No to paternity leave
THE EDITOR, Sir:
DEMANDS FOR paternity leave showcase the influence of feminist propaganda. Gender activists mistakenly assume that granting men paternity leave will shrink the gender pay gap that is largely explained by factors unrelated to sexism.
Sensible people applaud Delroy Chuck for his scepticism. But Mr Chuck should go further by declaring that his administration will not legislate paternity leave. Some private companies have offered this luxury, and others may follow.
However, Mr Chuck must dismiss attempts to institute a national law. Paternity leave is not a necessity for paternal bonding. Feminists are only leveraging this argument to garner public support. Their expectation is that paternity leave will force companies to view men as liabilities.
Therefore, if businesses are directed to provide paternity leave, employing men may be seen as a risk, thus privileging the bargaining power of women.
MARKETING PLOY
Positing that paternity leave facilitates bonding is just a marketing ploy. Though acerbic, the truth is that maternity leave is a liability for companies, but it makes sense because physically exhausted women cannot be productive.
On the other hand, men endure no physical pressure. Therefore, they are not entitled to paternity leave. The ‘Woke Capitalists’ interested in pleasing the ‘Twitterati’ can implement bad policies to their own peril, but smart entrepreneurs shall please their shareholders by boosting profits.
In addition, although Delroy Chuck is not a ‘Woke Capitalist’, as a politician he has to exhibit tact. Hence, he accommodates frantic calls for legislating paternity leave by noting that only men residing with their child’s mother ought to benefit. Most people agree with his position, because paternity leave should not be used to incentivise promiscuous behaviour.
But as expected, the People’s National Party Youth Organisation had to oppose Mr Chuck on flippant grounds. The leadership of this wobbling organisation foolishly lambasted Mr Chuck for being unfamiliar with the literature on paternity leave.
It is becoming abundantly clear that the minister of justice is well outside of his depth on this matter and should consult the research, observe how similar legislation has been enacted globally, and engage in genuine consultation with stakeholders.
We must thank Mr Chuck for accommodating critics lacking wit and a sense of humour.