Rowenna Davis, a columnist for The Guardian in London, is calling for the United Kingdom to adopt Norway’s six-week, use-it-or-loose-it, paternity-leave policy. To reinforce her reasoning, Davis’ cites a new report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which notes that the number of women working in top-level jobs decreased in 2008. The report states: “There are fewer women MPs, cabinet members, national newspaper editors, senior police officers and judges, NHS executives, trade union leaders and heads of professional bodies today than in 2007.” The solution, wrote Davis, is “non-transferable paternity leave” for six weeks, just like the Norwegians have.

Non-married, childless women have historically been able to achieve just as much professional success as their male peers, including salary equality. The reason that women’s income is typically lower than men’s reflects the fact that if women want to pursue motherhood they must trade-off professional success at times. It’s just a fact.

Davis argues that paternity for men should become national law for the following reasons:

First, it forcibly breaks down the stereotype that women are housewives and men are breadwinners. Anyone who thinks that social stereotypes that pressure individuals into gender roles don’t exist is having a laugh.

The second benefit of use-or-lose paternity leave is that it evens the cost to employers of hiring men and women. Women will no longer have to disproportionately bear the burden of hearing their bosses’ mental alarm bells ring.

Third, paternity leave gives dads confidence. Many men might quite like to be stay-at-home fathers, but they are just scared about how to do it.

Finally, paternity leave is likely to improve children’s relationships with their fathers and provide more male role models for our young people. Instead of being secluded in the office, men will be able to put their all into their child’s development.

Davis expects all kinds of cultural change by the overlapping of six-week paternity intervals in the office. Not hardly. Here’s where our feminist friend misses the point.

First, a silly rule like this does not change so-called “stereotypes” about the roles of men and women. It’s not a stereotype. Men can’t be mothers. Perhaps Davis is unaware that children remain in the home for longer than six weeks and kids increasingly get more expensive as they age. Households need income.

Second, this silly rule would actually hurt married men, as well. If I were an employer, I would only want to hire single men with no kids. In Davis’ new world both married men and women would sound the same “six-weeks of potential lack of productivity” alarm. Why is it better for married men and women alike to become the least preferred employee candidates?

Third, what kind of “confident” man would want to be a “stay-at-home” dad while the rest of the men are out doing stuff? I don’t think men are scared to be a home, most simply have no interest in not having a full-time job, and why should they?

Finally, and most ridiculous of them all, paternity leave improves father-child bonding. Seriously? If it were true that a father’s physical presence is all that was necessary for intimacy then America would be a radically different country. Intimacy between a father and his children extend beyond six weeks into an entire life of pursuant love, not simply physical presence.

Trade-offs are a fact of life and having children is a positive trade-off for women and men alike. We can’t have our cake and eat it, too.