I don't know whether a week a month or a year is suitable, or percentages, or damages. This is not my field.
The fundamental idea I'm advancing is that men get to do calculus with their choice ("hmm do I want to stay? or do I better by my kid by working hard now and sending them to prep school?"). It's cool that Sweden makes it attractive for them to pick parenthood, but it's not enough, it's not really in the same ballpark.
I am suggesting that men shouldn't really have a choice. Women have little/no choice (biologically, because of labor, and socially, because of expectations), so only by forcing an approximation of time lost, do we really make people reconsider whether the situation we put them in and the choices we offer them are fair.
In case this sounds incredibly sinister to people, like capping runners so they're not fast, don't get me wrong. I think the outcome here would be an increased amount of resources put into the "work-life balance" question that everyone pays lip-service to, so that we wouldn't be really forced to choose one over the other.
Okay, I see your point. I don't believe it's a useful one.
What you are saying is that you want the government to fine, imprison, or otherwise punish a woman who, as CEO, signs a business deal three days after she gives birth, yes?
Because that's what "mandatory" means. Unless "mandatory" only applies to the father? In which case, why is the father prohibited from signing a business deal three days after the mother gives birth, when the mother would be capable of doing so?
Then there are all the tricky questions, like if the father and mother have broken up and are no longer on speaking terms, or the father is overseas. They are the same issues as for parental leave, only backed by the force of government punishment for not complying.
This is ridiculous. The policy could be something like "take a month off within a year of your kid being born".
> What you are saying is that you want the government to fine, imprison, or otherwise punish a woman who, as CEO, signs a business deal three days after she gives birth, yes?
I sincerely think that the benefits are not worthwhile.
Every mandatory requirement must be backed by penalty, otherwise it's merely optional. Such penalties can include fines, jail, lack of access to social services, and forced removal of one's child.
We know already that 1/4 of Swedish fathers prefer to take no leave, even when there's an 80% salary support. (I don't know how many Swedish mothers take less than a month of leave.)
Any fines must therefore be more than 20% of three months' salary, and even higher for those making over $100K/year.
Any system must also have a way to identify lawbreakers, and allow appeals and special circumstances.
The Swedish experience shows that the father tends to put the extra time into the summer, Christmas, and New Year holidays. If the goal is increased co-parenting - which I believe is your goal - then 1 month spread over a year, especially in a vacation-poor country like the US, is very likely not enough.
The fundamental idea I'm advancing is that men get to do calculus with their choice ("hmm do I want to stay? or do I better by my kid by working hard now and sending them to prep school?"). It's cool that Sweden makes it attractive for them to pick parenthood, but it's not enough, it's not really in the same ballpark.
I am suggesting that men shouldn't really have a choice. Women have little/no choice (biologically, because of labor, and socially, because of expectations), so only by forcing an approximation of time lost, do we really make people reconsider whether the situation we put them in and the choices we offer them are fair.
In case this sounds incredibly sinister to people, like capping runners so they're not fast, don't get me wrong. I think the outcome here would be an increased amount of resources put into the "work-life balance" question that everyone pays lip-service to, so that we wouldn't be really forced to choose one over the other.