This is a nice sentiment, but doing so would have unintended consequences.
For example, in most top universities, they give roughly the same leave to new fathers as new mothers. New mothers use this time to care for their baby, but many new fathers use this time as an extended sabbatical/research leave. Their wives take care of the baby for the most part, and they work on their next book.
Then when it comes time for tenure review, the men who did this have accomplished more than they would have if they hadn't had kids (and more than some faculty who are mothers, who spent their leave with their baby).
So when everyone gets the same treatment, that doesn't necessarily reduce or eliminate disparities — and in some cases it can exacerbate them.
I don't think the goal should be to eliminate disparities. I think it should be eliminate obstacles.
If the husband and wife agree that they want to use their combined paternity/maternity in a given way, who are you or I to tell them that they can't? The wife could just as well force the husband to take care of the child and work on her own next book. Or the pair could stagger their leaves so that they spend equal time taking care of the baby.
> Their wives take care of the baby for the most part, and they work on their next book.
I was under the impression people had kids to build a family together, not to compete with their partners for achievements. I don't think at all the situation you described is bad in any way. In fact, it would be a huge step forward.
You know what is better then a new father stressed at work, absent from home, worried his career is not growing fast enough? A new father excited about the future, doing something that is quite easily interrupted to help with the newborn and building a future for the family.
I do agree giving everyone the same things would be the best, but it is easier said than done. Easier for large corporations to support larger universal parental leaven than to for startups to do the same.
> I was under the impression people had kids to build a family together, not to compete with their partners for achievements. I don't think at all the situation you described is bad in any way. In fact, it would be a huge step forward.
I wasn't indicating that the spouses were in any way competing with each other. I was pointing out the inequity that results among professors who are fathers and their colleagues who are mothers. The seemingly generous and 'equal' policy of giving the same leave to mothers and fathers has the result of disadvantaging professors who are mothers, on balance.
(I should note that not all male professors spend their leave in this way, but enough of them do it is a problem.)
So your solution to these iniquities is to punish potential success by sex through the denial of equal treatment in child-related leave? Leave alone the fact that this would be illegal discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, how would this work for non-heterosexual relationships? Wouldn't non-childbearing lesbian professors also have this advantage while their SO is nursing their newborn? Ultimately, your solution seems more pro-natalist to a fault rather than "pro-equity".
You seem to have read a lot into my comment that wasn't there. I wasn't advocating for a specific policy, only pointing out that giving the same thing to everyone doesn't always result in outcomes that are equal.
Also, I never suggested anything that would violate Title VII. At most law firms (including the one I worked at for many years), a parent who birthed a child received much more leave than the other parent.
Similar where I work. A male colleague has taken a couple paternity leaves in the last few years and he said he just spent the time working on side projects and watching TV.
He did spend some time caring for his new children but if his case is representative then, for a male, having a child is like getting extra paid time off which is not fair to people who may not use paternity leave.
I'm not proud to share this anecdote, but I pitched a VC firm wearing a long-sleeve shirt to cover up the bracelet that let me back into the maternity wards for the first 48 hours of my kid's life.
To the VC partner's credit, he stopped the meeting when he saw the bracelet and I explained what it was (and re-scheduled the meeting for a couple weeks later, so it wasn't a blow-off; I still didn't get funded, but it left a positive impression).
My adviser used his paternity leave to interview at other jobs and then leave half his grad students behind because his wife thought New Orleans was a third world country. Still rankles me.
Most major decisions have unintended consequences. I don't see that as a legitimate opposing point, especially without alternatives. Please keep in mind that this isn't just about men vs. women. There are plenty of women who don't want to have children, and who aren't pressured into that decision by the need to focus on a career. They deserve the same treatment that women who choose to have children receive too.
They go into their office at the university, so noise is no problem.
As for their marriages, it's not necessarily an inappropriate division of labor; one partners is earning money and the other is caring for a child. The potential unfairness is that it tends to result in men getting more work done, and appearing to be either more productive or more intelligent than women whom they work with.
For example, in most top universities, they give roughly the same leave to new fathers as new mothers. New mothers use this time to care for their baby, but many new fathers use this time as an extended sabbatical/research leave. Their wives take care of the baby for the most part, and they work on their next book.
Then when it comes time for tenure review, the men who did this have accomplished more than they would have if they hadn't had kids (and more than some faculty who are mothers, who spent their leave with their baby).
So when everyone gets the same treatment, that doesn't necessarily reduce or eliminate disparities — and in some cases it can exacerbate them.