Why do you think that women have to take time off and impact their careers but men don't?

They don't, we should be free to choose. I just don't want to be forced to take time off.

So why not take the time off sometime else?

One possible solution is to make the maternity/paternity leave mandatory "within a year" rather than immediately.

Also, keep in mind you're not, in any event, being forced. It's your choice whether to have kids or not.

Right! The decision to have a child is between my partner and I, and as such, the decision to care for it should be between us as well. What if my partner wants to be a stay at home parent? If that were the case, forcing the working parent to take time off would be a complete waste.

So you're against equality?

I'm against regressive equality. Instead of forcing men to struggle alongside women, we should work to remove women's struggle - that's progressive equality. Decrease costs of daycare and create programs to re-introduce child-bearing women to the workforce.

Then we're back at problem one. As a company, I'd rather hire a man and save myself the trouble.

I doubt most companies are that one-dimensional in their hiring. In any case, your proposed solution of forcing paternity leave means that, as a company, I'd rather hire single people.

Yet... single people can have kids, too.

Best to just mandatory-castrate your employees.

> Yet... single people can have kids, too.

> Best to just mandatory-castrate your employees.

Ok, it's clear you aren't interested in solutions, you're just morality-trolling.

>Ok, it's clear you aren't interested in solutions, you're just morality-trolling.

No, I'm not. I'm just pointing out your "solution" isn't. Why do you think it is OK to just insult me?

You're back at the start: I'll just hire a male since they won't take maternity breaks. Or I'll hire a woman and build that risk into her salary by paying her less.

I believe the only way we can get past that is to make the leave mandatory for both parents, but I'm open to (reasonable) alternatives. You're yet to provide any.

>Are those not solutions?

No, they're not. Details below.

>With lower daycare costs, you don't need to take a long maternity leave

Sure, you can make it shorter by taking away the freedom of the parents to take care of their own child instead of leaving that to daycare. I believe that above you were strongly against taking away parents' freedom.

>just enough for recovery.

And while it's shorter, it's still there, so there's inequality, unless (again) both parents are forced to take the exact same leave.

>And the re-introduction programs don't have to come from the employing company, it can be driven by the government so companies don't feel they are impacted by pregnancies. Maybe a tax write-off for post-pregnancy job training?

This would never average out to equality, it'd just add an annoying layer of complexity. A company will just hire a male just to not have to deal with any of this.

> You're yet to provide any.

> Decrease costs of daycare and create programs to re-introduce child-bearing women

Are those not solutions? With lower daycare costs, you don't need to take a long maternity leave, just enough for recovery. And the re-introduction programs don't have to come from the employing company, it can be driven by the government so companies don't feel they are impacted by pregnancies. Maybe a tax write-off for post-pregnancy job training?