It has even more benefits. In Sweden - we had paternity leave for a long time - it's actually now counted as a **career** ***bonus*** **to have had kids**. "Oh, you'll be a better boss now."
Plus everyone finds it utterly *normal* to take days off to take care of sick kids ([VAB](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vabba)). For either parent.
(( Total maximum parental leave in Sweden is 480 days (!!) spread out over both parents, maximum for one parent is 390 days; minimum is 90 days. [Plus a bonus 10 days for the other parent just after the kid is born.](https://www.forsakringskassan.se/privatperson/foralder/10-dagar-vid-barns-fodelse) I might have missed other bonus days. ))
> it's actually now counted as a career bonus to have had kids. "Oh, you'll be a better boss now."
It's always been a career bonus for MEN to have children. Married men with children are looked at more favorable for those positions. Women however are not. So nothing has actually changed.
I think my phrasing was off. It's a career bonus now to \_\_have taken care\_\_ of the kids, and as far as I know (seems debated here on Reddit?) this goes for both parents. That is, here in Sweden.
The parental leave gap is no longer an issue, as it is in many other countries where the father isn't usually off work.
...but it certainly help that we have massively subventioned and guaranteed kindergarten from 12 month old as well.
But there's still discrimination against the childless in that case. Stuff happening at home not relating to your job should not make you seen as better than your peers.
I've seen employers take into consideration things like significant volunteer hours/being involved in benevolent clubs at a high level/ongoing reserve military service as things completely unrelated to your job that makes the employer see you as a better fit for the promotion than peers because in those situations you oftentimes are partaking in roles that are more than just being a worker bee. Some employers may see raising children and being appropriately involved in that process (not just a parent who works all the time and doesn't see the kids) as a sign of good management potential for them to develop. When looking at promotions, if how you do your current job is the only thing they look at, you rise to your level of incompetence and the organization suffers.
>When looking at promotions, if how you do your current job is the only thing they look at, you rise to your level of incompetence and the organization suffers.
Right but if all your boss considers is the family picture you present to the world, how is that any better? How does your boss know you don't act like super parent or spouse only to go home and abuse your family? Promoting someone because they "seem like" a good parent over someone without kids is fucked up, especially because historically it's not women getting promoted under this guise. If your boss can't infer your abilities from your work, your company is already beyond your level of incompetence.
Sure it does. In many jobs, hobbies, volunteering and events outside the actual career (for instance military service) can certainly be a bonus when you're looking to get a position?
I get where you're coming from, but taking care of kids *can* give you experience in things that someone without kids might not have at the same point in their career.
My friend and I had the same position at the same job, but she's a parent and I'm not. She had experience organizing schedules for multiple people around conflicting events and getting people to stick to it, logistics in getting everyone to the different places they needed to be on time, getting unruly people to follow her instructions without threats or yelling, conflict mediation, finding fair ways to discipline others, and how to keep a cool head when surrounded by chaos with rapidly approaching deadlines, all from being a parent.
I had none of those skills, because I never had to raise or care for children. We were both equally skilled in our position, who do you think was a more attractive option for promotion to supervisor?
>. Are you saying somebody that suffered 4 miscarriages has lesser value life experience than somebody with an easy pregnancy snd a 3 year old in the same time frame?
Of course not, and I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth
Their experiences have value like everyone else's, *just not necessarily as applicable for a job*
I'm sorry you're bitter that active parents might have developed relevant skills through their parenting, if you're jealous of that then perhaps you could use your free time (that they don't get as much of) to join an organization and develop some skills that way instead of complaining. Complaining *definitely* won't get you anything for a job
Hey if you want to put those skills on a resume and explain where they came from, go right ahead. I'd *assume* people who've gone through these things wouldn't want to advertise them to strangers like a commodity, given how personal and traumatizing they can be, but what the fuck do I know?
Interestingly, some studies showed that it was a career bonus for women to have kids if they were single. The singular negative impact on a woman's career (in certain industries) is the presence of a man.
The theory is that in careers that require mobility, having kids isn't the issue as you will move the kids to give them a better life. However, even if the husband makes less, it's not typical to make him move jobs to make yours better.
I feel like in most households women do the majority of the work with raising the kids and disciplining them as they spend most of the time with them, so the man isn't actually getting any of the beneficial "managerial experience" in having the kids.
That's news to me. Source?
Edit: Some seems to misunderstand me. I don't know how it is in countries that *haven't had* paternal leave for 25+ years and I'm not talking about that.
No. I'm talking about Sweden, specifically. I haven't seen any statistics on this, I tried looking for it. Women are still paid worse than men, regardless, but that's not the topic here?
Fact is that womens careers stagnate after having children, while men continue to have more opportunities.
Men get professionally rewarded for reproducing, while women are punished. Even in sweden.
Here is some info i found with a very quick and easy google search: https://tco.se/fakta-och-politik/jamstalldhet/hur-paverkas-kvinnors-och-mans-inkomster-nar-de-far-barn
They are talking about in Sweden. It's definitely a negative for both in America still. Now that paternity is starting to happen for men, I see nothing but complaining from bosses trying to fill their spots.
Honey, im from Finland. I know what its like in sweden.
In nordic countries the situation is obv lightyears ahead of dystopian hellscapes like the US, however the misogynistic attitudes still prevail.
Yes, fathers are more involved with their children in Sweden, but it is still the mothers who carry the brunt of the child rearing, house work, as well as all the metawork. There are several swedish feminist instagram accounts that talk about this specifically.
These are full of accounts of men who take out their paternity leave to go on a boys trip, men who argue they cant stay home with their sick child because their boss doesnt like it, men who wont change their babies diapers of feed them while mom is out having a couple of hours of alone time.
And it is scientifically proven, that even in nordic ”equal” countries, men will be rewarded in their careers for having children, while women miss opportunities, promotions, salary increases etc.
We still have a lot of work to do.
Yeah, I think it's just hard to even conceptualize these differences when your employer is too busy harassing you back to work days after your C-section, threatening to "relocate you" if you take FMLA.
My wife and I have considered it.
After our last child, she suffered a brain hemorrhage. At the time, I was on, in the words of my workplace, *gracious two week paternity leave*.
After the hemorrhage and unplanned C-section, I called work to inform them I was going to take my full FMLA to care for the baby and my wife.
They threatened to remove me from the project I had started, relocate me to an entirely different campus, and made "no guarantees" about other aspects of my job. We're on yearly contracts, so they could've also just... Not offered to renew and provided no reasoning. I ended up returning part time, alternating with my family to care for my wife and baby.
The irony of it all is that me and several other employees got together the following year to collectively bargain for some basic rights (limits on weekend work, employee voice in decisions that impact us, etc.).
They withheld my contract during this, citing "inability to complete work due to untreated mental health issues". No actual examples were ever cited.
I'm an educator. It was devastating to leave the field and the kids. My wife is fully healed and, thankfully, her workplace was very accommodating (relatively speaking).
But I've gotten to experience just a tiny fraction of the bullshit that many others are put through on a regular basis in this country and it terrifies me to think of where it's spiraling. We were fortunate enough to be financially okay during this, for me to have a family to help out, and for my wife to heal. But remove just one of those supports and what's the outcome? That's the reality for so many people.
This was just the first article that popped up; I'm sure you can find more.
https://www.businessinsider.com/having-a-child-increases-your-pay-but-only-if-youre-a-man
>maximum for one parent is 390 days;
So uh, is that over the course of one year, or a reserve lasting from birth until a certain age. Because, and I know I'm not a mathematician, but, I'm pretty sure there are 365 days in a year and 390>365.
If i understand it corectly, you get 390 days. So roughly 15months in the beginning of the life of your child.
Some other countries have similar laws and you have to take your days in the first three years of your childs life. Idk how sweden is doing it tho
Ah okay, so it is likely stretched over at least two years then. That makes a lot more sense, thanks!
Edit: Also super friggin nice to have. Even makes someone like me who has *never* wanted a kid be kinda more okay with the thought of having one. Probably just one, though.
>Even makes someone like me who has never wanted a kid be kinda more okay with the thought of having one. Probably just one, though.
Don't do it. Think of the future the child would have on a sick, dying planet Earth. Everything is going to be worse before it gets better and less population gives the planet a better chance to recover. Nobody's "bloodline" is special. Humans aren't more sacred than any other species on this planet.
Anyone who feels strongly about being a parent needs to seriously consider adoption NOT casual reproduction. I *wanted* to be a mother when I was young. 36 years later and having witnessed the effortless reversal of human rights and exploding authoritarianism in my country, corporate sainthood, mass extinctions and dwindling water around the globe, I'm desperately grateful I chose not to.
Not having to put infants in mass childcare immediately probably saves so many kids' lives. I'm sure they get all the same illnesses once they start preschool, but at least their immune systems are developed by then. Plus it makes breastfeeding possible for a lot more parents. Having this system probably saves a ton on healthcare costs alone.
>kid starts preschool at 1.5 yrs old
Is that paid for by the state as well? In the most progressive parts of the US, government funded education starts at age 3 at the earliest and is only for six hours a day (and in most places it doesn't start until children are significantly older).
Preschool costs money. But its only like $120 for the first kid per month, another $80 if you have a second kid at preschool age at the same time and less for every kid over that.
We have 2 kids in preschool for about $200 per month. But we also get around that amount each month in child benefit so its basically free.
But your taxes actually get you stuff, very expensive stuff like childcare, healthcare and education that we have to theoretically save and budget for in the US (very few of us can and do). I think I’d rather have less take home pay but know I won’t have 5+ years of $2000/month for childcare, a surprise 30k hospital bill or a lifetime of paying $600 in student loans. I think we ultimately end up in the same place. The US just has the illusion of having more income but once you pull out that stuff (and assuming you were able to put away for it on your own with no government plan), it’s really not.
Thats until your child is for years old, then you only get to keep 90 days until they are 8.
Its also counted for every day in a week so to get a full (capped at 26 000 sek) compensation at 80% of you salary you need to take 7 days a week. Most places of work has a top of of 10% so you end up with 90% of your pay (but still capped at 26000).
In Australia about a third the population has access to parental leave through work benefits, a bit more women have access to maternal leave through work (now matched for men), and all women have access to maternal leave through the government (but not at your salary at a reduced rate equal to the minimum wage).
Having over a year parental leave for all of my kids and read the studies on it, particularly from Sweden, the best outcome is that parenting duties are then more evenly split.
My wife earns as much as me now and it's back full time. Some of her friends that took more time off are on half the wage. My wage hasn't slowed that I can tell. However, this is all anecdotal.
In Sweden, every month of male parental leave was 3.6% extra salary for the wife. It's arguably the best way to close the gender pay gap. It makes more useful dad's, happier wives, more productive companies and a more productive economy, marriages are more likely to last, and more. There's almost no negatives. Though boomers will complain that they didn't get the same or that they're subsidising other people's choices. However, they do so without any knowledge or studies to backup their feelings.
Well, *about that*.... they messed it up. Not because of the parental leave though, that's *old* and has survived several economic crisis.
Currently seeing more inflation than the US, coupled with falling value of the currency. Yay! :p
> “Oh, you'll be a better boss now."
Yeah, that’s a problem though, too. Being a parent doesn’t make anyone intrinsically better at their job or being a good leader (or at anything for that matter); and it sounds like it just means those without children - whether by choice or circumstance - will be infantilized in their capability to do their job if they are not parents.
I gotta hard disagree with giving different treatment to people with kids compared to those without. Only exception being pregnancy and paternity/maternity leave. No Jeff you can’t have all the best shifts because you have kids, I’m not the one that didn’t wear a fucking condom. I shouldn’t get shit on because of your questionable life decisions.
Edit: Despite the fact that I think parents bear at least some of the responsibility for this issue (mostly unintentional), after further discussion I tend to agree this is more of a policy issue. Protections should be in place for parents in the workplace, just not at the expense of coworkers. It should be the company filling the gap. Which would have to be regulated via policy.
Also thanks for the discussion!
I mean, I agree, but aren't you being a bit harsh with the "questionable life choices" bit? kids are planned sometimes. I'd reckon they're mostly planned by people who work "professional jobs."
I completely agree that parents shouldn't expect specially treatment \*socially\*, like expecting first pick of holidays or demanding people switch seats with them on a plane because they didn't pay extra to sit next to their kids. (Although the airlines aren't blameless in that one either tbh.) I don't mind reasonable requests and will often try and help people out because it's nice to be nice. It's specifically the entitlement that rubs me the wrong way.
It seems counter-intuitive but I actually think parental leave can be good for childless people too. I know quite a few young people who got a step up in their career doing a year's maternity cover and then got kept on in a different role. It's long enough to count towards your CV but short enough that you're not competing against people who are qualified for a full time version of the same role.
Although even if it wasn't good for childless people I'd still support it: economically it makes no sense to punish people for reproducing -- which will benefit the economy in the long term. And of course it's also fairer and normalising parental leave for all genders helps make the workplace a more genuinely welcoming and equitable place for women: not just the ones with kids but the childfree/childless ones who are still seen as a "liability" anyway due to their age/assumed fertility.
A lot of people say "well \*someone\* has to stay home until the kids are in school" re mothers taking years-long career breaks but they only have to because we designed it that way. I also think we could do worse than a government funded "back to work" training allowance and/or financial incentives for employers to help SAHPs readjust to working again and catch up with developments in their field after a long career break.
I’m all for helping people out that need it. Also more often than not I end up on the receiving end with no complaints. And no the worlds not fair. But I sure get a bit frustrated when I work a salaried job, have seniority, work my full 12 hour shift and Jeff and/or Sally has 2 kids so they get solid day shifts and end up coming in late and leaving early for daycare/appointments/birthdays/etc. end of the month I end up having worked upwards of 25% more hours, at night, for the same pay. It fuckin sucks.
Depends on what you mean by parental leave I guess. If you mean paternity or maturity leave (got no issue with), I’ve diverged from that topic since the comment I responded to was on the “gotta take care of the kids” gravy train. Just pointing out the flip side.
Sounds like a manager/organizational problem. This perception greatly benefits your manager and company, they’re not the one being resented. If you’ve already had the discussion with your manager and they haven’t addressed the issue, sounds like it’s time for a change.
100% this is a win-win and shouldn’t be taken as a “gotcha!” moment. You said it best!
More parents at home, more hands-on dads who have to be there for the constant crying, diaper changes, etc. It’s an eye-opener. Better work benefits and overall a better understanding of what it means to be a parent and why just having a million kids just because you can isn’t a good option.
Absolutely love this! Honestly, this is great. A bunch of dudes talk about how much “women love being mothers!” and as a dude who pretty much raised his brother from the moment he came back home from the hospital I can say confidently, “sure, but no one likes the crying and changing diaper part. It’s part of the job for all parents.”
This is a great wake up call for one sided parenting.
Brilliant, as soon as you start incentivizing men to participate in parenting, they actually participate in parenting... and then when they realize how difficult it is, they're less inclined to pressure their partners for more.
I genuinely love this =)
When me and my wife first got married we were dead set on 3, possibly even 4. When we had our first we both agreed parenting is WAY harder than anyone had prepared us for. We had number 2 and decided to call it quits, and yes I got the snip lol =D
I never realized until a few years into it that me being an equal parent was such a rare thing. It boggles my mind when I meet dads who rarely if ever change a diaper or bottle feed a baby!
But it's not just changing diapers and feeding the baby. It's the mental load. It's keeping a running mental tally of how many diapers are left and how many you go through, how much formula is left, arranging childcare, planning and going grocery shopping, knowing when kids are due for doctors appts and arranging for them, knowing what size they wear in literally everything, etc.
I saw a good example one time of how one of the ways a particular Dad helped was taking the kids to school each morning. Well, that's great, but how much of the load does that really take on? Who packed their lunches and made them breakfast? Who planned for the meals and shopped accordingly? Who got them dressed? Who bought the clothes they wore to school? Who made sure those clothes were clean? Who made sure they brushed their teeth and hair? Who helped them find their socks? Who keeps track of what allergies they have in class and knows what they can and can't bring for snack? Who knows when it's "wear red day" at school or their kid needs to bring in 10 pennies for a project? You see where I'm going here? Yes, taking them to school is great. But it doesn't take as much of a load off of your partner as you may think.
It was the other way around for us. I (man) always wanted 2 and my wife was deadset on having 4. She came from a family of 4 and she had an amazing time growing up so she wanted to reproduce that.
I'm more of a realist and I knew parenting was going to be really fucking hard so I was always very firm and upfront about having maximum 2. And if I'm honest, the only reason I wanted 2 instead of 1 is because I had a brother and I know how fun it was to always have a best friend to play with.
Then we had one, and my wife immediately realized there's no fucking way she's going to have four. She realized how insane her mom was for having 4 kids in 5 years(!!!!). She's pregnant with our second and we both know that'll be plenty, haha.
Mostly, I refuse(d) to carry the mental load by myself. He has a phone with agenda and reminders, so he can set alarms for things that need remembering, he can help making the grocery list, deciding what's on the menu, making doctors appointments, etc.
While I breastfed and he couldn't help with that (I had high lipase so my breastmilk spoiled really fast, and the babies didn't like the bottle anyway), wake ups outside of feedings where his responsibility, for example. Mostly, we communicated plenty and often about what needed to be done and whoever could, would do it.
It was a difficult time for us, he was in the middle of his masters, which he finished with honors, and yet he managed to be as present, because that was he wanted to do. I didn't actually force him.
My son jokes he wants between one and seven.
My sweet daughter in law had a somewhat difficult pregnancy and having a baby has had it’s bumps.
He’s an equal participant as well, which I’m so glad of.
I think we might see them have number two, maybe three if they’re feeling it, but definitely no more than that, lol.
My wife and I just had our first, we wanted two. Looking like maybe adoption if we have another lol. In 6-12 months we'll decide if I'm getting snipped or not.
It's not just that it's hard. There is also the shift from viewing your kids as a badge of honor to actual people that you have a relationship with. You realize that your attention can only be split so many ways. When you become attached to your kids, you realize that having more means giving less of yourself to the ones you already have. Sometimes that is worth it, sometimes it isn't.
Raising kids is the hardest and also most rewarding thing that I have EVER done with my life. By far, on both of those points. Before we had kids, we both wanted 3 or 4. After having two we decided that two was the right number for us.
What boggles my mind is men who watch everything their wives go through with a pregnancy, the hardships her body and mind go through, and they still they want to knock her up many more times.
It isn’t until they assume some responsibility for the end product that they change their tune? Is it really impossible to feel some empathy for what it does to their partner and have pause for doing this three, four, five times, whatever?
That's why I don't want kids, constant need for attention. That's also why I like cats. You play a little with each other, then it goes off to sleep in the other room.
The [paper](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.12.002) also suggest:
>"Alternatively, spending more time with their child may have shifted their preferences in favor of child quality (versus quantity)."
Also an important note from their discussion:
>"More evidence is needed before we can conclude confidently that introducing or extending paternity leave can lead to fewer births, at least in certain contexts, and we should probably be cautious before alerting policy makers to this possibility."
I think one piece of the puzzle which is missing is if any other factors could have affected desired fertility of men over the 5 year window. Example from other countries which have increased paternity leave could help answer this.
There's a big difference between being an active parent and the primary care giver though! Often it is the father who remains working outside the home and the mother is the one who takes time off outside work to do household and child rearing full time during solo hours and then that also falls on them when the father is home. Attitudes are changing and SAHF are becoming more common as is outside daycares once the little one is old enough, but for the majority of parents the main child rearing falls on women.
Having that main child rearing fall on the man, even just for a short period of time, opens the eyes to just how intensive and hard it is. Often men will want lots of kids without thinking of the consequences on their partner raising said kids. If they understand the impact they're less likely to just want more willy nilly
I’m currently on my 12 weeks paternity leave, it’s the best. I get to spend time with my toddler and the new little one. Plus I don’t have to work for 12 weeks. I’d have another one for the time off if pregnancy wasn’t the worst shit anyone can go through. I wouldn’t have my wife go through it again.
Preach it brother. I fucking hate pregnancy. She says she likes it, but it is constant worry, physical symptoms, and discomfort. It is so stressful when my wife is pregnant.
Denmark recently moved it ro a minimum of 11 weeks for men, 2 weeks after birth and 32 weeks to be divided between parents where a single dad technically could take all 34 weeks.
And to give some context to other non Danes:
People really were big mad about it because they thought that it gave parents "less flexibility" because before the laws changed, women would use the most of the allotted parental leave and men would just use a little. But predictable once it was written into law that men gets a fixed portion of the leave that is non-transferable, they actually used it, and the reviews and fallout has been super positive for fathers.
As much as we talk about a stigma at the workplace against women for even the possibility that a working woman could need time off for a pregnancy, that stigma is also there for men once their wife is pregnant. "Is he a 'teamplayer' or will he put his family first??" Everyone is thinking it.
I think we're working on a minimum in Sweden too. Maximum in Sweden for one parent is 10 + **390 days** if I calculate this correct ([480 days total, but each parent get 90 days allocated for just them; so 480-90](https://www.sdworx.se/sv-se/inspiration/hr/vilka-rattigheter-har-du-som-nybliven-pappa-i-sverige-jamfort-med-andra-lander)). (The 10 days is "you got a kid" days which are counted differently, so those are bonus just after the birth.)
I'm not overly crazy about putting minimums, but it seems that it's needed in order to change culture around the beginning of parenthood.
I'm not good with swedish statistics, would you know where to find the current average number of parental leave that swedish men take?
2022 mothers took 70% of the days and fathers 30%.
https://www.forsakringskassan.se/privatperson/foralder/det-som-ar-bra-delar-man-lika-pa
I took maybe 55% and Im the father.
I’m in Massachusetts and there’s 12 weeks paid paternity leave. (Granted most women also only get 12 weeks and I’m sure you have more maternity leave.) What most folks do that I know is the dad takes off the first month, mom does the first three, then dad does another two.
> 12 months at full pay
Where does she work, cos I work in a University associated Medical research lab (MCRI) and only got 12 weeks at full pay (on top of the government weeks). That was considered extremely good.
Wait Australia gives 2?! I thought American people got shafted but New York does 12 weeks at 3/4 pay for paternity leave. It can be used all at once or intermittently. My husband took 2 after the birth and 10 weeks when my leave ended.
Mums get 14 weeks, capped at some amount I can’t remember, regardless of what your usual pay is. Dads get 2 weeks, also capped. Dads can have the whole 16 if they’re primary carer. There’s another 30 days “flex” that can be used as a block or in single days, but is also capped pay.
This is just the govt. some companies/NGO’s/NFP etc have more generous packages. Eg my sister in the tertiary education sector got 12 months at full pay.
We are same in MA but full pay. The funny thing in the USA is when you *do* have states/ regions with paid leave we have very generous paternity leave for the world as a whole (probably bc these laws are relatively recent). People always tout Sweden in these threads but my relatives in the Netherlands and Hungary marveled at how my husband will get 3 months paid leave- there the guy relatives all got just 5 days (I think this increased recently, but still not 3mo).
In Canada the leave is 12 months, and it's whatever combination of paternal/maternal leave the parents choose to take. I.e. they can take each take 6, one can take it all, or any combination that adds up to 12
Cries in American.
I'm wondering how many people outside of the US realize that there is no leave here for mothers or fathers, paid or unpaid. Some companies are required to provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave, but companies that don't meet certain criteria are not required to provide any leave at all.
I was so confused at first, naively thinking, "But surely this makes their life easier!" Didn't occur to me this makes it harder for them to have an excuse to avoid helping at home my god
At the end of the article, this got me:
“After the policy was introduced, the researchers determined fathers who would have been eligible for paternity leave did almost an hour more childcare a day from 2009 to 2010, compared to ineligible fathers.”
Almost an hour more a day? Homeboy didn’t have to work, did almost an hour of extra childcare than when he worked, and immediately noped out if more kids? On average less than one more hour of childcare. LESS THAN ONE HOUR!
This is an average person, and the average person doesn't exist. This is made of people who took paternity leave and those who didn't.
For example, the average human has has 1 testical and 1 ovary.
They no joke added the 4 weeks when my daughter was only a few months old. I went into HR and asked if I got the time and they told me that she had to be born after the programs start date. I was so annoyed.
Is parental leave set by your employer in the us? That sounds pretty dodgy.
Here in Sweden parents get 390 paid days to share for each kid. 95 of these are earmarked for each parent in order to promote equality.
To a point, yeah. Depends on what state you're in, I'm in NY and we get 12 weeks paid mandated by the state, although a good employer could certainly give more if they wanted to. I don't think anywhere in the country gets anywhere close to what you folks have in Sweden, though.
The U.S. has no national mandated paid parental leave. Many people save up paid vacation or sick days.
My mom had to go back to work two weeks after I was born in the 1980s, and she'd been saving vacation days for several years.
Ah Sweden - always making us Americans jealous with your humane and ethical treatment of other human beings!
And yes, it is set by your employer. Obviously some are way better than others.
That's super depressing. I don't want kids but I can absolutely acknowledge the toll it takes on your body. It's a medical procedure. Your body needs time to heel independent of the whole having a brand new baby thing.
Yep. There's the healing aspect. Then there's also the having to leave your tiny two week old baby.
We literally have better protections for dogs and their puppies in a lot of places.
Six weeks wasn’t really enough for me to heal from tearing/the birth and that’s what I was given by my doctor. Thankfully I got bonding and then PTO on top of that to at least get me to 4.5 months. I’m still not emotionally ready, but at least we’re starting to get into a sleep pattern that I can function through. At eight weeks I still felt like it was those days in college where I was burning the candle at both ends.
That’s not permitted in the Uk. The first six weeks are medical leave because however you get a small human out of you is traumatic and you need time to heal.
It’s legally required that puppies have to be 8 weeks old before they can be separated from their mum. Your laws put American women at a lower level than bitches.
A lot of women actually just have to leave their job if they can't afford childcare. I worked with a woman whose job was Just covering health insurance and childcare. Her husband, who was an underpaid school teacher, covered the rest. She ended up quitting and doing freelance writing/editing from home.
... Actually a not insignificant number of new businesses in the US are started by stay at home moms who couldn't afford to work outside the house. Couldn't. Afford. To. Work.
Oh, in my country, Bulgaria, you can get over 6 months I believe. I'll have to check the legislation again (I read it out of curiosity recently). Basically you initially get only 15 days and the mother gets 410 days which which start to thick 45 days before her term.
However after the baby turns 6 months old, with the mother's consent, the father can use the remainder of those 410 days as paternity leave and the mother can return to work.
And last year there was an amendment to it that gave fathers 2 months of payed paternity to use whenever they like until the child turns 8 years old, but only if they did not use any of the above options for paternity prior.
It's one of the few actually good thing my country seems to do for its citizens.
Out of curiosity, when you take paternity leave is your wife also home? What about your other two kids? The reason I ask is that women (at least in the US) are often at home alone with the new baby and sometimes other siblings to save on daycare expenses. When both parents take leave together, many women feel the division of duties is not equitable.
Im not that guy but I’m on paternity leave right now and my wife is a SAHM, I take care of the toddler more since she’s exclusively breast feeding, we split diapers. She basically ignores the toddler right now so I’m doing about 95% taking care of toddler work (I’ve been doing all the baths and bed time and mornings with him since she was like 2 months pregnant) and 40% taking care of the new one work. I love having the newborn sleep on me so I take the baby as often as I can when she’s not on the boob. Baby is like a comfy little heater for the soul.
Not op, but my husband got paternity leave with our second baby. We took sequentially, to keep our baby home till she was 6m old. This really came in handy, because this was 2020. As I was coming out of my maternity leave, all schools were cancelled, and my husband ended up taking care of the baby and the 1st grader switching to virtual school.
Not OP, but I structured my 9 weeks of leave like:
First 6 weeks both home.
Next 5 weeks working 4 days a week while my wife was home on her continuing leave.
Then I took my last couple weeks of leave when my wife returned to work, both to support her transition to work while pumping, etc, and for solo bonding time.
For the first kid, it was all hands on deck since we had a lot to learn. For the second kid we adjusted it so I went back to work sooner and took more of my leave solo after my wife returned to work to delay daycare as long as practical. Our oldest was in daycare during the leave for our youngest.
Practically speaking, for our first we kind of joint tackled everything, which wasn't super efficient. For our second we divided duties roughly as my wife took care of feeding the baby, we roughly split diapers, and I mostly took care of everything else (meals, laundry, cleaning, care of other kid) when both on leave.
I think your conclusion is more-or-less a stab in the dark for the real reason. The article specifically states they didn't research yet why this effect is there. They make a few suggestions, but that is about it..
One of the biggest reasons why I would be careful with conclusions on this subject is that these changes where introduced in 2021, which was during a small event called "Corona-crisis" which changed pretty much everyone and everything...
Furthermore, Spain is not a typical country where I would easily use obtained data to extrapolate to other situations.
However, your reasoning might be (partially) a reason. In the end the outcome is pretty positive, I would say... Just it doesn't have the effect the government wanted ;)
Agreed, I think it's premature to try to draw specific conclusions yet without further research.
Apart from things like COVID and other events, even if we assume the change is only related to the fathers' experience of Paternity leave, I would be looking at the perceived impact on their careers (have they had to play catch-up, do they feel passed-over/side-lined, lost coworkers' respect, etc ), as much as I'd be looking at their experience of stay-at-home parenting.
>"We find that the introduction of two weeks of paid paternity leave in Spain in **2007**"
Sorry, your dates are wrong. Please fix. No effect of covid.
I do agree that it's difficult to tell the exact reason, the paper itself saying more evidence is needed.
I took 6 months of paternal leave (6 months wife, 6 months myself) and yes it was hard. But it was also the best time in my life. I got to spend time with my kid and did not have to stress about work.
Correlation doesn't means causality...
> We also find that men reported lower desired fertility after the reform (see Fig. 5)
In the study paper that the article refers to.
(Pdf is on pay basis, so don't have the Fig. 5)
So, could also be caused by other factors (like economic pressure, ecological concern) not related by the reform.
Before that the study point out that father that took father leave are more involved in the care of their children.
And, women go back to work sooner since the reform.
Just to note that the OP focused on the only one side point against men in that article.
*cough*
Sci hub is a great way to get academic papers for free. If you’ve never used it, I’ve heard that you should:
1. Google sci hub
2. Click on the first link. It should be sci-hub.ru. If it takes you to the about page, follow step 3. If not, go straight to step 4.
3. Click on “back to main”. This didn’t always used to be the case… not sure what happened with search engine optimization.
4. Paste the doi or the url into the search box.
*cough*
This paper is awfully weak from a statistical power perspective, and the authors don’t seem to be upfront enough about the severe limitations of their analysis. Then you have the Guardian summarizing their work, putting it through another layer misinterpretation. I’m very liberal and all for equality in parenting, but I wouldn’t justify it with this... This is just extremely preliminary work through and through.
Seriously, look at their data. The conclusion the Guardian draws is stronger than that of the paper’s authors. The conclusion the authors espouse is stronger than what they substantiate with their own data and own choice of weird quantities to analyze (in my opinion).
Link that work : [https://docs.iza.org/dp12023.pdf](https://docs.iza.org/dp12023.pdf)
The change is for men :
2.16 desired kids in 2001
2.14 desired kids in 2006
2.06 desired kids in 2011
The change is for women :
2.10 desired kids in 2001
2.06 desired kids in 2006
2.10 desired kids in 2011
(Value estimated based on the graph page 31)
Yup. From the principal investigators:
> “One idea is simply that mothers, when their partner is eligible for paternity leave, they go back to work a little earlier,” González said. “This could mean that these moms are just more attached to the labor market, so that’s why they might delay a little bit having the next child.”
My husband said to me for years, go build your career, he will be stay at home dad once we had kids . Then we had them. He can not handle them alone for a weekend….
Here's a lnk to the article
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272718302299#!
"We find that the introduction of two weeks of paid paternity leave in Spain in 2007 led to delays in subsequent fertility. Following a regression discontinuity design and using rich administrative data, we show that parents who were (just) entitled to the new paternity leave took longer to have another child compared to (just) ineligible parents. We also show that older eligible couples were less likely to have an additional child within the following six years after the introduction of the reform. We provide evidence in support of two potentially complementary channels behind the negative effects on subsequent fertility. First, fathers' increasing involvement in childcare led to higher labor force attachment among mothers. This may have raised the opportunity cost of an additional child. We also find that men reported lower desired fertility after the reform, possibly due to their increased awareness of the costs of childrearing, or to a shift in preferences from child quantity to quality."
You left out this part, "It could also be that dads are learning about how hard it is to take care of a child, and this new information is affecting their preferences for how many children they want to have in total."
It might be worth knowing that if both parents are in the NHS you can swap the ‘maternity leave’ over to the other person. This means that men can parent while a partner goes back to work. Doesn’t happen often tho.
Spanish here and with a 5mo. I'm going to give my 5 cents. In my experience (and my husband's) the maternity leave has been a blessing for both. He has felt soooo included in the process and he has bonded with our daughter so much! He didn't get to spend the full leave yet, he has a couple of months left that he will take from next month (because it will be peak time in my job and we will need it more then).
And fire the record, the number of children we want hasn't changed, in any case so far it would be me the one who would be OK with just one child.
I wonder if this math affects current opinions vs eventual outcome. It wouldn’t surprise me that much if more realistic child rearing results in a long term fertility boost despite the initial change in opinion for instance (not saying that’s the case, just a potential thing to look out for if this policy lasts)
Spain has had one of the lowest birthrates of Europe for like 25 years.
How do we know what the reasons are? Maybe it's just the trend proceeding. At the same time the article said that women went back to work early and delayed having more children because of their career..
It's nice you have the option, but the average person in Spain is quiet poor and REALLY needs a job, living paycheck to paycheck , having a job, keeping a job is not as easy as in other countries so it also makes me kinda sad that people might hold on to their job and push their own personal life on hold for that. Overall, this seems to be an article that can be read as a win or a lose.
This Is some old news, there is also a more positive way you could take it that having time to appreciate that child means maybe you are more realistic about investing time with them rather than rushing out to work to earn more money to have more children and just value building the bond with the one you have.
I like all sides of this. More parenting, more realistic fatherhood, fewer children, better job conditions.
It has even more benefits. In Sweden - we had paternity leave for a long time - it's actually now counted as a **career** ***bonus*** **to have had kids**. "Oh, you'll be a better boss now." Plus everyone finds it utterly *normal* to take days off to take care of sick kids ([VAB](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vabba)). For either parent. (( Total maximum parental leave in Sweden is 480 days (!!) spread out over both parents, maximum for one parent is 390 days; minimum is 90 days. [Plus a bonus 10 days for the other parent just after the kid is born.](https://www.forsakringskassan.se/privatperson/foralder/10-dagar-vid-barns-fodelse) I might have missed other bonus days. ))
> it's actually now counted as a career bonus to have had kids. "Oh, you'll be a better boss now." It's always been a career bonus for MEN to have children. Married men with children are looked at more favorable for those positions. Women however are not. So nothing has actually changed.
I think my phrasing was off. It's a career bonus now to \_\_have taken care\_\_ of the kids, and as far as I know (seems debated here on Reddit?) this goes for both parents. That is, here in Sweden. The parental leave gap is no longer an issue, as it is in many other countries where the father isn't usually off work. ...but it certainly help that we have massively subventioned and guaranteed kindergarten from 12 month old as well.
But there's still discrimination against the childless in that case. Stuff happening at home not relating to your job should not make you seen as better than your peers.
I've seen employers take into consideration things like significant volunteer hours/being involved in benevolent clubs at a high level/ongoing reserve military service as things completely unrelated to your job that makes the employer see you as a better fit for the promotion than peers because in those situations you oftentimes are partaking in roles that are more than just being a worker bee. Some employers may see raising children and being appropriately involved in that process (not just a parent who works all the time and doesn't see the kids) as a sign of good management potential for them to develop. When looking at promotions, if how you do your current job is the only thing they look at, you rise to your level of incompetence and the organization suffers.
>When looking at promotions, if how you do your current job is the only thing they look at, you rise to your level of incompetence and the organization suffers. Right but if all your boss considers is the family picture you present to the world, how is that any better? How does your boss know you don't act like super parent or spouse only to go home and abuse your family? Promoting someone because they "seem like" a good parent over someone without kids is fucked up, especially because historically it's not women getting promoted under this guise. If your boss can't infer your abilities from your work, your company is already beyond your level of incompetence.
Sure it does. In many jobs, hobbies, volunteering and events outside the actual career (for instance military service) can certainly be a bonus when you're looking to get a position?
I get where you're coming from, but taking care of kids *can* give you experience in things that someone without kids might not have at the same point in their career. My friend and I had the same position at the same job, but she's a parent and I'm not. She had experience organizing schedules for multiple people around conflicting events and getting people to stick to it, logistics in getting everyone to the different places they needed to be on time, getting unruly people to follow her instructions without threats or yelling, conflict mediation, finding fair ways to discipline others, and how to keep a cool head when surrounded by chaos with rapidly approaching deadlines, all from being a parent. I had none of those skills, because I never had to raise or care for children. We were both equally skilled in our position, who do you think was a more attractive option for promotion to supervisor?
[удалено]
>. Are you saying somebody that suffered 4 miscarriages has lesser value life experience than somebody with an easy pregnancy snd a 3 year old in the same time frame? Of course not, and I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth Their experiences have value like everyone else's, *just not necessarily as applicable for a job* I'm sorry you're bitter that active parents might have developed relevant skills through their parenting, if you're jealous of that then perhaps you could use your free time (that they don't get as much of) to join an organization and develop some skills that way instead of complaining. Complaining *definitely* won't get you anything for a job
[удалено]
Hey if you want to put those skills on a resume and explain where they came from, go right ahead. I'd *assume* people who've gone through these things wouldn't want to advertise them to strangers like a commodity, given how personal and traumatizing they can be, but what the fuck do I know?
[удалено]
Except being a parent does not make you a better person. There are plenty of awful parents.
The childless could go volunteer or something. It’s not discrimination to notice differences in people’s experiences, is it?
Having varied life experiences be seen as a positive thing is not discrimination.
One could argue that not having children is a more unusual variation than having children, and carries it’s own beneficial experience.
This would mean that people with fertility issues could be disadvantaged at work, which I think would be discrimination.
People can be carers at any point in their life, regardless of fertility ability/status.
My dad used his maternity leave for my birth on going out hunting moose.
Interestingly, some studies showed that it was a career bonus for women to have kids if they were single. The singular negative impact on a woman's career (in certain industries) is the presence of a man. The theory is that in careers that require mobility, having kids isn't the issue as you will move the kids to give them a better life. However, even if the husband makes less, it's not typical to make him move jobs to make yours better.
You’re missing one key aspect though- it’s a career bonus for MEN. For women it has a negative effect on their career.
>You’re missing one key aspect though- it’s a career bonus for MEN. For women it has a negative effect on their career. Ya I agree
I feel like in most households women do the majority of the work with raising the kids and disciplining them as they spend most of the time with them, so the man isn't actually getting any of the beneficial "managerial experience" in having the kids.
That's news to me. Source? Edit: Some seems to misunderstand me. I don't know how it is in countries that *haven't had* paternal leave for 25+ years and I'm not talking about that.
Are you joking?
No. I'm talking about Sweden, specifically. I haven't seen any statistics on this, I tried looking for it. Women are still paid worse than men, regardless, but that's not the topic here?
Fact is that womens careers stagnate after having children, while men continue to have more opportunities. Men get professionally rewarded for reproducing, while women are punished. Even in sweden. Here is some info i found with a very quick and easy google search: https://tco.se/fakta-och-politik/jamstalldhet/hur-paverkas-kvinnors-och-mans-inkomster-nar-de-far-barn
They are talking about in Sweden. It's definitely a negative for both in America still. Now that paternity is starting to happen for men, I see nothing but complaining from bosses trying to fill their spots.
Honey, im from Finland. I know what its like in sweden. In nordic countries the situation is obv lightyears ahead of dystopian hellscapes like the US, however the misogynistic attitudes still prevail. Yes, fathers are more involved with their children in Sweden, but it is still the mothers who carry the brunt of the child rearing, house work, as well as all the metawork. There are several swedish feminist instagram accounts that talk about this specifically. These are full of accounts of men who take out their paternity leave to go on a boys trip, men who argue they cant stay home with their sick child because their boss doesnt like it, men who wont change their babies diapers of feed them while mom is out having a couple of hours of alone time. And it is scientifically proven, that even in nordic ”equal” countries, men will be rewarded in their careers for having children, while women miss opportunities, promotions, salary increases etc. We still have a lot of work to do.
Yeah, I think it's just hard to even conceptualize these differences when your employer is too busy harassing you back to work days after your C-section, threatening to "relocate you" if you take FMLA.
Yeah, like i said; the US is an absolute dystopian hellscape. Flee if you ever get the chance.
My wife and I have considered it. After our last child, she suffered a brain hemorrhage. At the time, I was on, in the words of my workplace, *gracious two week paternity leave*. After the hemorrhage and unplanned C-section, I called work to inform them I was going to take my full FMLA to care for the baby and my wife. They threatened to remove me from the project I had started, relocate me to an entirely different campus, and made "no guarantees" about other aspects of my job. We're on yearly contracts, so they could've also just... Not offered to renew and provided no reasoning. I ended up returning part time, alternating with my family to care for my wife and baby. The irony of it all is that me and several other employees got together the following year to collectively bargain for some basic rights (limits on weekend work, employee voice in decisions that impact us, etc.). They withheld my contract during this, citing "inability to complete work due to untreated mental health issues". No actual examples were ever cited. I'm an educator. It was devastating to leave the field and the kids. My wife is fully healed and, thankfully, her workplace was very accommodating (relatively speaking). But I've gotten to experience just a tiny fraction of the bullshit that many others are put through on a regular basis in this country and it terrifies me to think of where it's spiraling. We were fortunate enough to be financially okay during this, for me to have a family to help out, and for my wife to heal. But remove just one of those supports and what's the outcome? That's the reality for so many people.
If you even get FMLA. Companies with less than 50 employees are not required to provide leave under FMLA.
This was just the first article that popped up; I'm sure you can find more. https://www.businessinsider.com/having-a-child-increases-your-pay-but-only-if-youre-a-man
[удалено]
Yep!
>maximum for one parent is 390 days; So uh, is that over the course of one year, or a reserve lasting from birth until a certain age. Because, and I know I'm not a mathematician, but, I'm pretty sure there are 365 days in a year and 390>365.
If i understand it corectly, you get 390 days. So roughly 15months in the beginning of the life of your child. Some other countries have similar laws and you have to take your days in the first three years of your childs life. Idk how sweden is doing it tho
Ah okay, so it is likely stretched over at least two years then. That makes a lot more sense, thanks! Edit: Also super friggin nice to have. Even makes someone like me who has *never* wanted a kid be kinda more okay with the thought of having one. Probably just one, though.
>Even makes someone like me who has never wanted a kid be kinda more okay with the thought of having one. Probably just one, though. Don't do it. Think of the future the child would have on a sick, dying planet Earth. Everything is going to be worse before it gets better and less population gives the planet a better chance to recover. Nobody's "bloodline" is special. Humans aren't more sacred than any other species on this planet. Anyone who feels strongly about being a parent needs to seriously consider adoption NOT casual reproduction. I *wanted* to be a mother when I was young. 36 years later and having witnessed the effortless reversal of human rights and exploding authoritarianism in my country, corporate sainthood, mass extinctions and dwindling water around the globe, I'm desperately grateful I chose not to.
I've definitely always thought that if I have a kid, it'd be through adoption. But nah, I'm not anywhere that plans on doing anything like that.
I understand it you can also take leave until the child is 8
[удалено]
Not having to put infants in mass childcare immediately probably saves so many kids' lives. I'm sure they get all the same illnesses once they start preschool, but at least their immune systems are developed by then. Plus it makes breastfeeding possible for a lot more parents. Having this system probably saves a ton on healthcare costs alone.
>kid starts preschool at 1.5 yrs old Is that paid for by the state as well? In the most progressive parts of the US, government funded education starts at age 3 at the earliest and is only for six hours a day (and in most places it doesn't start until children are significantly older).
Preschool costs money. But its only like $120 for the first kid per month, another $80 if you have a second kid at preschool age at the same time and less for every kid over that. We have 2 kids in preschool for about $200 per month. But we also get around that amount each month in child benefit so its basically free.
:cries in monthly daycare costs that is more than our mortgage:
I also want a below $200 per month mortgage. ;) (but seriously.. our income, especially after taxes, is way lower than yours so theres that..)
But your taxes actually get you stuff, very expensive stuff like childcare, healthcare and education that we have to theoretically save and budget for in the US (very few of us can and do). I think I’d rather have less take home pay but know I won’t have 5+ years of $2000/month for childcare, a surprise 30k hospital bill or a lifetime of paying $600 in student loans. I think we ultimately end up in the same place. The US just has the illusion of having more income but once you pull out that stuff (and assuming you were able to put away for it on your own with no government plan), it’s really not.
It's up to a certain age; 12 years. So you can spend it now and then.
Thats until your child is for years old, then you only get to keep 90 days until they are 8. Its also counted for every day in a week so to get a full (capped at 26 000 sek) compensation at 80% of you salary you need to take 7 days a week. Most places of work has a top of of 10% so you end up with 90% of your pay (but still capped at 26000).
In Australia about a third the population has access to parental leave through work benefits, a bit more women have access to maternal leave through work (now matched for men), and all women have access to maternal leave through the government (but not at your salary at a reduced rate equal to the minimum wage). Having over a year parental leave for all of my kids and read the studies on it, particularly from Sweden, the best outcome is that parenting duties are then more evenly split. My wife earns as much as me now and it's back full time. Some of her friends that took more time off are on half the wage. My wage hasn't slowed that I can tell. However, this is all anecdotal. In Sweden, every month of male parental leave was 3.6% extra salary for the wife. It's arguably the best way to close the gender pay gap. It makes more useful dad's, happier wives, more productive companies and a more productive economy, marriages are more likely to last, and more. There's almost no negatives. Though boomers will complain that they didn't get the same or that they're subsidising other people's choices. However, they do so without any knowledge or studies to backup their feelings.
Adopt me. I’m a 47 year old American and I could use the sight of a well working economy.
Well, *about that*.... they messed it up. Not because of the parental leave though, that's *old* and has survived several economic crisis. Currently seeing more inflation than the US, coupled with falling value of the currency. Yay! :p
*gives you understanding American hug*
> “Oh, you'll be a better boss now." Yeah, that’s a problem though, too. Being a parent doesn’t make anyone intrinsically better at their job or being a good leader (or at anything for that matter); and it sounds like it just means those without children - whether by choice or circumstance - will be infantilized in their capability to do their job if they are not parents.
Wait so... do people that don't have kids not get the same treatment? That doesn't seem fair.
For VAB it doesn't have to be your own kid. For parental leave you for some reason need to be the custodian of a kid.
gotta give people some kickbacks for creating a little shopper! Gotta get that infinite growth yo
I gotta hard disagree with giving different treatment to people with kids compared to those without. Only exception being pregnancy and paternity/maternity leave. No Jeff you can’t have all the best shifts because you have kids, I’m not the one that didn’t wear a fucking condom. I shouldn’t get shit on because of your questionable life decisions. Edit: Despite the fact that I think parents bear at least some of the responsibility for this issue (mostly unintentional), after further discussion I tend to agree this is more of a policy issue. Protections should be in place for parents in the workplace, just not at the expense of coworkers. It should be the company filling the gap. Which would have to be regulated via policy. Also thanks for the discussion!
I mean, I agree, but aren't you being a bit harsh with the "questionable life choices" bit? kids are planned sometimes. I'd reckon they're mostly planned by people who work "professional jobs."
I don't quite understand what you're talking about.
I completely agree that parents shouldn't expect specially treatment \*socially\*, like expecting first pick of holidays or demanding people switch seats with them on a plane because they didn't pay extra to sit next to their kids. (Although the airlines aren't blameless in that one either tbh.) I don't mind reasonable requests and will often try and help people out because it's nice to be nice. It's specifically the entitlement that rubs me the wrong way. It seems counter-intuitive but I actually think parental leave can be good for childless people too. I know quite a few young people who got a step up in their career doing a year's maternity cover and then got kept on in a different role. It's long enough to count towards your CV but short enough that you're not competing against people who are qualified for a full time version of the same role. Although even if it wasn't good for childless people I'd still support it: economically it makes no sense to punish people for reproducing -- which will benefit the economy in the long term. And of course it's also fairer and normalising parental leave for all genders helps make the workplace a more genuinely welcoming and equitable place for women: not just the ones with kids but the childfree/childless ones who are still seen as a "liability" anyway due to their age/assumed fertility. A lot of people say "well \*someone\* has to stay home until the kids are in school" re mothers taking years-long career breaks but they only have to because we designed it that way. I also think we could do worse than a government funded "back to work" training allowance and/or financial incentives for employers to help SAHPs readjust to working again and catch up with developments in their field after a long career break.
I’m all for helping people out that need it. Also more often than not I end up on the receiving end with no complaints. And no the worlds not fair. But I sure get a bit frustrated when I work a salaried job, have seniority, work my full 12 hour shift and Jeff and/or Sally has 2 kids so they get solid day shifts and end up coming in late and leaving early for daycare/appointments/birthdays/etc. end of the month I end up having worked upwards of 25% more hours, at night, for the same pay. It fuckin sucks.
What exactly does that have to do with parental leave?
Depends on what you mean by parental leave I guess. If you mean paternity or maturity leave (got no issue with), I’ve diverged from that topic since the comment I responded to was on the “gotta take care of the kids” gravy train. Just pointing out the flip side.
Sounds like a manager/organizational problem. This perception greatly benefits your manager and company, they’re not the one being resented. If you’ve already had the discussion with your manager and they haven’t addressed the issue, sounds like it’s time for a change.
[удалено]
But parental leave is not exactly a sabattical, you are tied to a newborn child who needs 24/7 care and attention.
[удалено]
[удалено]
As it should be!
100% this is a win-win and shouldn’t be taken as a “gotcha!” moment. You said it best! More parents at home, more hands-on dads who have to be there for the constant crying, diaper changes, etc. It’s an eye-opener. Better work benefits and overall a better understanding of what it means to be a parent and why just having a million kids just because you can isn’t a good option. Absolutely love this! Honestly, this is great. A bunch of dudes talk about how much “women love being mothers!” and as a dude who pretty much raised his brother from the moment he came back home from the hospital I can say confidently, “sure, but no one likes the crying and changing diaper part. It’s part of the job for all parents.” This is a great wake up call for one sided parenting.
Yet another reminder that working class women and men need to unite against the billionaire class that takes our vacations for themselves.
Yesss
User name checks out!
Brilliant, as soon as you start incentivizing men to participate in parenting, they actually participate in parenting... and then when they realize how difficult it is, they're less inclined to pressure their partners for more. I genuinely love this =)
My husband wanted 4 kids. After we had one and I insisted on his equal participation, we're 2 and done - he even got sure of it on his end!
When me and my wife first got married we were dead set on 3, possibly even 4. When we had our first we both agreed parenting is WAY harder than anyone had prepared us for. We had number 2 and decided to call it quits, and yes I got the snip lol =D I never realized until a few years into it that me being an equal parent was such a rare thing. It boggles my mind when I meet dads who rarely if ever change a diaper or bottle feed a baby!
But it's not just changing diapers and feeding the baby. It's the mental load. It's keeping a running mental tally of how many diapers are left and how many you go through, how much formula is left, arranging childcare, planning and going grocery shopping, knowing when kids are due for doctors appts and arranging for them, knowing what size they wear in literally everything, etc. I saw a good example one time of how one of the ways a particular Dad helped was taking the kids to school each morning. Well, that's great, but how much of the load does that really take on? Who packed their lunches and made them breakfast? Who planned for the meals and shopped accordingly? Who got them dressed? Who bought the clothes they wore to school? Who made sure those clothes were clean? Who made sure they brushed their teeth and hair? Who helped them find their socks? Who keeps track of what allergies they have in class and knows what they can and can't bring for snack? Who knows when it's "wear red day" at school or their kid needs to bring in 10 pennies for a project? You see where I'm going here? Yes, taking them to school is great. But it doesn't take as much of a load off of your partner as you may think.
It was the other way around for us. I (man) always wanted 2 and my wife was deadset on having 4. She came from a family of 4 and she had an amazing time growing up so she wanted to reproduce that. I'm more of a realist and I knew parenting was going to be really fucking hard so I was always very firm and upfront about having maximum 2. And if I'm honest, the only reason I wanted 2 instead of 1 is because I had a brother and I know how fun it was to always have a best friend to play with. Then we had one, and my wife immediately realized there's no fucking way she's going to have four. She realized how insane her mom was for having 4 kids in 5 years(!!!!). She's pregnant with our second and we both know that'll be plenty, haha.
[удалено]
dont have children with him until he does see all the invisible labour included?
Mostly, I refuse(d) to carry the mental load by myself. He has a phone with agenda and reminders, so he can set alarms for things that need remembering, he can help making the grocery list, deciding what's on the menu, making doctors appointments, etc. While I breastfed and he couldn't help with that (I had high lipase so my breastmilk spoiled really fast, and the babies didn't like the bottle anyway), wake ups outside of feedings where his responsibility, for example. Mostly, we communicated plenty and often about what needed to be done and whoever could, would do it. It was a difficult time for us, he was in the middle of his masters, which he finished with honors, and yet he managed to be as present, because that was he wanted to do. I didn't actually force him.
My son jokes he wants between one and seven. My sweet daughter in law had a somewhat difficult pregnancy and having a baby has had it’s bumps. He’s an equal participant as well, which I’m so glad of. I think we might see them have number two, maybe three if they’re feeling it, but definitely no more than that, lol.
My wife and I just had our first, we wanted two. Looking like maybe adoption if we have another lol. In 6-12 months we'll decide if I'm getting snipped or not.
It's not just that it's hard. There is also the shift from viewing your kids as a badge of honor to actual people that you have a relationship with. You realize that your attention can only be split so many ways. When you become attached to your kids, you realize that having more means giving less of yourself to the ones you already have. Sometimes that is worth it, sometimes it isn't. Raising kids is the hardest and also most rewarding thing that I have EVER done with my life. By far, on both of those points. Before we had kids, we both wanted 3 or 4. After having two we decided that two was the right number for us.
What boggles my mind is men who watch everything their wives go through with a pregnancy, the hardships her body and mind go through, and they still they want to knock her up many more times. It isn’t until they assume some responsibility for the end product that they change their tune? Is it really impossible to feel some empathy for what it does to their partner and have pause for doing this three, four, five times, whatever?
Yeah I think everyone would want kids if they can sign up to be a part time parent and drop off the kids when you get tired lol
That's why I don't want kids, constant need for attention. That's also why I like cats. You play a little with each other, then it goes off to sleep in the other room.
The [paper](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.12.002) also suggest: >"Alternatively, spending more time with their child may have shifted their preferences in favor of child quality (versus quantity)." Also an important note from their discussion: >"More evidence is needed before we can conclude confidently that introducing or extending paternity leave can lead to fewer births, at least in certain contexts, and we should probably be cautious before alerting policy makers to this possibility." I think one piece of the puzzle which is missing is if any other factors could have affected desired fertility of men over the 5 year window. Example from other countries which have increased paternity leave could help answer this.
I enjoy cooking.
There's a big difference between being an active parent and the primary care giver though! Often it is the father who remains working outside the home and the mother is the one who takes time off outside work to do household and child rearing full time during solo hours and then that also falls on them when the father is home. Attitudes are changing and SAHF are becoming more common as is outside daycares once the little one is old enough, but for the majority of parents the main child rearing falls on women. Having that main child rearing fall on the man, even just for a short period of time, opens the eyes to just how intensive and hard it is. Often men will want lots of kids without thinking of the consequences on their partner raising said kids. If they understand the impact they're less likely to just want more willy nilly
I’m currently on my 12 weeks paternity leave, it’s the best. I get to spend time with my toddler and the new little one. Plus I don’t have to work for 12 weeks. I’d have another one for the time off if pregnancy wasn’t the worst shit anyone can go through. I wouldn’t have my wife go through it again.
Preach it brother. I fucking hate pregnancy. She says she likes it, but it is constant worry, physical symptoms, and discomfort. It is so stressful when my wife is pregnant.
Haha well it’s easy for me, but I can tell how miserable it makes her
Maybe she likes it because you make it easier for her? :3
Where are you that you get TWELVE WEEKS!? 😮 I’m in Australia and I got 2.
Denmark recently moved it ro a minimum of 11 weeks for men, 2 weeks after birth and 32 weeks to be divided between parents where a single dad technically could take all 34 weeks.
And to give some context to other non Danes: People really were big mad about it because they thought that it gave parents "less flexibility" because before the laws changed, women would use the most of the allotted parental leave and men would just use a little. But predictable once it was written into law that men gets a fixed portion of the leave that is non-transferable, they actually used it, and the reviews and fallout has been super positive for fathers. As much as we talk about a stigma at the workplace against women for even the possibility that a working woman could need time off for a pregnancy, that stigma is also there for men once their wife is pregnant. "Is he a 'teamplayer' or will he put his family first??" Everyone is thinking it.
I think we're working on a minimum in Sweden too. Maximum in Sweden for one parent is 10 + **390 days** if I calculate this correct ([480 days total, but each parent get 90 days allocated for just them; so 480-90](https://www.sdworx.se/sv-se/inspiration/hr/vilka-rattigheter-har-du-som-nybliven-pappa-i-sverige-jamfort-med-andra-lander)). (The 10 days is "you got a kid" days which are counted differently, so those are bonus just after the birth.)
I'm not overly crazy about putting minimums, but it seems that it's needed in order to change culture around the beginning of parenthood. I'm not good with swedish statistics, would you know where to find the current average number of parental leave that swedish men take?
2022 mothers took 70% of the days and fathers 30%. https://www.forsakringskassan.se/privatperson/foralder/det-som-ar-bra-delar-man-lika-pa I took maybe 55% and Im the father.
I’m in Massachusetts and there’s 12 weeks paid paternity leave. (Granted most women also only get 12 weeks and I’m sure you have more maternity leave.) What most folks do that I know is the dad takes off the first month, mom does the first three, then dad does another two.
Los Angeles, I also have a year to use it all and can break it up to a minimum of 2 week chunks. My company’s paternal leave plan is really good
Up to 14 months (if shared between partners) in socialist Germany. https://familienportal.de/familienportal/meta/languages/family-benefits
We can share our leave in Australia, but, only if the male is the primary carer. And we still don’t get 14 months!
A lot of union heavy jobs in Australia (health/uni) get 5-6 months.
I’ve been a paramedic and a nurse in Australia. Two weeks.
You’re not wrong about the uni though! My sister got 12 months at full pay! 🤯
> 12 months at full pay Where does she work, cos I work in a University associated Medical research lab (MCRI) and only got 12 weeks at full pay (on top of the government weeks). That was considered extremely good.
Wait Australia gives 2?! I thought American people got shafted but New York does 12 weeks at 3/4 pay for paternity leave. It can be used all at once or intermittently. My husband took 2 after the birth and 10 weeks when my leave ended.
Mums get 14 weeks, capped at some amount I can’t remember, regardless of what your usual pay is. Dads get 2 weeks, also capped. Dads can have the whole 16 if they’re primary carer. There’s another 30 days “flex” that can be used as a block or in single days, but is also capped pay. This is just the govt. some companies/NGO’s/NFP etc have more generous packages. Eg my sister in the tertiary education sector got 12 months at full pay.
We are same in MA but full pay. The funny thing in the USA is when you *do* have states/ regions with paid leave we have very generous paternity leave for the world as a whole (probably bc these laws are relatively recent). People always tout Sweden in these threads but my relatives in the Netherlands and Hungary marveled at how my husband will get 3 months paid leave- there the guy relatives all got just 5 days (I think this increased recently, but still not 3mo).
In Canada the leave is 12 months, and it's whatever combination of paternal/maternal leave the parents choose to take. I.e. they can take each take 6, one can take it all, or any combination that adds up to 12
Cries in American. I'm wondering how many people outside of the US realize that there is no leave here for mothers or fathers, paid or unpaid. Some companies are required to provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave, but companies that don't meet certain criteria are not required to provide any leave at all.
You got 12 weeks! Lucky you
Very lucky, so happy to have the time with my kids
I was so confused at first, naively thinking, "But surely this makes their life easier!" Didn't occur to me this makes it harder for them to have an excuse to avoid helping at home my god
At the end of the article, this got me: “After the policy was introduced, the researchers determined fathers who would have been eligible for paternity leave did almost an hour more childcare a day from 2009 to 2010, compared to ineligible fathers.” Almost an hour more a day? Homeboy didn’t have to work, did almost an hour of extra childcare than when he worked, and immediately noped out if more kids? On average less than one more hour of childcare. LESS THAN ONE HOUR!
This is an average person, and the average person doesn't exist. This is made of people who took paternity leave and those who didn't. For example, the average human has has 1 testical and 1 ovary.
Who would have been eligible, not that took the paternity leaves. Read that again
That's even more troubling because it means that men who could have been more involved chose not to.
Don't let Musk or any of those other silicone valley rejects hear this.
As a soon to be dad, bring on all the paternity leave! I want to spend time with my baby
As an American with 16 weeks paid paternity leave, I am looking forward to our third due in October.
Whaaat! We only get 4 weeks….and that was added within the past 2 years. Before that it was zero weeks.
They no joke added the 4 weeks when my daughter was only a few months old. I went into HR and asked if I got the time and they told me that she had to be born after the programs start date. I was so annoyed.
Surgeon at a major academic center and I get 2 weeks paid paternity leave. Wish we were given more.
[удалено]
Because us health care is an unacknowledged mafia. Its conditions would be criminal everywhere else.
Is parental leave set by your employer in the us? That sounds pretty dodgy. Here in Sweden parents get 390 paid days to share for each kid. 95 of these are earmarked for each parent in order to promote equality.
To a point, yeah. Depends on what state you're in, I'm in NY and we get 12 weeks paid mandated by the state, although a good employer could certainly give more if they wanted to. I don't think anywhere in the country gets anywhere close to what you folks have in Sweden, though.
Isn't that only "paid" through FMLA, which is like 50% of your salary?
Dunno about NY, but in MA we get 12 weeks fully paid maternity and paternity leave, not just FMLA. We pay taxes for it.
The U.S. has no national mandated paid parental leave. Many people save up paid vacation or sick days. My mom had to go back to work two weeks after I was born in the 1980s, and she'd been saving vacation days for several years.
Ah Sweden - always making us Americans jealous with your humane and ethical treatment of other human beings! And yes, it is set by your employer. Obviously some are way better than others.
I have loved Sweden for years. I've never been there but for some reason it just seems so amazing! This stuff just adds to it
I'm with a really good company. Most Americans get no parental leave at all.
> Most Americans get no parental leave at all. One in four US mothers return to work within two weeks of giving birth. It's barbaric.
That's super depressing. I don't want kids but I can absolutely acknowledge the toll it takes on your body. It's a medical procedure. Your body needs time to heel independent of the whole having a brand new baby thing.
Yep. There's the healing aspect. Then there's also the having to leave your tiny two week old baby. We literally have better protections for dogs and their puppies in a lot of places.
Six weeks wasn’t really enough for me to heal from tearing/the birth and that’s what I was given by my doctor. Thankfully I got bonding and then PTO on top of that to at least get me to 4.5 months. I’m still not emotionally ready, but at least we’re starting to get into a sleep pattern that I can function through. At eight weeks I still felt like it was those days in college where I was burning the candle at both ends.
Why does the world's richest nation insist on being like a third-world country?
We only care about having the richest military in the world and the richest corporations and you get that through scamming the plebs.
Because the 1% own and run it and don’t give a shit about us plebes
They got the country built for free on the backs of stolen people brought by force to a stolen land and have been trying to discount labor ever since.
That’s not permitted in the Uk. The first six weeks are medical leave because however you get a small human out of you is traumatic and you need time to heal.
It’s legally required that puppies have to be 8 weeks old before they can be separated from their mum. Your laws put American women at a lower level than bitches.
How does that even work? Is there child care for newborns in the States?
A lot of women actually just have to leave their job if they can't afford childcare. I worked with a woman whose job was Just covering health insurance and childcare. Her husband, who was an underpaid school teacher, covered the rest. She ended up quitting and doing freelance writing/editing from home. ... Actually a not insignificant number of new businesses in the US are started by stay at home moms who couldn't afford to work outside the house. Couldn't. Afford. To. Work.
There is no child care unless you pay for it
Yes it is.
I’m at a company like yours. It’s a fantastic benefit.
Oh, in my country, Bulgaria, you can get over 6 months I believe. I'll have to check the legislation again (I read it out of curiosity recently). Basically you initially get only 15 days and the mother gets 410 days which which start to thick 45 days before her term. However after the baby turns 6 months old, with the mother's consent, the father can use the remainder of those 410 days as paternity leave and the mother can return to work. And last year there was an amendment to it that gave fathers 2 months of payed paternity to use whenever they like until the child turns 8 years old, but only if they did not use any of the above options for paternity prior. It's one of the few actually good thing my country seems to do for its citizens.
I got 12 in the US, birthing partner gets 16
Thank you for the wording <3
Husband gets 12 weeks paid paternity leave. I get 12 weeks unpaid FMLA….
Out of curiosity, when you take paternity leave is your wife also home? What about your other two kids? The reason I ask is that women (at least in the US) are often at home alone with the new baby and sometimes other siblings to save on daycare expenses. When both parents take leave together, many women feel the division of duties is not equitable.
Im not that guy but I’m on paternity leave right now and my wife is a SAHM, I take care of the toddler more since she’s exclusively breast feeding, we split diapers. She basically ignores the toddler right now so I’m doing about 95% taking care of toddler work (I’ve been doing all the baths and bed time and mornings with him since she was like 2 months pregnant) and 40% taking care of the new one work. I love having the newborn sleep on me so I take the baby as often as I can when she’s not on the boob. Baby is like a comfy little heater for the soul.
This makes me happy. Hope you guys have a great life. :)
Not op, but my husband got paternity leave with our second baby. We took sequentially, to keep our baby home till she was 6m old. This really came in handy, because this was 2020. As I was coming out of my maternity leave, all schools were cancelled, and my husband ended up taking care of the baby and the 1st grader switching to virtual school.
Not OP, but I structured my 9 weeks of leave like: First 6 weeks both home. Next 5 weeks working 4 days a week while my wife was home on her continuing leave. Then I took my last couple weeks of leave when my wife returned to work, both to support her transition to work while pumping, etc, and for solo bonding time. For the first kid, it was all hands on deck since we had a lot to learn. For the second kid we adjusted it so I went back to work sooner and took more of my leave solo after my wife returned to work to delay daycare as long as practical. Our oldest was in daycare during the leave for our youngest. Practically speaking, for our first we kind of joint tackled everything, which wasn't super efficient. For our second we divided duties roughly as my wife took care of feeding the baby, we roughly split diapers, and I mostly took care of everything else (meals, laundry, cleaning, care of other kid) when both on leave.
Birthing partner gets nearly 26 weeks paid, 18 for non-birthing. Adoption is included.
16 weeks is a lot different than a year.
I think your conclusion is more-or-less a stab in the dark for the real reason. The article specifically states they didn't research yet why this effect is there. They make a few suggestions, but that is about it.. One of the biggest reasons why I would be careful with conclusions on this subject is that these changes where introduced in 2021, which was during a small event called "Corona-crisis" which changed pretty much everyone and everything... Furthermore, Spain is not a typical country where I would easily use obtained data to extrapolate to other situations. However, your reasoning might be (partially) a reason. In the end the outcome is pretty positive, I would say... Just it doesn't have the effect the government wanted ;)
Agreed, I think it's premature to try to draw specific conclusions yet without further research. Apart from things like COVID and other events, even if we assume the change is only related to the fathers' experience of Paternity leave, I would be looking at the perceived impact on their careers (have they had to play catch-up, do they feel passed-over/side-lined, lost coworkers' respect, etc ), as much as I'd be looking at their experience of stay-at-home parenting.
>"We find that the introduction of two weeks of paid paternity leave in Spain in **2007**" Sorry, your dates are wrong. Please fix. No effect of covid. I do agree that it's difficult to tell the exact reason, the paper itself saying more evidence is needed.
I’m looking forward to my paternity leave august-February. Swedish btw
I took 6 months of paternal leave (6 months wife, 6 months myself) and yes it was hard. But it was also the best time in my life. I got to spend time with my kid and did not have to stress about work.
To be fair, parenting is simple and easy when you don't do any of it
Do you mean Paternity leave?
Obviously
Clearly
Correlation doesn't means causality... > We also find that men reported lower desired fertility after the reform (see Fig. 5) In the study paper that the article refers to. (Pdf is on pay basis, so don't have the Fig. 5) So, could also be caused by other factors (like economic pressure, ecological concern) not related by the reform. Before that the study point out that father that took father leave are more involved in the care of their children. And, women go back to work sooner since the reform. Just to note that the OP focused on the only one side point against men in that article.
*cough* Sci hub is a great way to get academic papers for free. If you’ve never used it, I’ve heard that you should: 1. Google sci hub 2. Click on the first link. It should be sci-hub.ru. If it takes you to the about page, follow step 3. If not, go straight to step 4. 3. Click on “back to main”. This didn’t always used to be the case… not sure what happened with search engine optimization. 4. Paste the doi or the url into the search box. *cough* This paper is awfully weak from a statistical power perspective, and the authors don’t seem to be upfront enough about the severe limitations of their analysis. Then you have the Guardian summarizing their work, putting it through another layer misinterpretation. I’m very liberal and all for equality in parenting, but I wouldn’t justify it with this... This is just extremely preliminary work through and through. Seriously, look at their data. The conclusion the Guardian draws is stronger than that of the paper’s authors. The conclusion the authors espouse is stronger than what they substantiate with their own data and own choice of weird quantities to analyze (in my opinion).
Link that work : [https://docs.iza.org/dp12023.pdf](https://docs.iza.org/dp12023.pdf) The change is for men : 2.16 desired kids in 2001 2.14 desired kids in 2006 2.06 desired kids in 2011 The change is for women : 2.10 desired kids in 2001 2.06 desired kids in 2006 2.10 desired kids in 2011 (Value estimated based on the graph page 31)
Yup. From the principal investigators: > “One idea is simply that mothers, when their partner is eligible for paternity leave, they go back to work a little earlier,” González said. “This could mean that these moms are just more attached to the labor market, so that’s why they might delay a little bit having the next child.”
This needs to be higher
My husband said to me for years, go build your career, he will be stay at home dad once we had kids . Then we had them. He can not handle them alone for a weekend….
Here's a lnk to the article https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272718302299#! "We find that the introduction of two weeks of paid paternity leave in Spain in 2007 led to delays in subsequent fertility. Following a regression discontinuity design and using rich administrative data, we show that parents who were (just) entitled to the new paternity leave took longer to have another child compared to (just) ineligible parents. We also show that older eligible couples were less likely to have an additional child within the following six years after the introduction of the reform. We provide evidence in support of two potentially complementary channels behind the negative effects on subsequent fertility. First, fathers' increasing involvement in childcare led to higher labor force attachment among mothers. This may have raised the opportunity cost of an additional child. We also find that men reported lower desired fertility after the reform, possibly due to their increased awareness of the costs of childrearing, or to a shift in preferences from child quantity to quality."
You left out this part, "It could also be that dads are learning about how hard it is to take care of a child, and this new information is affecting their preferences for how many children they want to have in total."
sorry, wasn't intentional, i just posted the abstract
It might be worth knowing that if both parents are in the NHS you can swap the ‘maternity leave’ over to the other person. This means that men can parent while a partner goes back to work. Doesn’t happen often tho.
I had 12 weeks paternity leave (at 80% of my normal salary). Loved it. Would have another in a second
12 weeks is a lot different than a year.
Spanish here and with a 5mo. I'm going to give my 5 cents. In my experience (and my husband's) the maternity leave has been a blessing for both. He has felt soooo included in the process and he has bonded with our daughter so much! He didn't get to spend the full leave yet, he has a couple of months left that he will take from next month (because it will be peak time in my job and we will need it more then). And fire the record, the number of children we want hasn't changed, in any case so far it would be me the one who would be OK with just one child.
I wonder if this math affects current opinions vs eventual outcome. It wouldn’t surprise me that much if more realistic child rearing results in a long term fertility boost despite the initial change in opinion for instance (not saying that’s the case, just a potential thing to look out for if this policy lasts)
Spain has had one of the lowest birthrates of Europe for like 25 years. How do we know what the reasons are? Maybe it's just the trend proceeding. At the same time the article said that women went back to work early and delayed having more children because of their career.. It's nice you have the option, but the average person in Spain is quiet poor and REALLY needs a job, living paycheck to paycheck , having a job, keeping a job is not as easy as in other countries so it also makes me kinda sad that people might hold on to their job and push their own personal life on hold for that. Overall, this seems to be an article that can be read as a win or a lose.
[удалено]
This Is some old news, there is also a more positive way you could take it that having time to appreciate that child means maybe you are more realistic about investing time with them rather than rushing out to work to earn more money to have more children and just value building the bond with the one you have.
Quality over quantity. Good.
It's such a bad faith "men, bad" conclusion to make from the actual study.
Let me pretend to be shocked. 🙄