OH GOOD SO LET'S RELY ON YOUR PERSONAL OPINION FOR ALL OUR SOCIAL POLICY DECISIONS THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA LET'S GET RIGHT ON THAT!

No. In terms of career development, people refuse to have children because, given current social conditions, this is a requirement in order to advance. In our more than 40 hours a week system, being a parent and having a steady, fulfilling, uninterrupted career are becoming increasingly mutually exclusive. Also, not…

This isn't about you.

Well, now we're just debating semantics, in this case, what constitutes objectivity.

Parental leave is hardly a vacation and children need their parents.

Not sure what your educational background is, but social scientists perform hypothesis testing with statistics. Also, arguing that the social sciences aren't really science is very dangerous because drawing conclusions and making policy decisions based on data, however limited the methods are, is FAR more objective…

I see! Gotcha.

I am a social scientist and I can tell you we value objectivity just as highly as the basic sciences (e.g, physics, chemistry, biology). Any discipline involving testing hypotheses using the observation/experimental manipulation of natural phenomena (i.e., data), which in the case of the social sciences is human…

Those pie charts show that more men have full-time jobs than women...what is your point exactly?

Women face hiring discrimination in the US as well. Do you know of any studies comparing gender-based hiring discrimination between any European countries and the US? If paid maternity leave resulted in more hiring bias, then you'd have a point. Women are seen as "risk" because the workplace was designed for men.

Quality of life, like other complex variables, has multiple, dynamically-interacting causes. I never made the claim that paid maternity = QOL, but, unless there's evidence to the contrary, few would argue that it decreases QOL. Also, it speaks volumes that countries that are less developed than the US have paid…

"Incredible number of variables" is every social scientist's middle name. These questions are what economists are for.

No because I'm a student...in all seriousness, no one "likes" to pay taxes, but we have to in order to thrive. I think we need to examine what other developed countries are doing and see what's working and decide what could work for US. Also, we need some economists either in Congress or influencing Congress because…

We need to make a list of things men need to do more of so as to combat social stigmas regarding masculinity, thus leading more men to do these things, thus resulting in a healthier society.

Investing in families is investing in a healthy, happy, prosperous society. I challenge you to prove me otherwise.

So you're saying you shouldn't be taxed for anything that's not "your choice" or that you "have no stake in"? Society doesn't work that way, bud...

Here you go!

I know - it's because of the social stigma and the perception (and often reality) that time off is disadvantageous for career development.

I was drawing an analogy between two disadvantaged populations whose right to workplace accommodations should be protected by law. I didn't intend to insinuate that being of childbearing age and living with a disability were the same thing.

Where is this magical land of "here?" hehe