Sure if I didn't give a shit about my wife or infant, I could smoke weed and play video games for two weeks. But terrible humans can do whatever they want. If you're all about stopping terrible people from having opportunities to be terrible at the expense of not helping decent people, then that's your perogative.
Its like saying people who buy bigger houses should get paid more. They choose the extra burden, deal with it.
To be non-terrible, they should not have kids then if they can't handle their work load without coming into work all fucked up or getting extra time off to handle shit that isn't related to their work.
Wait I thought being terrible was not actually trying to parent their kids during the paternal leave.
If they can parent without having it affect their work or taking free paid time off, then that's fine.
Calling it paid is a bit of a misnomer in our case. In Canada the mother can take 17-weeks (unpaid). Depending on the province they may take up to 52-weeks. While on parental/adoptive leave you can go on unemployment (E.I., Employment Insurance) which you have paid into since you started working. I think you can take time off after a miscarriage/stillbirth as well. Your employer is not required to keep paying your salary but they must hold your seat. The father has the option to split the leave after the first 17-weeks (maternity) but most men never take any of the remainder (parental). Quebec has begun offering 5-weeks of paid leave for fathers to encourage them which has been somewhat effective. I think some men would rather see their wives get all the time off or would rather be working since E.I. does not provide a full/equal salary. It is not uncommon for women 25-30 to take eight months, come back for six months or more, part of which would be spent pregnant a consecutive time, then leave again. I think my friend once worked cover for parental leave when the person covering for parental leave went on parental leave. E.I. encompasses unemployment, seasonal work, long term disability, mental health, and other aspects so everyone eventually gets some benefit from it.
This would probably be my biggest gripe with the thing. Overall I see it as a good way to initially try and get settled in with a new infant, etc, etc.. However, I do agree that it is definitely discriminatory-ish towards people who choose not to have kids. Interested to see how this plays out.
Exactly, so people with kids aren't mandated to spend their free time taking care of their kids. They can do what everyone else can do.
Non-breeders are useless, because they do not produce workers to keep the economy going into the next generation. When they retire, they will become a net negative to society. Non-breeders shouldn't be allowed to retire. Breeders should be able to retire when their children can take over their position in the economy. Be glad we breeders only ask for an extra few weeks off.
There are too many people on earth. Extra kids means extra strains on the earth, on schools, on resources etc. People who do not procreate are a net positive and won't have the extra commitments that make them less productive workers.
They will hasten the collapse of society when the generation they should have created is forced to work to support them in their dotage. Kill non-breeders after age 40. This also helps with your population control angle. Win/win.
