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.
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.
> 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?
> Best to just mandatory-castrate your employees.
Ok, it's clear you aren't interested in solutions, you're just morality-trolling.