It may not surprise you that I would prefer to make my own choices.
That does indeed make parents incapable of making family decisions.
Your mistake is in assuming that the legislation targets individuals.
It doesn't. It targets corporations that take advantage of individuals.
Legislation does target individuals; it forbids me from choosing money over time. As a person with no desire to stay home for long periods, this directly harms me.
Right, and find a job with completely different terms, which, uh, very likely doesn't exist.
This kind of "everything's a choice" BS really bugs me. There are plenty of situations where regulation is the only solution, and I suspect this is one of them. Since employers use willingness to work long hours as a signal of commitment/productivity, very few people get the choice to work shorter hours, even if almost everybody would be happier that way.
That solves the problem (?) that men spend less time with the newborn, but I have my doubts that it solves discrimination problems. Employers would just start hiring people who are less likely to have children (big data will make that even easier) and discourage their employees from getting families and thus children. Now the discrimination is just shifted around instead of removed, and on top of that it decreases the already low birth rate.
Presently the best we can say from the data is that men seem to take close to the bare minimum of required time off, so it makes sense to increase that time if the goal is men spending more time with the newborn and/or supporting their partner.
Another conclusion may be that while it it /legally/ acceptable, it is not yet socially acceptable.
Finally, maybe an alternative to that approach would be better. Something like a year where both parents are /required/ to be home taking care of the baby.