The topic of "family leave" is a complicated one. Family leave is the time that a new mother or father takes off when their child is born (Gillis, 2015). In today's world, more often than not, it is the mother that takes leave instead of the father. This can be explained in any number of ways, but the most widely accepted one is that historically, the father works and provides for the family while the mother cares for the children and other domestic issues (Almqvist and Duvander, 2014). As time has progressed, women and men have become equal under the laws and policies of the United States. However, the opinions of society remain unchanged despite the growing number of people who believe we have moved past these times (Lerner, 2013). 

The argument being made in this paper is that gender inequality expands farther than if across-the-board equality between men and women is to be achieved, . In addition to wage equality, the societal opinions that make passing legislation so difficult are unflinchingly rigid. The societal opinions that make it hard for women to rise to high-level occupations are the same ones that push men to stay at work while women take time off to care for a new child. Inherently, the word "equality" means that you cannot have it in one facet of your life, without having it in all others. If equality is demanded in schools and the workplace, it must be incorporated everywhere else, as well. This means that it must also be incorporated in how time off is allocated between mother and father in the weeks after childbirth. 

Charlie Gillis, a Canadian magazine author, speaks on the topic of the social norms that are at play when we talk about equality between men and women. In his article, The Daddy Wars, Gillis begins by providing a first hand account of social norms making it exceptionally difficult to balance work and family. Ricky Shetty has since created a blog that is dedicated to providing information on parenting from a working father's point of view. When Shetty's daughter, Rianne, was born, Shetty was forced to bring her to work on a regular basis. He had to juggle meetings, clients, paperwork, and of course, Rianne. Despite Shetty's success in achieving this balance, Gillis describes him as an, "anomaly  --  a self-styled emissary between domestic and professional spheres." Gillis goes on to further back up his theory that men stay at work for social reasons by presenting the reader with the programs available to Canadian fathers and the percentage of those fathers that choose not to take advantage of them. Fathers in Canada are offered 35 weeks of paid leave at 55% pay, while mothers are granted a full year of leave (Gillis, 2015). In the evidence presented by Gillis, only 9.4% of men were taking advantage of the paid leave (Gillis, 2015). Of that 9.4%, the average time taken for leave was 13 weeks, compared to the average 31.5 weeks for women (Gillis, 2015). Gillis's explanation for this stark difference in the acceptance of leave is that the father is typically the higher-paid individual in the household. With the mother taking a 45% pay cut, fathers feel expected to get back to work so that they can contribute their share of raising the child. Because of this, men take a little time to visit with their newborn, but typically get back to work as soon as they can (Fleischmann and Sieverding, 2015). In the U.S., both parents are guaranteed 12 weeks of unpaid leave without fear of losing their jobs. This is not as generous as the assistance provided in Canada, but it still shows that leave is available, and fathers are not taking it. 

A study conducted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison affirmed Gillis' theory that men feel that because they cannot physically bear and birth a child, they have to provide for the child and mother financially. The study shows that there is a growing demand for fathers to play a larger role in child raising. However, government policies and workplace realities conflict with this cultural change. It goes onto cite the U.S. law passed in 1993 (Family and Medical Leave Act or FMLA) mandating 12 weeks of unpaid leave for both parents in any 12-month period (Hyde, 2001). When asked, 78% of men and 89% of women supported it. On the contrary, only 20% of fathers took seven days or more of leave. This compares to the study's nine-week average for women (Hyde, 2001). The fathers are given every opportunity to stay home for 12 weeks, but they choose to get back to work to provide for the family financially, while the mother tends to the child and other domestic responsibilities.

Based on these two sources, the reason men aren't taking as much leave is because of the social norms that govern our lives (Gillis, 2015). The average woman takes 31.5 weeks of maternity leave in Canada (Gillis, 2015). While the average father takes less than a week (Hyde, 2001). In an academic article written by Marci Ybarra, the point is made that there is a significant number of mothers who turn to welfare in the months after childbirth. Her stance is that a separate Paid Family Leave (PFL) program needs to be instated to better handle the needs of a single, low-income mother. She says that the welfare system simply isn't designed for a mother to completely depend on it for the few months after she gives birth (Ybarra, 2013). She cites the federal program that is in place for low-income mothers, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). She states that, "In 2006, federal TANF guidelines allowed states to provide cash benefits to eligible participants with children under one year of age without imposing work requirements during the exemption period." This means that the federal government handed the states a fund for low-income mothers and provided no stipulations as to how the money was to be allocated. In other words, they made it the states' responsibility. They are not obligated to set requirements for income during the year before pregnancy, or mandate that the mother work while she recieves benefits. This is what sets TANF aside from welfare. After TANF released its guidelines in 2006, 16 states exempted new mothers from work for six months or less after childbirth (Ybarra, 2013). 15 of those states allowed work exemption for only four months or less (Ybarra, 2013). Additionally, six other states did not allow for any work exemption for mothers receiving TANF benefits (Ybarra, 2013). The states that offer no work exemption give mothers two options: take the TANF benefits and meet the work requirements to receive benefits, or take the 12 weeks of unpaid leave guaranteed by the federal government (Hyde, 2001). Considering a woman cannot physically work in the weeks after giving birth, the latter is the more obvious choice (Shortall, 2015). This leaves low-income, single mothers that were never able to establish savings, financially struggling. Not being able to provide for your newborn child is a frightening prospect, and a very available form of income is contained in federally subsidized welfare (Ybarra, 2016). 

Marci Ybarra conducted a study using a representative sample from Wisconsin's PFL program (W-2). The goal of the study was to take a sample of new mothers and compare how much assistance they would receive from the various states that offer PFL programs (California, New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin. The W-2 program was instituted in 1996; three years after the federal government passed the FMLA, which guaranteed 12 weeks of unpaid leave when a child is born (Sitkoff, 2002). Still, the W-2 program was enacted eight years before the next PFL program included in Ybarra's article. Instead of catering to low-income mothers, 

W-2 set requirements for work hours per week and yearly income. The program offers $168 per week for a maximum of 12 weeks (Ybarra, 2013). Out of all the PFL programs used in this study, W-2 provides the most total assistance ($2,016). In Ybarra's sample, mothers receiving federally subsidized welfare earned an average of $6,617 the year before childbirth. Women who worked all four quarters that year earned an average of $13,660. A mother could not support a family on that income, and by having a child; she would have to receive some sort of supplement. Wisconsin's W-2 program requires that a mother earn $16,100 the year before childbirth (Ybarra, 2013), and would make these mothers ineligible for assistance. 

In California, the prebenefit annual earnings requirement is just $300 (Ybarra, 2013). Instead of having a high-income threshold and a flat weekly benefit, like Wisconsin's W-2, California's program requires a miniscule minimum income. However, your earnings determine your weekly benefit. New mothers on California's PFL program earn 55% of their wage for a maximum of six weeks (Ybarra, 2013). This would make three quarters of the sample mothers eligible for assistance. However, 43.7% of the sample would receive an average of $79 a week as compared to $168 from W-2 (Ybarra, 2013). This is due to the fact that each mother's weekly benefit is directly associated with her wage. If a new mother only makes $300 the year before having a child and her weekly benefit is be 55% of her wage, it makes sense that the weekly assistance would be extremely meager.

The PFL program in New Jersey resembles that of California with a few minor exceptions. The first one being that the annual earnings requirement to receive assistance is $7,150. This is a middle ground between the $300 requirement in California and the $16,100 one in Wisconsin. Of the 41.6% of mothers qualifying for New Jersey's PFL program, 18.1% would receive $112 per week compared to $168 per week with W-2 (Ybarra, 2013). In contrast, 23.5% would receive $234 per week. Additionally, there is no minimum weekly benefit for those that qualify. There is a 66% wage replacement for up to six weeks after childbirth, with a maximum weekly benefit of $524 as opposed to the $840 per week maximum in California. 

Finally, Ybarra gets into Washington State's PFL program passed in 2012. This program requires that a new mother earn $5,488 the year before having a child and provides a flat weekly benefit of $250. Despite having a higher weekly rate than W-2, Washington's PFL program only offers assistance for up to five weeks. This means that qualifying mothers in Washington that take advantage of all five weeks will receive $1,250 total, as compared to the $2,016 a mother would receive if she took advantage of all 12 weeks offered by W-2. 

This is all very informative information about low-income, single mothers, but how does it relate to family leave? Even though these programs are open to men, a very small percentage takes advantage of the leave. Everything described in Ybarra's article related directly to maternity leave and not paternity leave. This shows how these social norms are present in everyone's mind. Women in California are taking the six weeks of paid leave and an additional six weeks of unpaid leave for an average of 12 weeks off, while men take an average of three weeks (Lerner, 2013). Unfortunately, simply placing the leave in front of fathers is not enough to make them feel comfortable taking it. Since 1993, full-time employees have had access to 12 weeks of unpaid leave without fear of losing their job. Yet, these staggering statistics of men taking little to no time off when their child is born still exist today.  In recent years, men have begun to take paternity leave; a trend that scholars attribute to the fact that pay is now attached to it (Lerner, 2013). The company Virgin allots a full year of paternity or maternity leave at full pay to employee's who have been working for four years or more (Time off for Dads?, 2015). But generosity like is not found very often. In fact, many women that do not have access to paid leave through their employer return to work after just six weeks (Lerner, 2013). 

Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, says, "Another possibility is that the policy is not so much creating cultural change as allowing workplaces to catch up with it. Until the 1970s, being a good father meant leaving home to be a good breadwinner. Now, many younger men, though not all, see being a good father as requiring involvement in children's daily lives and activities" (Lerner, 2013). I, myself, find this quote to be particularly interesting because I grew up with a father who worked significantly more than my mother. I recall wishing that he could have spent more time at the house during the day, because it was almost my bedtime when he got home at night. Being that I was not alive during the 1970s, I cannot affirm or deny that this was when a shift happened from fathers being expected to go out and work, to being expected to fill a larger roll domestically. However, I can attest to the fact that even 20 years ago, fathers were being expected by their children to spend less time working and more time at home. Regardless of when it happened, it is clear to see that fathers are being expected to have a larger presence in the home by the cultural values that govern our society, as well as provide for the family in a financial respect. The issue with simply telling fathers to take time off from work to spend it with their children is that oftentimes, the mother and father do not have the financial luxury to both take time off to care for a newborn. This causes them to have to decide which parent stays home. Since the mother has to physically recover from giving birth for six to twelve weeks (Tucker, 2016), they are usually the ones to take the leave. This is why a reformation of PFL needs to take place.

No amount of legislation can change the fact that women need to recover after giving birth and costs accrue at a very high rate during that time (Hajizadeh, 2015). It also cannot change the fact that a healthy father is expected, by society, to go out and make money to provide for his wife and newborn. What it can do is create a new program that takes into account that mothers need more time than fathers due to physical recovery, while providing enough assistance to allow the father to take a reasonable amount of paternity leave. 

In conclusion, PFL needs to catch up with the environment we live in today. Fathers are stuck carefully balancing work and home life and unfortunately, paying the bills is more important than taking weeks off of work with no pay. This is an issue that the Federal Government has attempted to resolve by passing the FMLA in 1993, and then with TANF in 2006. If the world we live in is going to tell us that both parents have to equally share the financial and domestic burdens that raising a family puts on a couple, then something needs to be done about men's inability to take paternity leave. FMLA is ineffective because all it does is secure your job while you take time off. It did not provide any supplemental income. TANF was ineffective because the Federal Government left it up to the states to decide how to allocate the money and what requirements a mother must meet to receive the assistance. The next program needs to be Federally legislated and enacted nationally. With each state deciding how long leave can last and how much the weekly amounts are, each state would have different weekly benefits, different amounts of time off, and a different amount of total assistance given to each family. This is why the next program needs to be Federally enacted so that it can financially provide for each family for an appropriate amount of time regardless of the state they live in.  

