If it's irrational, educating employers may be a great option. If it's rational, we probably need to level the playing field somehow (e.g. make it just as ok for dads to stay home as it is for moms or something).
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/08/snack...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/28/swedish-father...
Consider the possibility that maybe men just don't want to stay home as much as women, even if it's acceptable.
Most men don't sleep with other men, but that is again not considered abnormal or socialhttp unacceptable.
For anyone in a competitive work environment who wants to get ahead, though, it's not surprising that someone would feel pressure to take less time off even if they had a very supportive employer. It seems kind of obvious to me that I would feel less "behind" in work if I took 4 weeks off instead of 8.
Presently the best we can say from the data is that men seem to take close to the bare minimum of required time off, so it makes sense to increase that time if the goal is men spending more time with the newborn and/or supporting their partner.
Another conclusion may be that while it it /legally/ acceptable, it is not yet socially acceptable.
Finally, maybe an alternative to that approach would be better. Something like a year where both parents are /required/ to be home taking care of the baby.
It may not surprise you that I would prefer to make my own choices.
That does indeed make parents incapable of making family decisions.
Your mistake is in assuming that the legislation targets individuals.
It doesn't. It targets corporations that take advantage of individuals.
Legislation does target individuals; it forbids me from choosing money over time. As a person with no desire to stay home for long periods, this directly harms me.
Right, and find a job with completely different terms, which, uh, very likely doesn't exist.
This kind of "everything's a choice" BS really bugs me. There are plenty of situations where regulation is the only solution, and I suspect this is one of them. Since employers use willingness to work long hours as a signal of commitment/productivity, very few people get the choice to work shorter hours, even if almost everybody would be happier that way.
That solves the problem (?) that men spend less time with the newborn, but I have my doubts that it solves discrimination problems. Employers would just start hiring people who are less likely to have children (big data will make that even easier) and discourage their employees from getting families and thus children. Now the discrimination is just shifted around instead of removed, and on top of that it decreases the already low birth rate.
The point wasn't the example of paternity leave anyhow. The point is that some kind of leveling would need to happen if we want to equalize on some rational form of discrimination.
In computer-type jobs it's normal for men to take plenty of parental leave, and no stigma. Many work reduced work weeks too, right up until the youngest kid is 8 years old.
I know builders and such who do the same. And I've seen a few young female builders around too.
So I'm racking my brains trying to think what type of people in what type of job can be skewing the statistics.
Sweden is not a prejudice free country, but it's way better than Britian and, from the awful impression I've got from many short visits, the US.
I highly recommend Misbehaving by Richard Thaler, particularly the chapter of the American football draft in this instance.
Outside of some limited cases, such as small groups of economists, there is no evidence that anyone, anywhere, had behaved 'rationally'.