Well, if I were going to argue the case I would probably start with the impossibility of any man ever getting that opportunity. Of course, whether those figures are enough or given out in the right way to the right people at the right time, all of those details can be argued over, but if you're going to start with fairness as your argument you'd better address the elephant in the room first.

> AND that men are forced to take an equal time of

Why is it right that anyone is forced to do anything so that your political views are enacted?

let me give you an example

good equality: have more women enter workforce so the pool of candidates is bigger and the salaries (expenses) decrease

bad equality: pay for parental leave of both parents

What year is it again?

> That's a pretty hefty price to pay for everyone, to save those women who were unlucky to have a cruel or unfair husband.

Uh, I don't think that's the trade off here.

> I don't know if it's possible to say if it's "worth it" or not, but this independence sure does not come for free.

When one option is to go full Taliban, it's actually pretty easy to say if it's "worth it".

In particular, my wife like working and having her personal projects. I like to spends part of my time with my children. So we both work and we both take care of the children. We are lucky to have jobs that allow this.

How does women entering the work force (from your previous post) equal less freedom? Less freedom for whom? Certainly not women. Since you equate more communism with less freedom, I will assume you agree that money provides freedom, if women can only work as unpaid housewives, they have no freedom. It has nothing to do with their husband, cruel, unfair, or otherwise. This may be surprising, but not all women want kids or marriage, or may want them but also find great joy in working accomplishments - many just did not have those options in any safe stable way until recently. (historicity speaking)

That's not less freedom, it's more, for both women and men (not as much stigma or pressure for not being the 'provider' when they may not want to be) - it does lessen some power and control males have historicity had over society and others. And that can be threatening for those who enjoy limiting others freedoms and controlling them.

Less freedom for those who happen to like traditional gender roles, now they are forced to work more and adapt to more "modern" gender roles. Otherwise they will lose out massively because the single earner has so much lower salary now.

Less freedom because an almost doubled amount of total working hours for a family. Free time = freedom.

Less freedom for childless people because they have much lower salaries now because of the larger supply of workforce (which is somewhat compensated by subsidies to people with children). Now they compete against couples with double income on everything on the market.

A single childless person would previously have the same buying power as a single breadwinner, now they have half.

Less freedom because this creates a much higher pressure and financial incentives for people to have children and to have modern gender roles, and anything else is discouraged.

> if women can only work as unpaid housewives, they have no freedom.

Well, are you more free if you trade free time for working hours? You are literally only more free to slave more.

This freedom only manifests in the case when you want/need to leave your husband.

That's an equivocation. There is the freedom that comes from choice (what is not disallowed) and there is the freedom that comes from available choices. For example, homosexuals being able to marry is not the same kind of freedom as if I had a million dollars I'd be able to do what I want.

Those who prefer traditional gender roles can still have them, they just need to compete to afford it, as they did before, or to cut their cloth.

Not sure if you think you're being philosophical or you know this is nonsense, but it is.

Way over the not even wrong line now.

It makes perfect sense, and it would also be fair and benefit both single/childless people as well as people with children.

I'm confused.

I didn't say it was fully compensated. Of course it's not.

But why should you have children, and expect "someone else" to pay for everything?

Nothing else in life works like that.

But yes, I've heard of the German child benefits, and tax rules for married couples, that are not optimal for an equal and fair society.

You say the compensation is "not enough". What would be? That "someone else" pays for the entire cost of your child? Why stop there? Why not demand salary from the government for choosing to raise a child?

There are many choices people make that they expect others to pay for.

I saw a study saying smokers are a net financial gain for society because of the huge savings on pension payments.

if you’re not looking to inherit while you’re young, you end up in a whole different social hierarchy

I agree with you that it might be impossible to enforce such a law without having the downsides you mentioned. However I would very much like being able to take 6 months of parental leave without being called lazy. This goes both ways.