Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

Your claim assumes that it's all economic,...

No, all my claim really assumes is that people have a better idea about what is good for them than I (or some enlightened bureaucrat) do.

Suppose men do prefer working because they enjoy feeling masculine, or that women prefer maternity leave because they enjoy feeling feminine. I generally accept people's desires as they are, rather than treating them as defective when they prefer things different from me and penalizing them if they don't make choices that conform to my desires.

View on HN

I generally accept people's desires as they are

So does Sweden; they are drawing the line at a slightly different point than yourself. I'm assuming that you believe that society's needs trump the rights of individuals at some point, otherwise you wouldn't believe in society at all. Personally, I don't see a problem with encouraging fathers to spend more time with their children; it's likely those children will grow to be better adjusted as a result, and the overall impact on society (including economic factors such as productivity) will be worth it in the long run. To give a similar example: I think that it has been detrimental to the US that parents aren't required to immunize their children; it's obvious that if it continues it will be an overall detriment to the health of American children despite the parents' "desires."

I think that framing the issue as "enlightened bureaucrats considering others defective" is sensationalist and incorrect; The bureaucracy reflects the society, and Sweden is known for their investment and research on gender issues with the aim of resolving societal problems; this policy wasn't some random bureaucratic afterthought.

The bureaucracy reflects the society...

Apparently not. Before the bureaucracy engaged in coercion, women took 15x more parental leave than men (according to the article).

I'm also curious why you feel that being cared for by the father rather than the mother will cause the children to be better adjusted. Are women so much worse as parents than men?

Your example of immunization is a separate issue - not being immunized creates a harmful externality. Having an unequal distribution of parental leave does not.

Apparently not. Before the bureaucracy engaged in coercion

The democratically elected bureaucracy did what they were elected to do. It's not coercion. It reflects the society because society felt that something needed to be changed, and did the research to come to a conclusion on what to do.

Are women so much worse as parents than men?

The policy encourages fathers to share their leave with the mothers. I believe that a children being cared for by both parents will be better adjusted.

not being immunized creates a harmful externality

Again, we're drawing the line in a slightly different place. The lack of a benefit to society - especially those we once had and have since taken for granted - can also be viewed as a "harmful externality."

The policy encourages fathers to share their leave...

The way the policy was originally structured, every couple was forced to pay for a pool of 180 days of leave, to be split between both parents as they saw fit. Every day the father spent with the child is a day the mother didn't. Under this policy, women spent 15x more days with the child than the father did.

When people made choices the bureaucrats didn't like, they changed the policy - now the father is forced to pay for 60 days of leave which the mother is not allowed to use. Further, if the days are split unequally between parents, the couple is financially penalized relative to couples who split their days equally. Even with all these restrictions and penalties, less than 25% of parental leave is paternity leave.

But I'm sure Swedes are mostly bad parents and make poor decisions for their children. Luckily they make better decisions in the voting booth than they do at home.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com