Donald Trump says only mothers deserve paid family leave

I think it's pretty disingenuous to compare being an employee to being an indentured servant. Especially when we're talking about people who are in stronger places in the workforce.

It sucks when you're poor and you have to take whatever job you can get to get by. But when you have skills that are in demand you're not at the whim of your employer - it's the other way around. You are the one being sought after, and you have your pick of whichever one is willing to treat you the best, pay you the most, or give you the kind of projects you want to do.

That's the goal here: to make have stronger families, which in turn produce stronger, more educated, more informed, and more politically active adults. That means more opportunities for those people to live their life how they want, doing things they find interesting, and being a positive contributor to society so that everyone else is lifted up as well. That's a far cry from indentured servitude.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Amablue 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I was just pointing out that the same rationale can be used to justify plenty of things.

Sure, but that doesn't make the argument any weaker, it just means that if those other things we can justify with that logic are determined to be bad, they're bad because of some other factor that's strong enough to overcome the benefits.

I've made both economic and moral arguments in this thread, I just focused on the economic aspect more because people seemed to be making primarily economic based objections.

You are correct, but still glaring right past the bottom line. It's a mental health issue, more or less. But this of course begs the question... did previous generations suffer more than they gained in a similar situation, or are WE the "off" ones who, for some reason, need more help?

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Can you clarify? Are you asking why previous generations didn't need parental leave?

So if we're to expand our understanding of necessity, or perhaps view parent leave as a convenience (kind of undermines the goal though), can you please provide a rationale that isn't applicable to eugenics?

I'm not sure the arguments laid out can be used to support eugenics (or, at least, they can't be used to overcome objections to eugenics). Regardless, there's other reasons to support paternity leave. It leads to more gender equality for one. When it becomes an option for men to stay home instead of women we break down the notion that men have to work and that women have to be home makers. This is an important part of normalizing the idea that men can be caretakers and that men have to be breadwinners.

There's also the fact that if we only give leave to women, that gives businesses an incentive to discriminate. While gender discrimination is illegal, it's also notoriously hard to prove. To a business trying to maximize profit, hiring an employee that might suddenly need to take an extended leave is a good reason to avoid that employee. If we offer leave to all parents, that incentive to discriminate goes away since now anyone you hire has the same risk (or at least the risk is somewhat mitigated - trends still show that men take less parental leave even when offered last I checked)

It also obviously helps men bond with their children, which is obviously a good thing. And they can also help out their partner while they are recovering from childbirth. And more involved parents mean happier, healthier kids, which is a good thing. All of these are reasons to support paternity leave.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure, but that doesn't make the argument any weaker, it just means that if those other things we can justify with that logic are determined to be bad, they're bad because of some other factor that's strong enough to overcome the benefits.

Naw, it's bad because your argument essentially hinges on the ends justifying the means. Which is why I asked you to provide a reason that isn't applicable to nefarious purposes. Furthermore, why do we need "a strong workforce"? The history of the United States has always and still remains hanging upon the idea of having a large, cheap labor force as a necessity. Indentured servitude, slavery, sharecropping, public works and infrastructure projects to get out of the depression (think the conservation core and the movement behind it's inception) and immigrant workers. Why would you advocate for our children to belong to this group?

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Can you clarify?

Do you suppose that it is societal shift that suggests men should receive paternity leave, or rather something innate in the human condition?

When it becomes an option for men to stay home instead of women we break down the notion that men have to work and that women have to be home makers. This is an important part of normalizing the idea that men can be caretakers and that men have to be breadwinners.

Oh I get that. But it skips past the question that I will now clarify for you. Maternity leave was granted because of the necessities involved in having a child. You have to feed a child, for one. Guys don't generally lactate, do we? So for consistency's sake between the genders, you also have to provide an equally compelling reason why it is a bare bones minimum necessity to provide paternity leave, or why the concept of necessity should be scrapped.... and instead, provide compelling reasons both parents should be provided the convenience of paternal leave.

To a business trying to maximize profit, hiring an employee that might suddenly need to take an extended leave is a good reason to avoid that employee.

Which is partially mitigated via blind resume practices. Not one part of that means you need to change the law with regard to men's paternity leave.

It also obviously helps men bond with their children

Not really. It provides an opportunity for men to bond with their children, but it doesn't force one. And while that's a good thing, and I most certainly would have loved to have been able to do that with my own kids, the concept that it's a bare minimum necessity is the case you need to make. Unless you want to call it a convenience thing, which essentially undermines your ability to convince anyone else.

[–]awyden 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Amablue 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Because, like I said, having children is a big positive externality for the economy. It helps the nation as a whole when we make it easier to raise children well. It leads to stronger families, which produce stronger more well adjusted individuals, which in turn become better workers in the workforce of tomorrow. The economy benefits when we help parents raise their children, and I want to enjoy those benefits 18 years from now.

Consider this game: There are 10 people in the room. You have two buttons in front of you. One button takes $1 from you and gives everyone else $1. Or you can push the other button that gives you $5. You have every reason to push the second button. Pushing the first button costs you money and doesn't benefit you at all. The second one gives you money. That would be a perfectly reasonable choice. But if we have a central force that says everyone must push the second button, even though there's a cost to you, you end up getting a net gain and ending up even better.

That's what we're dealing with - externalities. This is a valid use of government regulation that changes this kind of prisoner's dilemma and results in better results for everyone, even though for each individual their own best interest is to defect and take the quicker payout.

[–]Ifanair 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]awyden -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Amablue 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Amablue 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]awyden 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Amablue 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That has positive externalities.

I mean, think about driving a car. It's a personal choice, but it's not without consequence. It pollutes the environment by some small amount. So we tax drivers to deal with that negative externality. We can then use that tax revenue to put toward cleaning the environment. Having children that are well raised has a strong positive effect for our society, and it's something we want to be easier to do. The more children that we raise in strong families the better our society is for everyone.

If we lived in an idealized and simplified world, we wouldn't have to deal with these externalities. It would be the economic equivalent a frictionless vacuum where you do all your physics work. But we don't live in that idealized world, we live in a world where your personal choices have effects outside the people who make those choices. This is a valid place for governments to come in and use taxes or regulation to change incentives, so that we can make optimal choices for everyone when taking these second order effects into account.

[+]ThePigmanAgain -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tedesche -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Title	Donald Trump says only mothers deserve paid family leave
Author	IAmAN00bie
Upvotes	42
Comments	51
Date	September 14, 2016 6:28 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/52rxih/donald_trump_says_only_mothers_deserve_paid/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/donald-trump-says-only-mothers-deserve-paid-family.941624 https://theredarchive.com/post/941624

Comments