In 1991, the Catalyst Foundation in New York asked 1,500 CEOs how much time they thought was reasonable for a man to take off for a child's birth or adoption. Sixty-three percent said "none." Two years later, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was signed into law requiring companies with 50 or more employees to grant 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave for workers caring for newborn or newly adopted children, or immediate family members with serious health conditions.

The benefit is for both men and women – at least legally. But the practical outcomes for the genders are far from equal. In the family economic equation, it makes sense for the lower earner to take unpaid leave, since the family suffers less financially. That lower earner is still overwhelmingly the woman. And family finances are not the only reason men haven't embraced the benefit. In many firms there is an unspoken bias against workers who take time off to care for kids. They're seen as less dedicated, and in the male case they may also be seen as "wimps."

The culture in most companies is that family and medical leave is mostly a "woman's" benefit. A female reporter at a large media corporation put it this way: "If a guy takes off to get his car fixed, people relate, and tell their own stories about cars and mechanics they've dealt with. It's no big deal. But if a woman takes off to care for a sick child, she's not a serious worker."

Despite all the big talk from big corporations about valuing families, the truth is that the family they value most is the 1950s "organization man" model. Men are expected to be on duty regardless of family circumstance – what Wellesley College professor Rosanna Hertz calls the "test of manhood" at work. The test disadvantages fathers, who fear being seen as less dedicated for choosing to spend time with their kids over extra hours on the job. The fears are well grounded. For mothers who take off even for a year, the penalty is a whopping 32 percent of total earnings for the next fifteen years. It's no wonder fathers aren't anxious to jump on the daddy track.

The United States lags behind other countries. Ninety eight of the 167 other countries that have guaranteed paid maternity leave offer 14 or more weeks off with pay, 66 provide paid paternal leave, and 37 ensure paid leave for illness of a child.

Researchers have studied strategies yielding higher "take up" rates for family leave by fathers in other countries. Paid leave with high wage-replacement rates maximized the chances that fathers would take leave. Public education campaigns reduced the cultural and institutional resistance to leave-taking as well. The Swedish government launched campaigns in the 1990s emphasizing the benefits to families, workplaces, children, and society of fathers taking parental leave. More than 40 percent of eligible Swedish fathers now take some leave in their child's first year – up from only two percent in 1974 when parental leave was introduced.

Role-modeling was a big part of the discussion in 2000 when Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to take a few days of family leave following the birth of his fourth child, and apparently played a part in his decision. Cherie Blair urged her husband to follow the lead of the prime minister of Finland, who had taken paternity leave twice. According to news reports, "this is a significant step in a direction it's not used to following: leaving tradition behind to act on a new federal policy that allows new dads to take up to 13 weeks' leave from their jobs."

Of course, even if men were convinced that family leave is the manly thing to do they would still have to be able to afford it. That translates to paid leave, period. Nevertheless, American business groups (and the political candidates they support) generally oppose such legislation. They say it would cost employers too much. No one asks how much lack of paid leave costs families.

There is virtually no relief from the states. At this writing, only California, Washington, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia have paid family leave. It is provided through the state unemployment insurance systems except in D.C., where employers are mandated to provide it in varying amounts, depending on size. A very few state programs notwithstanding, we're not likely to get government administered paid leave in the United States. But companies (who don't want that government regulation anyway) are not prevented from providing some form of it themselves.

Ernst & Young, the global consulting firm with 23,000 employees in the United States, instituted two weeks leave at full pay (on top of the mandatory 12 weeks unpaid leave) in 2002. Their workforce is roughly 50-50 women and men. In the first year, 46 percent of paid leave-takers were male. "We had taken an employee survey," said Maryella Gockel, director of human resources. "We were surprised and pleased that so many men took the leave the first year. It was used all the way up and down the line, from administrators to partners." How did the company convince men it was acceptable to take off?

"We advertised it, we encouraged it through regular communications, and we reminded people," Gockel said. "And when the numbers came in, we advertised that too. We made it seem 'normal' for men as well as women.”

It is probably no accident that men in that company do not see taking leave as threatening to their careers – the company values it enough to pay for it, advertises and encourages it, and 50 percent of their colleagues (women) are already more inclined to take advantage of it. It's doubtful, however, that as many men take advantage of the unpaid extension offered by FMLA, which underscores the importance of paid leave.

"Can't afford it," is the usual excuse for not providing the benefit. Some smaller companies might struggle, but the behemoth corporations usually find a way to pay for what they think is important. It's all a matter of priorities. In 2002 American Express settled a lawsuit for sex and age discrimination filed on behalf of more than 4,000 women for $31 million. If the company had not engaged in sex discrimination and had that money for paid family leave instead, it could have provided twelve weeks of leave for 2,583 employees at $1,000 per week.

That comes back to the attitude of the CEO, and in turn top-level managers. As the next generation of leadership takes over, more firms will be headed by women and by men who view fatherhood very differently than their predecessors. The CEO is the main agent of cultural change in a company. That's important, because men are more likely to take leave if they have the support of fellow workers and top management's encouragement. Individual men need to step forward also, says James Levine, author of "Working Fathers: New Strategies for Balancing Work and Family." Men don't realize how flexible the company can be until they push the issue.

Giving dad some relief and quality time with his kids takes it all – closing the pay gap, instituting some form of paid leave, and most of all making it normal for men as well as women to take some family time off. For bottom line watchers, it's even cost beneficial. Economists estimate that California will save $89 million per year due to increased employee retention and reduced turnover. But the real value for men goes far beyond money. A popular credit card commercial would put it this way: "time with your kids without being punished at work – priceless."