> This includes holding future promotions and days off against them for doing the very things society thinks they should be doing - namely, parenting.
You ignore the parent poster. His point seems to be the idea that a person can take upto 3 months off of work shouldn't be equivalent to someone who didn't take that 3 month block off regardless of the reason, child rearing or hiking the Appalachian Trail.
If I took that much time off and a coworker didn't, especially year after year, I wouldn't expect them to get more raises, more seniority.
This idea me at home taking care of my kid is the same as people at work is silly. Promotions shouldn't be given just because someone has worked at a place for an amount of time. The exception being cost of living increases. Seniority on the team, responsibility and the increases in compensation that come with that should be according to ability, time dedicated and skills, etc.
On the flip side, if my time is spent engaged with my child then it can't be on increasing my career if I'm at home full-time parenting. This isn't about working parents but, during maternity/bonding leave. It's either one or the other.
"It's either one or the other"
The problem is that once a woman gets pregnant, you have different physical needs. Lots of women need healing time afterwards, and sometimes needs time off pre-birth. Especially if you have a cesarean. In a sense, this is just like punishing someone for having their appendix taken out or having a heart attack and needing time off.
Folks are generally willing to look over that sort of thing and give promotions based on the time they spend at work. Even if they wind up seriously sick or need surgery 2-3 times over 5/6 years - which more closely imitates the time folks take off with children. Actually, it is a bit better as a company can plan for the time off with children much better than a sickness or surgery.
Do some women take a very short break to give birth? Yes.
And that is just part of the health aspect. Nevermind that the maternity leave helps with knowing how the non-verbal little human operates and I've read somewhere that it helps descrease post-partum depression - or that it can be difficult (and more expensive) to find childcare for infants.
I recognize I'm in the minority for some of those. I'm not suggesting people who want their employers involved in their reproductive choices are "wrong," because I honestly don't feel like there's a right or wrong here. It's just that it's foreign to me to view my employer in that way.
You are, but it's a responsibility you chose.
If I choose to go camping instead, should my company pay for the permit because not having one would be a criminal act?
> And I think since our children are important, both for families and society in the present and future - I don't think folks should be punished for doing so.
So let's raise everyone's taxes to reimburse private companies for the cost. But let's not punish companies for hiring parents.
I don't think the employer should have to pay the camping fees any more than I think they are responsible for directly paying for school-related costs for children: However, I do think paid vacations should be a standard thing for everyone, to the point you can take a month off to do that hiking. Even if you work at some fast food place. So in a round-about way, yes. You should bet paid for that through some manner.
I'm also very much supportive of comprehensive sick time so that you can take 2 months off after surgery and not have that held against you.
> So let's raise everyone's taxes to reimburse private companies for the cost. But let's not punish companies for hiring parents
First, I fully agree with having higher taxes for this purpose. I don't view taxes as a punishment, in general, though I have the understanding that applied correctly, they can be a deterrent or encouragement. This, to me, is on par with everyone being taxed to provide education to children. I don't mind because education is important and society improves because of it... even if I don't have children.
Heck, I'm willfully living in a country that does exactly this. There are a few downsides. Some folks do abuse it (true with any sick leave policy, really), and stuff costs a bit more. On the other hand, they credit these sorts of policies to better equality and things like that.
What difference does this make? It means deciding to have a child is a much bigger decision than deciding to go camping, but doesn't suddenly push the burden of that decision onto anyone else. Taking care of a sick child should be the kind of risk you accept when deciding to have a child - your responsibility.
Now, you may be right and in the minority that this preference is wrong, and we should allow leaves of all kinds. But you will have to convince people to vote for legislators who will mandate those sort of policies.
[1] Evidence that society wants people to raise kids: child tax credits, FMLA policies, demand from the leading presidential candidate for increased parental leave etc
Only it isn't. If you don't hike, nothing happens. If you (or someone) doesn't take care of your sick child, including doctor's visits if needed and so on, that is a criminal act. You are responsible for your child.
We need folks to take care of their children. Both men and women. I'm more than willing to give parents extra time off work to do so. I support both maternity and paternity leave and I wish both would take it. I'm saying this as a childless woman.
And I think since our children are important, both for families and society in the present and future - I don't think folks should be punished for doing so. This includes holding future promotions and days off against them for doing the very things society thinks they should be doing - namely, parenting.