More firms let staff take leave to chase their dreams | The Japan Times Online

I thought this was an interesting item from the Japan Times.

Allowing some workers time off to follow their dreams?

It is a story of the top‐ranking companies, and the greater part of people are stories without dealings. (;_;)

Japan consists of a lot of small- and medium-sized enterprises, and people who work there are seen like fairy story.

Can a man that wants to be a husband and father choose not to work?

What same choice? The choice for men is work... or what?

If you are in difficult financial straits, then starting a family is not a good idea.

If you already have a family, and meet up with difficult financial straits, then indeed, a mom who was stay-at-home may need to find work. This has nothing to do with equality and feminism, but raw survival. That is called "making sacrifices" and when we make sacrifices that means something is sacrificed. That is the child's raising and time with birth parents.

MMM I know quite a few families where it was the husband who gave up career to care for the children and house. It was because the wife earned far more money and it didn't make any sense for her to stop working financially. If you have a family in which they want one parent to stay at home what's it matter whether it's the husband or wife? In a society where there is equality it doesn't matter at all. Sounds like that's not something you're overly familiar with?

But you certainly would not say this is the norm. At least in the US there are "support groups" for fathers that make this choice. There is a lot of misunderstanding.

AtHomeDad.org | The Stay At Home Dad Oasis - Resources, Information, Connections, and Community for involved dads.

Society teaches men to be the bread-winners and there is negativity associated, by some, when it is the wife who is the bread-winner and the husband is the stay-at-home parent.

No need to be insulting. Like I just said, there are a lot of misunderstandings an negative attitudes against men who choose to stay at home and have the wives bringing home the bacon. That's true in the US and true in Japan. Indeed I am not overly familiar with a society that accepts this without comment, as I have never lived in one.

Didn't think I was being insulting?? You just really seem to struggle with the idea that the traditional family (dad goes to work, mum stays at home) is not the only successful family model out there these days. In the circle of friends I have very, very few follow the traditional model. Most I know both parents work. The wife takes maternity leave and then returns to work once the leave is up. None of my friends in Australia have families with stay at home mums. A few of my friends here with Japanese wives do but that's to be expected here. There's no way in the world my wife would give up work to raise our child full-time (and nor would I). It just wouldn't make her happy.

I am not struggling with anything. If anything I am struggling the least in this discussion.

But you didn't really address what I said. The fact there are support groups for stay-at-home dads tells you that this is not an easy situation to be in.

Never did I say that a mom working and a dad staying at home was wrong, bad, or detrimental to the children. All I asked is that if both parents don't want to give up their careers to raise a family, what is the point of having children at all?

No one seems to be able to address that question.

But this implies does it not that there is something wrong with not wanting to give up a caeer if you have children? That somehow the children will be worse off if at least one of the parents doesn't give up their career? It also implies you can't raise a family effectively unless at least one of parents gives up their careers. Is this what you are implying?

I am not implying anything, I am saying it outright.

This is what people need to talk about before they get married and decide to have children.

Yes, I think there is something wrong with two career-driven individuals deciding to have children, but not taking any more time off of work than they have to. I think at least one parent should be at home to raise the children.

You talk about maternity leave, but how long is that? a couple months maybe? That's nothing. A parent should take six years off, until their child is in school before going back to work full-time. Maybe that is isn't feasible for some families, but that certainly is ideal... would you disagree?

Yes, the children will be worse off if one parent isn't at home to raise them until they go to school. You can name success stories, but who knows if they wouldn't have been even BETTER off if their mom or dad was at home to raise them, instead of babysitters, day-care or other strangers that AREN'T the parents.

Define "effectively". What I am talking about is what is best for the children. If you can explain a system where children are better off raised by people OTHER than their parents, I am all ears.

Well there we have it then. I don't agree with virtually anything you've said. It's an interesting opinion in this day and age I must say....

And fyi in Australia parental leave is a minimum of 12 months (some companies offer considerably more) of which 18 weeks is paid leave.