Poll: Should men be given paid paternity leave?
Poll Options
View poll results: Should men be given paid paternity leave?
Yes, to the same degree as a maternity leave
62 46%
Yes, but to supplement the maternity leave
40 30%
No, it is not economically/(other) feasible to have paid paternity leaves
10 7%
No, paternity leaves sound peachy in theory but in practice are not reliable
5 4%
Other stand
3 2%
Yesno, babbies should work too!
14 10%
Voters: 134.
Page 1 of 4
#1
"Parental leave is an employee benefit that provides paid or unpaid time off work to care for a child or make arrangements for the child's welfare."

In most countries, many employers are required to give maternity leave for women who have just had a child. On the other hand, there is no established norm of giving the same benefit to fathers in the form of paid paternity leave.


While the requirement for maternity leave is obvious (pregnancy, child-birth, lactation-feeding etcetera), the evolving role of the father as a primary caregiver with duties of child-care on par with the mother seems to make a strong case for paid paternity leave with similar if not the same benefits availed by mothers.

Thoughts?

*currently doing research on the sociology of parental leave*
Quote by thanksgiving
I'm coming for you with a castrator!
You sick bastard.



Watch that video below

If this video reaches 1000 views before Christmas, I'll play with my titties on cam.

#6
They do in Sweden. Don't know what's going on in your other backwards countries, though. Maybe you guys just got the wheel and fire and stuff. Welcome to the 21st century.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#7
Quote by Kensai
They do in Sweden. Don't know what's going on in your other backwards countries, though. Maybe you guys just got the wheel and fire and stuff. Welcome to the 21st century.


In my backwards country, they don't.


....(we invented the wheel)
Quote by thanksgiving
I'm coming for you with a castrator!
You sick bastard.



Watch that video below

If this video reaches 1000 views before Christmas, I'll play with my titties on cam.

#8
I said no because it just sounded silly since the father will be home eventually and he's not biologically required, but now that I'm thinking about it, I kinda wanna change my stance.
1. The mother is going to need a break. A child is work, but with two parents more manageable.
2. 2 men that adopt a child are obviously going to need a way of taking care of it.
3. I like breaks from work.
#9
Quote by Portuguese_boy
No.


No wonder your country is shit and got no money.
sometimes I see us in a cymbal splash or in the sound of a car crash
#10
Quote by guitarxo
Yes, they should. Both penis are important.


Why did I read this sentence like this??
#11
Quote by blake1221
Why did I read this sentence like this??



subconscious homosexual tendencies?
#13
Quote by blake1221
Why did I read this sentence like this??

Because both penis are important.
cat
#14
Quote by guitarxo
Because both penis are important.


It's so true....


so true. You're a prophet in plain clothes, Bambi.
#15
Quote by cornmancer
I said no because it just sounded silly since the father will be home eventually and he's not biologically required

neither is the mother?
Quote by goest
^Absolute. Uncompromising. 100% pure, fresh. Solid. Gold.

Quote by WCPhils
That might be my favorite shoop I have ever seen on here.



Quote by KnightBand
Yes! ****ing Yes! YOU LEGEND!!!
#16
It would go some way to reducing sexual discrimination in terms of hiring (and maybe also in terms of child custody in divorces etc). If only for that reason I think it should be equal, but as well as that, it's most likely going to be a large benefit to the child to have a closer relationship to both parents.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#17
Not as such. I like the idea in principle, but capitalism is so absurd that it seems likely to be economically unfeasible. Effectively potentially doubling the number of people receiving wages for not working seems to me like it would be an economic catastrophe. It would probably also make it more difficult to get a job if your employers suspected that you might have children; say, if you were married.
#18
I would like to have paternity leave someday when I have children.
I like St. Anger. Ridicule me, daddy

Quote by ErikLensherr

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
#19
^^ +1
Quote by thanksgiving
I'm coming for you with a castrator!
You sick bastard.



Watch that video below

If this video reaches 1000 views before Christmas, I'll play with my titties on cam.

#20
I didnt even know that most countries dont have this yet...
go sweden!

btw, I think the way we do it here is that the parents get x days off and they can share it between them as they want.
Last edited by flxjhnlrssn at Jan 2, 2012,
#22
Quote by Hephistopheles
The mother is definitely required.


A woman is required. Not the mother.
sometimes I see us in a cymbal splash or in the sound of a car crash
#23
I don't know about "paid paternity leave", but I think that they should definitely be accommodated at times when they need it, as in allowed to leave work to go to certain doctors visits, a more lenient schedule sometimes, less really late nights, not going on job functions that require them to be away from the house for a significant amount of time if the wife is very pregnant, etc. Of course, they should receive pay as normal
My God, it's full of stars!
#24
Quote by JohnnyGenzale
A woman is required. Not the mother.


You trollin'?

Otherwise, substantiate.
Quote by thanksgiving
I'm coming for you with a castrator!
You sick bastard.



Watch that video below

If this video reaches 1000 views before Christmas, I'll play with my titties on cam.

#25
Quote by Pagan-Pie
Not as such. I like the idea in principle, but capitalism is so absurd that it seems likely to be economically unfeasible. Effectively potentially doubling the number of people receiving wages for not working seems to me like it would be an economic catastrophe. It would probably also make it more difficult to get a job if your employers suspected that you might have children; say, if you were married.

there's a cartoon I've been searching for but can't find atm.

It's basically a series of outraged capitalists complaining about many of the things we consider normal now and saying that they'll be the ruin of the economy. Things like the abolition of slave labour, child labour, introduction of collective bargaining, banking regulations, the 2 days weekend etc have all been complained about and heralded as the end of capitalism which would plunge us all into the dark ages.

If a new type of discrimination occurs, we attempt to tackle it.

Quote by shattamakar
You trollin'?

Otherwise, substantiate.

wet nurses
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#26
Quote by shattamakar
You trollin'?

Otherwise, substantiate.


What's the trolling part? It's just fact.
sometimes I see us in a cymbal splash or in the sound of a car crash
#27
Quote by Drakathan
neither is the mother?

Feeding the baby is good. When I was a baby, I enjoyed being fed.
Quote by JohnnyGenzale
A woman is required. Not the mother.

I also preferred being fed by my mom, not any old woman, you devil's advocate.
#28
Quote by Hephistopheles
The mother is definitely required.

for what? you can replace breast feeding with bottles
Quote by goest
^Absolute. Uncompromising. 100% pure, fresh. Solid. Gold.

Quote by WCPhils
That might be my favorite shoop I have ever seen on here.



Quote by KnightBand
Yes! ****ing Yes! YOU LEGEND!!!
#29
Quote by Lemoninfluence
there's a cartoon I've been searching for but can't find atm.

It's basically a series of outraged capitalists complaining about many of the things we consider normal now and saying that they'll be the ruin of the economy. Things like the abolition of slave labour, child labour, introduction of collective bargaining, banking regulations, the 2 days weekend etc have all been complained about and heralded as the end of capitalism which would plunge us all into the dark ages.

If a new type of discrimination occurs, we attempt to tackle it.


I'm aware of the cartoon, but I don't think it changes anything. I'm not saying this from a pro-capitalist perspective. I'm saying that reforming tiny aspects of capitalism is a pointless waste of time. In fact, in many ways the cartoon supports what I was saying. All of these reforms were introduced and helped in some small way, without genuinely making a difference. So I suppose I'm not opposed, I just see it as a waste of time which will spark off meaningless debate and probably cause some kind of economic problems.
#30
Quote by Pagan-Pie
I'm aware of the cartoon, but I don't think it changes anything. I'm not saying this from a pro-capitalist perspective. I'm saying that reforming tiny aspects of capitalism is a pointless waste of time. In fact, in many ways the cartoon supports what I was saying. All of these reforms were introduced and helped in some small way, without genuinely making a difference. So I suppose I'm not opposed, I just see it as a waste of time which will spark off meaningless debate and probably cause some kind of economic problems.

So youre saying we should never change anything unless its a really big change?
#31
Quote by flxjhnlrssn
So youre saying we should never change anything unless its a really big change?


Not that we should never, just that it's a bit redundant.
#33
Quote by Pagan-Pie
I'm aware of the cartoon, but I don't think it changes anything. I'm not saying this from a pro-capitalist perspective. I'm saying that reforming tiny aspects of capitalism is a pointless waste of time. In fact, in many ways the cartoon supports what I was saying. All of these reforms were introduced and helped in some small way, without genuinely making a difference. So I suppose I'm not opposed, I just see it as a waste of time which will spark off meaningless debate and probably cause some kind of economic problems.

the point of the cartoon is that they haven't caused any significant economic problems.

We have a particular issue and the question is should or shouldn't they receive paid paternity leave. Not giving it to fathers achieves shit all, giving it to them achieves something, even if it's not a complete overhaul of the system.

And even in any other economic system I'd hope that fathers get paternity leave while still being afforded the means by which to live.

Quote by cornmancer
Feeding the baby is good. When I was a baby, I enjoyed being fed.

I also preferred being fed by my mom, not any old woman, you devil's advocate.

that's a preference, not a requirement.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#34
Quote by JohnnyGenzale
What's the trolling part? It's just fact.


It is fact that for the child's nutritional and even to an extent, psychological care the replacement of the mother with a nurse may suffice.

In that context you're right, the mother may not be necessary.

But the context here is the practice of giving mothers paid leave to be with their children while more often than not refusing a father the same privilege to the same degree.

But I'm assuming that you used the former context.

Quote by thanksgiving
I'm coming for you with a castrator!
You sick bastard.



Watch that video below

If this video reaches 1000 views before Christmas, I'll play with my titties on cam.

#35
Quote by shattamakar
It is fact that for the child's nutritional and even to an extent, psychological care the replacement of the mother with a nurse may suffice.

In that context you're right, the mother may not be necessary.

But the context here is the practice of giving mothers paid leave to be with their children while more often than not refusing a father the same privilege to the same degree.

But I'm assuming that you used the former context.


they're linked in that the argument for mothers getting maternity leave is that they need to take care of their child and recover from the stresses of childbirth etc.

Fathers are required as much as mothers in the strict sense. Both could be replaced with minimal effect. Case in point, adopted children. Yes there are issues that may arise without the biological parents but neither biological parent is strictly necessary.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#36
Quote by Lemoninfluence
the point of the cartoon is that they haven't caused any significant economic problems.


A cartoon doesn't prove anything, really.

We have a particular issue and the question is should or shouldn't they receive paid paternity leave. Not giving it to fathers achieves shit all, giving it to them achieves something, even if it's not a complete overhaul of the system.

And even in any other economic system I'd hope that fathers get paternity leave while still being afforded the means by which to live.



I'm not opposed to paternity leave. I'm just suggesting that in the context of capitalism it will probably cause some problems. You don't have to be an economist to work out that if businesses/public sector has to start paying twice as many people, they're going to have to find the money elsewhere; for instance, by cutting wages generally if they're forced to introduce a measure like this. Otherwise, thousands of businesses and the public sector will have to increase expenditure while decreasing productivity, which in the context of capitalism is a stupid thing to do.

In short; for it on principle, skeptical in reality.
#37
Quote by Tanglewoodguit
Men don't have to stretch their vagina's back into shape. That's the real reason women are off so long, duh.


This is why I chose the second option. The maternity leave should probably be longer because the women must also recover from birth/surgery. However I do believe that men should be entitled to paternity leaves. It's not just the women's job to take care of the baby. It would lessen the stress on both parties and most likely lead to a healthier baby and a healthier mother.

Someone should conduct a study: do paternity leaves reduce the occurrence of postpartum depression?
i don't know why i feel so dry
#38
Quote by Pagan-Pie
A cartoon doesn't prove anything, really.


I'm not opposed to paternity leave. I'm just suggesting that in the context of capitalism it will probably cause some problems. You don't have to be an economist to work out that if businesses/public sector has to start paying twice as many people, they're going to have to find the money elsewhere; for instance, by cutting wages generally if they're forced to introduce a measure like this. Otherwise, thousands of businesses and the public sector will have to increase expenditure while decreasing productivity, which in the context of capitalism is a stupid thing to do.

In short; for it on principle, skeptical in reality.

Why not make it so that the parents get the same time off as before, but they can choose themselves how much time the father is going to get and how the mother is going to get.
#39
Quote by flxjhnlrssn
Why not make it so that the parents get the same time off as before, but they can choose themselves how much time the father is going to get and how the mother is going to get.


Possibly, that's a clever idea. Strikes me as potentially quite awkward though, for instance if the mother is breastfeeding. That's not really something you can just stop doing when you have to return to work.
#40
Quote by Pagan-Pie
A cartoon doesn't prove anything, really.

The cartoon itself proves nothing. I hope I didn't suggest that it did.

All it does is outline various things that have all been said to have drastic economic effects by the policies' opponents. We only have to look at our society over the last X years to see that they haven't had the impact that people suggested they would.

I'm not opposed to paternity leave. I'm just suggesting that in the context of capitalism it will probably cause some problems. You don't have to be an economist to work out that if businesses/public sector has to start paying twice as many people, they're going to have to find the money elsewhere; for instance, by cutting wages generally if they're forced to introduce a measure like this. Otherwise, thousands of businesses and the public sector will have to increase expenditure while decreasing productivity, which in the context of capitalism is a stupid thing to do.

In short; for it on principle, skeptical in reality.

And getting rid of slave labour increases the costs of production as you have to employ people to do the same jobs that you were getting done for free (essentially). Getting rid of child labour means you have to pay adults more as there's less of them to do the same amount of jobs. Giving people an extra day off cuts output by nearly 17%. Collective bargaining would tie the hands of employers leading to a huge drop in economic output as workers become lazy knowing they can't be fired. Minimum wage pushes up the cost of production leading to mass unemployment and bankrupting employers who can't afford to pay the increased wages. Banking regulations would stop banks using their all assets available to them meaning they couldn't effectively invest in order to make profit and/or pay interest on customer's accounts etc.

all quite simple economics.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
Page 1 of 4