Why is Daniel Murphy's Paternity Leave a Story?

I realize that there's some inherent level of stupidity in "viral" discussions, but still, what seems to be behind the latest argument is surprisingly anti-fatherhood.

Earlier this week New York Mets second baseman Daniel Murphy exercised a clause in his Major League Baseball contract that allows him to skip a few games for paternity leave so he could be present at his first child's birth, and subsequently stay with his wife and new baby for a few days before he goes back to his grueling pro athlete schedule.

In response, a couple of sports commentators at WFAN radio in New York City not only criticized him on air for not prioritizing his obligation to the team properly (they apparently think paternity leave is stupid and not for "real men"), but even suggested that his wife should have had a c-section so the birth would have been more conveniently scheduled between Mets games.

Obviously, these two guys are chowderheads just looking for publicity (which I'm trying to avoid by not naming them here), but it still raises the question: why is this a story that's gotten any attention in the first place?

What really bothers me is that we are still at a point where men need to lobby for paternity leave and where other men are unsupportive when a father decides to take some time off from his job to be with his wife and newborn child... and that we are still at a point where this is even a discussion at all.

I believe Murphy is absolutely right to make this decision regardless of the consequences for the NY Mets baseball team, and that the WFAN commentators are just showing that they deserve our pity and our sympathy for being knuckle-dragging primates in the modern world.

What's your take? Should the needs of the team ever outweigh family, and if so, when?

And congratulations to Daniel and his wife on the addition of a new family member.