So minus breastfeeding, the asymmetry has a large component of "it was always done like this", plus the mistaken idea some employers have that the leave is some sort of "vacation".
As a new father: quality time with my baby is a huge deal and it's unfair that society expects the mom to do all the work (and spend all that time). I think this should be a concern for all fathers; I find my friends who don't prioritize this and dump it on the mother are behaving in an insensitive way. They get to work on "real stuff" and interact with other adults -- even commuting to work can feel like a respite from caring for a newborn -- and when they get home they don't understand why the mother is burned out and grumpy: "but you stayed at home while I worked, why are you so tired and upset?"
It also helped us as a couple because I could understand what mom was going through in earlier months and also mom could understand that I am not useless at home and I can take care of our daughter.
With my first child, I took 12 weeks leave, and helped feed the baby using the bottle, and this arrangement worked out great. He didn't care whether it was bottle or breast, was just happy to eat, and still preferred his relationship with his mom more than with me. Oh yes, that's a thing by the way that seems to get lost in these discussions.
With my other 2 kids, they REFUSED the bottle and would ONLY breastfeed. This produced some rather complex scheduling gymnastics that favored my work time over their mother's.
I guess the problem I have with this whole subject is... we really need to restrict the scope of what we even CARE about, when talking about these things. What the Nordic countries have done for parental leave? Awesome. Give people the choice and let them make it.
What happens after that -- even if the long term result is some remaining inequality? -- is not something you or I have a right to change because the opportunity has been given, and reality took over after that. It'd be a bit like complaining about the waves on the beach. I mean sure, you can... but it won't change anything because the ocean won't listen to you. Neither will a baby satisfy the mandates of an ideology over its own wants/needs. If baby decides it only wants mama, well... you'll have to manage. And that has consequences, whether you want to accept that there are or not.
I can certainly relate to this point. My little one has just started nursery and my partner gone back to work. As her companies flexible working is pretty inflexible she works every other weekend (and over January more than that) which means I've suddenly started taking care of the little one on my own much more than I have done until recently.
It's been pretty eye opening if I'm honest. It was way too easy to consider maternity leave a nice long holiday. I wish I'd have had the experience earlier as it would have changed my view on things considerably.
This isn't breastfeeding, unfortunately. Your baby was fed breast-milk, but not breastfed. Not a value judgement, but a father feeding a baby from a bottle isn't exactly the same thing developmentally.
I don't know your friend and I don't know the particulars. I'll just say one thing: of course it's difficult -- for the mother too!
I manage with the bottle, by the way. And play, and change diapers, and soothe my baby when she's upset. It's tiring, but also rewarding.
It's not possible to generalize about what will happen, but probably all fathers should at least give it an honest try.
I don't think employers think or care that it's a "vacation" (the experience of the person taking the leave) but rather that it's "paid time off" (the experience of the business paying the leave).
I don't buy this narrative, sorry.
Also, of course women who want to stay at home taking care of the babies while the father is less involved in child-rearing are perfectly welcome to do it. It's just that I think it's unfair that society expects this to be the norm.
edit: I also think you're conflating "women who want to have a career and be entrepreneurs" with "mothers and fathers who want to share the load (and joy) of being parents". It's not necessary for the mother to want to be an entrepreneur for this; it's just necessary for the father to take his share of the load.
I think you may have missed their point, as there's not much to "buy". I hadn't considered it before, and it strikes me as interesting. I believe what they're saying is that women being introduced into the work force en-masse, and therefore nearly doubling the working population, has driven down wages. The lower wages made it harder for a single bread-winner to support a family, which then makes it more difficult, or impossible, to have a stay at home mother. I'd love to see some data on this.
And that aside, what’s the alternative? Relegate women to work only as teachers and secretaries because some of them want to be stay at home moms?
I was just pointing out that along with the women who cannot wait to get back to work there are also plenty that are perfectly happy to give up work forever - for some having a child and especially the early years are the most meaningful thing that happens in their entire life. I think it's worth making this point because we have this pro-career consensus that perhaps mainly caters to and benefits a small group of highly exceptional people at the top, and which is not necessarily good for society. This is the paradoxical nature of the thing: attempt to emancipate women; in reality end up making them work like dogs for 40 years and (for many soon it seems) die childless.
I'm also not sure there has been wage erosion. Since I've been alive, wages have only been going up. However, cost of living has also been going up, and at a faster rate than wages. So while I don't have any source to support my hunch, I'd guess the problem is that living is more expensive than it ever was, not that women entered the workforce.
If wages erode, that's a failing of capitalism, not of the idea that more people should have more options. You could restrict supply by having people not work completely at random and get the same effect on wages. I don't know what the best way to fix things is, but making employment based on gender is a dumb way to do it.
The effects of spending 9 months in the body of the mother never go away. No more profound experience is imaginable. Nothing else that happens to a human being will ever come close. So, vitally important as fathers are, the asymmetry is fundamental and permanent.
(I'm talking about the typical developmental experience here; I know there are exceptions.)
Yes, pregnancy is a unique experience. For some women it goes away magically after birth; others have lasting physical and mental changes. Whether this is the most profound experience imaginable in human existence is arguable, though I'm inclined to think it's pretty powerful.
However, the "asymmetry" of pregnancy and child birth is neither fundamental nor permanent for the issue under discussion: sharing the load in child raising more equally, and fathers getting to spend more time with their babies. After breastfeeding is over, fathers are perfectly capable of raising a kid without a mother. It's not magic.
Men do not produce milk.
Besides, some women don't produce milk either, or not enough of it. Bonding with a parent is not exclusive to breastfeeding, either (though of course it helps!).
