This suggests where the best opportunities for improvement lie: equalizing parental leave (so that the parental career penalty is distributed more equitably), decoupling health insurance from employment (to lower costs on business for parental leave), and so on.
If you mean giving the same amount of leave to both fathers and mothers, isn't that already the norm?
Also, offering this is one thing, but getting parents to use it is quite another. Many fathers probably avoid taking so much leave precisely because it does harm their career. How would you fix that?
>decoupling health insurance from employment (to lower costs on business for parental leave)
This decoupling is a good idea for many reasons, but I don't see how it would decrease costs on businesses for parental leave. Health insurance doesn't compensate businesses for having to pay people for time that they spend away from work, it just covers their medical bills. Most of that paid time is just parents staying at home with their new kid.
In the US it's nowhere close.
"The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) requires 12 weeks of unpaid leave annually for mothers of newborn or newly adopted children... "California is the first state to offer paid paternity leave weeks (six weeks, partial payment). In the rest of the US, paternity pay weeks are not offered (therefore neither paternity paid leave weeks)." [1]
Of course companies can offer what they want above the requirements, but even when it's offered it's very common for the paternity leave to lag far behind maternity leave. For instance, even for a company like Apple, which is generally pretty progressive,
"U.S. employees will now have a few more weeks of paid parental leave: Young Smith says expectant mothers can take up to four weeks before a delivery and upwards of 14 weeks after and expectant fathers (and other non-birth parents) can take six-week parental leaves." [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_leave_in_the_United_...
>In the US it's nowhere close.
I think that wikipedia page has misleading or outdated information in the summary. FMLA leave covers both mothers and fathers equally.
From the Department of Labor: "Both mother and father are entitled to FMLA leave for the birth of their child, or placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care."
Bringing up California further confuses the issues, since that is about paid leave whereas FMLA is unpaid. I think the 6 weeks of paid leave in CA comes from the employer-paid disability insurance.
FWIW I did some web searching for the policies at big tech companies (which of course offer more than the minimums. The following article is a bit dated (2015) but seems to give a nice summary of maternity- and paternity-leave policies.
http://time.com/money/4098469/paid-parental-leave-google-ama...
The TLDR: some (e.g., Facebook, Netflix) have parity between mothers and fathers but most of them (e.g., Amazon, Apple, Google, MS, Twitter) give at least some extra weeks for moms and/or birth moms.
The Clinton-era FMLA grants 12 weeks unpaid maternity leave. 25 states expand on that, and 25 do not.
> Many fathers probably avoid taking so much leave precisely because it does harm their career.
Some will take it. If utilization rates are not equal, that's not a reason to withhold the opportunity.
> I don't see how it would decrease costs on businesses for parental leave. Health insurance doesn't compensate businesses for having to pay people for time that they spend away from work
The FMLA only provides for unpaid leave. However, businesses continue to pay for health insurance during the leave period.
I never said it was. However, if it's unpaid leave, it's pretty obvious why many would refuse to take it, or not take as much as is available: they can't afford the lack of pay. How are parents supposed to pay their bills if they're both taking a 12-week unpaid vacation? Health insurance doesn't pay your rent. So it seems pretty obvious that for many couples, the woman (who generally earns less, and also usually breastfeeds) will take all/more leave and stay home, while the man will get back to work so their finances don't take too much of a hit.
Of course, for couples where their employers offer equal and paid parental leave, we might see different results.
Why should that be our expectation? The career penalty is a tax on mothers and a subsidy for fathers. That such inequity is normalized is why "adjusting" the gender gap does not solve it.
I'll also do an aside here and point out that generous (paid) and equal family leave ends up being a subsidy for parents and a tax on childless people, and also in a way a tax on single parents.
Women get rejected from law and med school too. That doesn't explain why they don't go into software.
> better advancement potential
Plenty of women go into fields without much advancement potential. If your argument is that in programming often the only way to advance is management, then that's also true of the vast majority of jobs, including accountancy which attracts a lot of women.
> job security
Programmers have very good job security compared to a lot of people these days. In particular, doing a law degree is a massive risk given how hard it is to land a traineeship, yet plenty of women still do law degrees.
> that are more social
What makes you assume that all women want jobs where they can be social? And what makes you say programming isn't a social job? It requires working with other people as part of a team. There's not much interaction with customers, but that's also true of a lot of accountancy/other office jobs that have an even gender ratio.
> A lot of women go into programming because it's been hyped up so much, and then either going into management quickly or leaving the industry because they hate the work
That's true of both men and women in teaching.
> and also because they feel like they're not really doing anything to help the world (and in the vast majority of programming jobs, it's true, you aren't).
How many lawyers, accountants, personal assistants or managers are directly doing something to help the world?
>What makes you assume that all women want jobs where they can be social?
This has been shown by research. Women are trained from an early age to be more social than men.
>And what makes you say programming isn't a social job? It requires working with other people as part of a team.
I don't think I need to justify myself here. Most programming involves sitting at a computer and typing, and not in a group in real-time. It also certainly has a reputation for being asocial, though that's changed more recently with the "brogrammer" trend, but not for the better as far as women are concerned. It sure as hell isn't social the way medicine is, where the work is all about meeting one-on-one with patients all day long and working hands-on (usually literally) with them.
>Women get rejected from law and med school too. That doesn't explain why they don't go into software.
Well, for the med school rejects, I can't imagine what programming would offer them. They obviously want 1) a high-paying career, 2) to help people hands-on, 3) a social job. Programming might offer 1, and that's it. Women like this will probably fall back to nursing school, or maybe some other career that's more social and less technical than programming.
Really, the only good point you bring up here is that a lot of women go into accounting, since that does indeed seem to have a lot of overlap in career traits with programming.
Why isn't this true of men?
People(republicans) need to get it through their heads that there are NO differences between men and women, period.
I don't post on Reddit and you should keep your asinine suggestions to yourself. Either you got to this website an hour ago or are you are too much of a coward to stand by your convictions and accusations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb89YALUzL4
It is intellectually dishonest to cherry pick the variables that suit the answer the researcher already prescribed before the analysis even began. The entire premise of these studies is laughable until they are done and published correctly. It is not and should not be acceptable to be dishonest in this way though science has began to allow it more and more in order to not be called names...