.
Let me reiterate my point: If those differences exist to companies (different amounts of time off), then companies have a reason to prefer one sex over the other.
Childbirth is not an injury. Childbirth is literally essential for society. Whatever extra profit that can be squeezed out of a new dad is meaningless next to the importance of equality and assistance to the new mother. Somehow I think our GDP will be ok.
No, because what the policy is essentially doing is saying "anyone with a new kid gets 8 weeks off. If you happened to have actually given birth to the kid, we'll give you an extra 8 weeks."
As others have stated, it would only be discriminatory if it was based on gender, but it's not - it's based on whether or not you had the physical toll of childbirth, as evident in the adoption v. birth difference for women.
It would be interesting to hear what the leave would be for a lesbian couple with one of the women giving birth. I would think 16/8 like a heterosexual couple, but that could get dicey depending on how the rule is worded.
That would be true if the policy gave women 16 weeks and men 8 weeks, regardless of whether or not the woman gave birth. But, as reported, if you did not give birth, for example if you adopted a child, you only get 8 weeks: even if you are a woman.
A larger point could be made that it's somewhat pointless to speculate about whether a policy is sexist when we're hearing a brief summary from a secondary source. A large aspect of this is how the policy is actually worded and carried out in practice.
I wouldn't think so, as there's more than likely enough medical/biological basis for women to require more time. For example, 99.9999% of men are unable to breastfeed a baby, even if they do stay home.
Having a pregnant wife, and having been subjected to videos of the "joy of childbirth".. I'm more than happy with half the time off in exchange for that not happening to my body.
If it was anything like when my child was born, my wife's company gives a base 8 weeks of parental leave to both men and women.
The extra 8 was paid for by the company's short term disability insurance policy, for a total of 16 weeks. Childbirth was deemed sufficient to trigger short term disability.
Men are not a protected group. Do you know of any government program aimed at compensating for male underperformance or that is biased in favor of males?
What does this have to do with government programs? Gender is a protected category, and many policies (not sure about laws specifically) prohibit discrimination according to gender just as they do about race, age, etc.
I can't think of a bias in favor of males. But there are laws requiring certain equality. I do know of a case where a guy protested the dress code at his work (he wasn't allowed to wear shorts) by wearing a short skirt. The company's dress code allowed employees to wear short skirts, and they were not allowed to enforce the dress code differently for men.
Pay and benefits are enforced to be the same. In some states, car insurance companies are not even allowed to give different rates for men vs. women even though statistically women are less risky to insure.
Also, lets say that you're a child adopted by a homosexual married couple and you only get 8 weeks. How is that fair to the adopted child versus 16 weeks for a birthed child?
Equality means treating people equally--including men and children.