> The feminist narrative, which governments seem to swallow, is that fathers don't want to spend time with their children, and force mothers out of their careers.
I think that is all in your head because you are so anti feminism.
Look we have been through this in Norway for years now. Reality is that many men felt uncomfortable making that choice because there was an expectation in society that staying home with your child was a mothers job and a silly indulgence for men.
Once we made part of the leave reserved for men, they suddenly had a simply argument for the boss "sorry man, we got to take it or we loose it."
It reduced the stigma for men to stay home with the child. It also changed how bosses viewed it. You could say it was a bit of clever social engineering.
> The reality is probably that it is primarily a financial issue. Fathers spending more time with their children means less money for the family, in most cases.
When you get full pay during leave as in most Nordic countries, that is not the issue. The issue was the stigma attached to men being home.
There are not many countries where you get full pay. Full pay makes it a different matter.
And again, I am all for fathers taking time off to spend with their kids. I just think the narrative is harmful.
Harmful to women, actually, who tend to be forced out of their motherhood privileges by well-meaning laws.
As for "fathers feeling uncomfortable", I am not buying it. That is just in people's head and could be remedied with a little propaganda (some TV shows telling people it's fine to take time off as a father). Finances on the other hand are a real world issue.
Seriously, you would forego spending time with your children because it makes you uncomfortable that society might frown upon it? There are no real repercussions, just a mild feeling of uneasiness?
Think whatever you want but the statistics is very clear on this. When time got reserved just for men it significantly increased the number of dads taking parental leave and who extended it.
For countries who have tried this it is very popular and it has been considered a success.
Parents really like it.
It is not just “mild uneasiness” For many countries it has significant career repercussions to prioritize family. I know many Nordics who while living in the US who experience that they are not taken serious by their boss if they priority family.
You can even find plenty of Americans living in Nordics who can attest to this. If you prioritize family you are considered as not taking your career serious.
I mean American bosses freak out when people are away for more than 1-2 weeks.
"It is not just “mild uneasiness” For many countries it has significant career repercussions to prioritize family."
Yeah, that is exactly the worry about "finances" that I mentioned. Why are you hellbent on disagreeing with me?
I also get the notion that the repercussions may now be less for women because when you hire men, you will now also risk losing them to parenthood. But parental leave is just a small dent. The bigger impact is that women will tend to work only part time or not at all once they have children.
Also, as for the alleged "frowning": doesn't it contradict your theory that fathers actually did take parental leave when they were given time allotted especially for them? Imo it rather confirms my theory, that the reason fathers rarely do it is because it is a female privilege that mothers would have to give up (or would be forced to give up by such new laws). The frowning by society must have still been in place, but the mother privilege was not, because she had no claim on that period of parental leave (it was only for fathers).
I think that is all in your head because you are so anti feminism.
Look we have been through this in Norway for years now. Reality is that many men felt uncomfortable making that choice because there was an expectation in society that staying home with your child was a mothers job and a silly indulgence for men.
Once we made part of the leave reserved for men, they suddenly had a simply argument for the boss "sorry man, we got to take it or we loose it."
It reduced the stigma for men to stay home with the child. It also changed how bosses viewed it. You could say it was a bit of clever social engineering.
> The reality is probably that it is primarily a financial issue. Fathers spending more time with their children means less money for the family, in most cases.
When you get full pay during leave as in most Nordic countries, that is not the issue. The issue was the stigma attached to men being home.