Motherhood and Careers

[TravelingGal]

Oh Circe, that is so true. Women do it to ourselves sometimes too. If I could only tell you how many times women in my social circle say they *can't* leave their kids with their husbands as things will fall apart. And I keep telling them, YOUR KIDS WON'T DIE! OK, so maybe they're fed Doritos for dinner, or maybe will end up with a bad case of diaper rash, but these wives need to LET IT HAPPEN.

When the men go out to play, they just leave and don't look back. When their wives take an afternoon "off", they often have to prepare EVERYTHING, including food for their husbands to be easily nuked. It infuriates me. When I leave Amelia with TGuy, I bolt and don't look back. And he is fully aware (and capable) that he is her parent too.

 

[TravelingGal]

Oh, and btw, then men in the group sometimes hate me. I'm apparently too opinionated, too blunt and too mouthy. I don't say anything to the husbands (often because I do feel like it's the WIVES responsibility to speak up for themselves and I tell them what I think when they sit there and complain OVER AND OVER AND OVER again how their husbands don't help). But when they hear what I think through their wives, they paint me as the villian and a women who doesn't understand how "things are."

I could tell you stories, but thinking of them absolutely enrage me. And you know what? The bottom line is it's women who take it and are doormats. The men would not get away with this if they knew it was NOT ACCEPTABLE and the women would leave. But these women (and I'm only speaking for the ones I know, not all SAHMs) feel it is their "job" as SAHMs and that they could never divorce their husbands because they can't get back into the workplace to support themselves. I tell you, some of this stuff borders on ABUSE.

The men in this country know they have it good. You all are right. We let them. We take it, and somehow we feel it's our "job." Why would they be compelled to change things, when they have it so good?

 

[Matata]

Interesting discussion. The state of equality between men & women in the US and the stereotyping of what constitutes men's & women's roles is evolving very slowly. The issue of changing employer practices to suit women's roles as mother's is a whole 'nother animal and I would love to hear some potential solutions discussed here.

I retired 2.5 yrs ago but when I worked, work-life balance meant working a regular 8-hr work day and trying to fairly distribute overtime and holiday work when necessary or when emergencies arose. We had 12 wks paid leave for mother's & father's and most times department managers worked hard to accommodate flexible work schedules for all employees' needs be it parenthood or illness of the employee or close family member. Some positions were more easily accommodated than others. Some employees' skills were difficult to replace, some workloads difficult to redistribute, some jobs weren't conducive to telecommuting. At one point, budget cuts so diminished our workforce that 1 person out one day for any reason had huge repercussions for everyone.

You can't just look at equality for parenting related issues without taking into account the bigger picture. On any given day a snapshot of a typical department for the organization I worked for was:
1 person out on maternity leave;
1 person out on worker's comp
at least 2 people on flex schedules or modified work schedules due to ADA
1 person out sick

There wasn't a day that went by when a department was fully staffed. There is no denying that employers see a woman's reproductive capacity as a detriment to getting business done. So what needs to change with American employer practices that can accommodate all critical needs of the employees without diminishing the employer's ability to make money? Cause the only reason they're in it is to make money.

 

[MissStepcut]

Matata, you raise a very valid concern, and I have no idea what the answer is... I just know other countries have figured it out better than we have.

I'll also note that I've never ever had a job with an 8 hour workday. I've only ever been a salaried employee, but I'd say most employers expected 50-60 hours a week. That is to say, the performance expectations demanded that many hours. I think in some states (or maybe only California?) there are limits on who is salaried, but not in the states I've lived in.

 

[mayerling]

I'm with Jennifer here.

I see so many posts on PS from women who are so upset at having to leave their very tiny babies to go back to work and if they are very fortunate they might have the choice of leaving work. It shouldn't be like that... mothers should have the option to be with their child in the first year without having to sacrifice everything they've worked towards career-wise.

I don't think anyone realises just how hard a job being a mother is until they are dropped in at the deep end, and also how much their priorities will change. I've seen a lot of friends who 'would go nuts being at home' being more than happy to do so once the baby arrives. Going back to work after a year is still a wrench for many women, but it's not the same as going back after 12 weeks where you are still exhausted, potentially suffering from PPD, still trying to get into a routine and make breast-feeding work to say nothing of the emotional distress.

It makes me feel sad to read about it the way I used to feel sad when I saw the cows on the local farm whose calves had just been taken away.

If the vast majority of women on PS are unhappy about the maternity leave/work-life balance in America then that must translate into a HUGE number of women in the US being equally unhappy about it. What are your female politicians doing to help change things? Why aren't they angry on your behalf? That is where it has to start, with legislation. Women also need to start demanding better leave and better conditions.

In Parliament itself, women managed to get the working hours changed so that it was more family friendly - before it was a bit like a boy's club where you stayed all evening in the bars and in the voting chamber. Now Parliamentary business is done in the daytime for the most part. They also insisted that they opened a creche and made it acceptable to bring your baby to work - MPs don't get maternity leave officially. Many of them sit and feed their babies openly in the voting chamber.

Our Deputy Prime-Minister has a rule than unless there is a National crisis or he is too far away, he is at home to bath and put his 3 young sons to bed every single night.

Here, good companies pay extra so that they can attract and retain good staff. The company I worked with (whose CEO managed to completely screw things up - I blame him not the company) offered 3 months full pay, three months half pay, 3 months on statutory maternity pay (about $200 a week) and 3 months unpaid. On top of that I also got to take the year's holiday I had accrued during the years leave - another 6 weeks on full pay, plus all statutory days (around 11) plus a week for xmas. They were by no means the most generous - my SIL got 12 months on full pay from her company, and most of my friends got at least 6 months on full pay.

My sister who works for the police (at a low level) got the same as I did and when she goes back to work they have altered all her hours so that she can work them around her son's nursery hours.

If you adopt a child you also get the same maternity leave as you do if you give birth to one. And the UK is far from being the most generous in Europe.

I feel terribly sorry for mothers - and families in general - in the USA. It seems to outsiders that your population are told that the US is the best country in the world for everything to the extent that people actually believe it, whereas you actually seem to have been given a very bad deal and shame on your government for not doing something about it.

This is exactly the impression I get.

 

[Pandora II]

TG, the only thing that really bothered me about your post was the getting back to work 2 days after giving birth. That's a really common narrative among working mothers (or people who are praising them). It bothers me because, usually when I hear people saying it in praise of others, it sounds like some signaler of dedication. If you really were dedicated to your employee, you'd be working in the middle of labor! Work through your maternity leave! Give birth in the morning and be in the office by the afternoon! And okay, maybe that is impressive... but what about women who, due to medical reasons, can't bounce back like that? Or, heaven forbid, just want to take advantage of the benefits their employer promised them? Gah...

Totally agree - there was uproar a few years ago when a French politician had a c-section and was back in the office a week later (in her size 0 trousers and vertiginously high heels). Far from being praised, people were outraged: who was looking after the baby and why wasn't she breastfeeding and more importantly, how dare she make it look as if other women were somehow taking a holiday by being on maternity leave.

I for one wasn't even capable of updating PS until over a week after had Daisy let alone do anything even vaguely work related. 2 days after giving birth I was still in ICU covered in tubes and electrodes and stuffed full of morphine. Two weeks after I could just about sit down without crying, and after 3 months I was just about beginning to have better bladder control than my baby. Agreed that I had a particularly crappy birth, but with mothers getting older that is becoming more common.

I also had such bad oedema that I could barely walk and needed help to do things like get out of the bath the two weeks before she was born - no way could I have worked up to my due date/till I went into labour.


Following on from what Jennifer was saying, I come from a rather political family where 'socialism' is a dirty word. We are all believers in free market economies, but at the same time we also believe in legislating for the good of the country as a whole and not just the individual. That means taking care of the elderly, free healthcare for all regardless of means, free education and providing the best start for the children who are the future of our country. EU legislation has contributed to a lot of the changes to equality and to maternity provision in this country. Today good maternity leave and family friendly working environments are seen as a legitimate right and companies that fail in this area are thought of badly. Things aren't perfect yet by a long shot, but getting there and certainly amongst my generation (late 30's) and younger equality is a given.

Regarding the numbers of women in Parliament - it's not brilliant here either: 22% (139/650) of the House of Commons and 20% (181/792)of the House of Lords are female. However, political parties are working very hard to attract female candidates. The biggest barriers are the issue of work/life balance particularly if you have children. Nowadays, all short-lists must include a female candidate.

In some elections like those for the European parliament there is a system of list appointments in some parties where the order is male, female, male, female - so if two men get the highest number of votes and there are only 2 seats, only the highest scoring man would get one seat, the other would go to the highest scoring female candidate regardless of how many men got more votes than her.

In the European parliament, there are 736 members of which just over 30% are women - still need to do better but heading in the right direction.

 

[vc10um]

I am also tempted to say that what, overall, defines a "good father" in the US is very difficult from what makes one abroad. Although I'm starting to see a shift in my age group to fathers who are much more involved with their children, want to bond with them, play with them, learn with them, bathe them, feed them, put them to bed...etc., mostly being a "good father" meant making sure the child was provided for and healthy. Oh, and making sure they weren't a total screw up. I'd be surprised if my grandfathers knew their childrens' birthdays, let alone which toy was their favorite or how they were doing in school. That's the mother's job, afterall.

ETA: There are always exceptions to the rule. But going on personal experience, and which parent or parents I knew best...I can probably identify for you all by name, and most by face, the mothers of my friends from high school. Not so much with the fathers...I could probably get you about 1 out of every 4 or so. The dads just weren't involved. Whether that was because they chose not to be or because they couldn't, I'm not sure.

 

[Pandora II]

One of the key solutions actually comes through giving women a full year of maternity leave.

That way, a firm can employ someone on a temporary contract for the year - the company is not understaffed, the person on the temporary contract gains valuable work experience and it is an all-round win-win for everyone. If the woman also decides not to return to work then there is already a staff member in place who can continue in the role.

Many of us (including myself) in Europe got a foot on the employment ladder by doing maternity cover jobs.

Obviously small companies require help from the State to finance this. Here the State will pay a woman 90% of her salary for the first 6 weeks and then $200 a week for the next 33 weeks. Very small companies also receive some money towards recruiting a new member of staff.

 

[TravelingGal]

One of the key solutions actually comes through giving women a full year of maternity leave.

That way, a firm can employ someone on a temporary contract for the year - the company is not understaffed, the person on the temporary contract gains valuable work experience and it is an all-round win-win for everyone. If the woman also decides not to return to work then there is already a staff member in place who can continue in the role.

Many of us (including myself) in Europe got a foot on the employment ladder by doing maternity cover jobs.

Obviously small companies require help from the State to finance this. Here the State will pay a woman 90% of her salary for the first 6 weeks and then $200 a week for the next 33 weeks. Very small companies also receive some money towards recruiting a new member of staff.

Pandora, I've often thought it would be nice to have the job held for a year even with NO pay.

 

[littlelysser]

First - I don't know that one can make a broad generalization about what constutes a good father in the u.s. I think it much more of a generational issue.

My girlfriends, almost without exception, are married to men who are great fathers. Super involved, able to take care of the child alone (I went on a girls' weekend without my son when he was 21 months old - DH did great with him) and very bonded to the children... things were very different in my parent's generation. I dont' think my dad ever changed a diaper.

As for careers and motherhood, well, I think the legal field is particularly unforgiving when it comes to motherhood and career. And even more than the general "legal field" working at a big law firm and motherhood are just not a good mix.

I graduated from law school in 2001 and went to work for a meglawfirm - and I can say with COMPLETE ACCURACY that neither I nor a single one of my female friends are still working for big firms. I'm talking about really able, intelligent women - most of whom graduated magna cum laude from law school, law review, the whole shpeel. Not one is still working at a big firm. And they all left of their own volition because it is a horrible environment to try to have a life, let alone a family.

I've worked at two megalawfirms and there are VERY few female partners in either firm. Even fewer female partners who have families. And those that do, generally have husbands who stay at home with their kids or have live-in nannies. And they don't get to see their kids all that often.

I think the problem is caused by so many things - at least in my experience - among them, (1) female partners that had to do things the hard way and think the younger women at the firm should too , (2) big firm culture - associates are nothing more than fungible goods to these firms. Bill your 2200 hours for 10 years and *maybe* you'll make partner , (3) the "part time" or "flex time" programs at those firms are basically a means to completely derail any partnership track one might have been on, (4) the nature of the legal profession - dates of trials, hearings, etc. are inflexible.

Most of my friends have found other jobs in the legal profession - most have gone to in-house positions where their schedules are a bit more regular, or they are working for the government (clerking for judges, etc) - but no one has been willing to stick it out at a big firm. And I can't say I blame them.

Shoot, I AM them.

 

[Pandora II]

One of the key solutions actually comes through giving women a full year of maternity leave.

That way, a firm can employ someone on a temporary contract for the year - the company is not understaffed, the person on the temporary contract gains valuable work experience and it is an all-round win-win for everyone. If the woman also decides not to return to work then there is already a staff member in place who can continue in the role.

Many of us (including myself) in Europe got a foot on the employment ladder by doing maternity cover jobs.

Obviously small companies require help from the State to finance this. Here the State will pay a woman 90% of her salary for the first 6 weeks and then $200 a week for the next 33 weeks. Very small companies also receive some money towards recruiting a new member of staff.

Pandora, I've often thought it would be nice to have the job held for a year even with NO pay.

That's far too low maintenance!

Here, not only must they hold your role open, but if due to a reorganisation or something it no longer exists then you must be given another role of the same level of responsibility, status and remuneration.

 

[vc10um]

First - I don't know that one can make a broad generalization about what constutes a good father in the u.s. I think it much more of a generational issue.

Just wanted to respond to this because I changed trains of thought as I was writing my original post, and I missed it while editing. I think the rest of my post highlights that I completely agree with you: it very much appears to be a generational issue, and the problem is, that the generation recognizing these familial issues is still a generation away from being a large enough portion of Congress to do much about it.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

vc10um- I'm also a fed (are you in the DC area too?). I've taken two maternity leaves 367 days apart. If you need any tips on how to stretch out your paid leave, let me know. There are actually a few good tips out floating around out there. For my daughter, I took 3 months all paid for with sick/annual leave and had enough leave left over. DH took 3 months after that. For my son, I took 5 months (DH then took 1 paid month), mostly LWOP. I stayed in a paid status, kept accruing leave, and got all federal holidays paid as well.

 

[vc10um]

vc10um- I'm also a fed (are you in the DC area too?). I've taken two maternity leaves 367 days apart. If you need any tips on how to stretch out your paid leave, let me know. There are actually a few good tips out floating around out there. For my daughter, I took 3 months all paid for with sick/annual leave and had enough leave left over. DH took 3 months after that. For my son, I took 5 months (DH then took 1 paid month), mostly LWOP. I stayed in a paid status, kept accruing leave, and got all federal holidays paid as well.

LS, thanks so much! I'm in Alexandria...one of the Commerce offices. I definitely will have to get your take on things. I can work up to 80 hours of compensatory time that I can hold on to for 26 biweeks in addition to the leave and am hoping to have a signficant amount of leave worked up by the time DH and I start to TTC (which won't be until 2013, most likely). Was planning on taking 6 weeks paid (2 compensatory, and then 4 some other combination of annual and sick) and then work part time for as long as I can stretch my leave, since I'll be working from home full time starting in April/May.

 

[rosetta]

Ye gads.

I had no idea it was so bad in the US for mothers.

And here I was thinking that maternity leave was stingy at 12 months. Plus, I would get full support for working part time (about 60% of full time) should I choose to after having a child. Its positively encouraged. About 40% of the female docs I work with are part time.

 

[Laila619]

I dunno about Scotland, Sweden, or the rest of the EU, but 'round these parts, men get complimented for "baby-sitting" their kids when they take them to the park, or cover for their wives while they do work-related things. A major portion of our advertising sends the unsubtle message that, a) men are incompetent, b) incompetent men can't be trusted with kids, c) incompetent men ARE big kids who need to be taken care of, and, d) women are nagging harpies who don't let them have any fun, just like their mothers, and that's why they should drink Bud (or whatever).

Oh, I don't think it's this bad at all. My dad's generation and my grandfather's generation didn't cook, clean, or change diapers. But the men of today are generally very involved fathers. Times have changed. My husband, and many of my friends' husbands, cook more than we women do. My mom is impressed that my husband changes just as many diapers as I do, if not more. But I told her that things are different now, and that men are expected to be involved fathers in this day and age. This isn't 1952.

 

[Loves Vintage]

I feel terribly sorry for mothers - and families in general - in the USA. It seems to outsiders that your population are told that the US is the best country in the world for everything to the extent that people actually believe it, whereas you actually seem to have been given a very bad deal and shame on your government for not doing something about it.

This is exactly the impression I get.

I think it's actually more like many of us are very aware that it is less than ideal here in the US, but it is what it is, change is not likely, certainly no where on the horizon, and therefore, we muddle on. I do think it is ingrained in our culture to expect less from our employers in terms of benefits. For sure, we are very aware that European employees are treated better. I do not think this is a case where US employees mistakenly believe that they receive the best benefits, though I can certainly understand that perception.

As a point of contrast, I think it's fairly rare here, even if someone is out on disability, that a temporary employee would be brought in to replace that person. The rest of the team pitches in and gets the work done. There is a general belief, I think, that the person performing his or her job is not easily replaced. There is no concept of bringing in an outsider, training them to work for only a short period of time, and then having the original employee come back when leave ends. I remember an Australian traveler telling me once that she was on a 4 week vacation! This was inconceivable to me, and it was the first time I had heard of such a thing! She told me that her company just hired a temp to cover her work while she was traveling. She said US employers should do the same, when I told her I was lucky to spend 10 days on my trip! This WOULD NEVER happen here.

There has been mention in this thread about paid maternity leave. I think this is fairly uncommon here! Usually, the only leave that is paid out of a short term disability policy (absent complications, 6 weeks for vaginal delivery, 8 weeks for CS), plus any accrued vacation time, IF you are allowed to take that as part of your leave.

 

[Laila619]

And you know what? The bottom line is it's women who take it and are doormats. The men would not get away with this if they knew it was NOT ACCEPTABLE and the women would leave. But these women (and I'm only speaking for the ones I know, not all SAHMs) feel it is their "job" as SAHMs and that they could never divorce their husbands because they can't get back into the workplace to support themselves.

Bingo, that's exactly it, Tgal. When women stop tolerating this nonsense, it will get better. My husband wouldn't dare pull this stuff. He does not 'babysit' his own kid.

 

[mayerling]

I feel terribly sorry for mothers - and families in general - in the USA. It seems to outsiders that your population are told that the US is the best country in the world for everything to the extent that people actually believe it, whereas you actually seem to have been given a very bad deal and shame on your government for not doing something about it.

This is exactly the impression I get.

I think it's actually more like many of us are very aware that it is less than ideal here in the US, but it is what it is, change is not likely, certainly no where on the horizon, and therefore, we muddle on. I do think it is ingrained in our culture to expect less from our employers in terms of benefits. For sure, we are very aware that European employees are treated better. I do not think this is a case where US employees mistakenly believe that they receive the best benefits, though I can certainly understand that perception.

As a point of contrast, I think it's fairly rare here, even if someone is out on disability, that a temporary employee would be brought in to replace that person. The rest of the team pitches in and gets the work done. There is a general belief, I think, that the person performing his or her job is not easily replaced. There is no concept of bringing in an outsider, training them to work for only a short period of time, and then having the original employee come back when leave ends. I remember an Australian traveler telling me once that she was on a 4 week vacation! This was inconceivable to me, and it was the first time I had heard of such a thing! She told me that her company just hired a temp to cover her work while she was traveling. She said US employers should do the same, when I told her I was lucky to spend 10 days on my trip! This WOULD NEVER happen here.

There has been mention in this thread about paid maternity leave. I think this is fairly uncommon here! Usually, the only leave that is paid out of a short term disability policy (absent complications, 6 weeks for vaginal delivery, 8 weeks for CS), plus any accrued vacation time, IF you are allowed to take that as part of your leave.

I don't know, when DH moved to the UK he thought that Europeans are lazy because they seemed to 'constantly' be on annual leave.

 

[Porridge]

I'm glad we're talking about this, I am with JenniferW and Pandora in that I often goggle in disbelief at what I read on the screen here about what most of you women have to put up with. It's atrocious.

I am from Ireland, which believe me is faaaaaar from perfect. However, I work for a huge firm (consulting). There are many female partners, managers etc, and the family support is amazing. My current boss has two young kids, so she leaves the office every day at 4 and doesn't come in on Fridays. She gets the work done, but she does it from home when it suits her. IN NO WAY is this affecting her position, let me tell you everyone in my team answers to this woman, and she is by far not the only one.

We have the same setup as Scotland and England, pretty much. I think an added help was that we have had two strong female presidents in power for the last 21 years (pres. term is 7 yrs here, one of them sat for two consecutive terms), and I think they were wonderful role models.

I have been dating a New Yorker for the past 8 months. I love NYC, I would love to live there for a while. A year or so. I like a lot of things about America. But there is NO WAY I would go through pregnancy and child-rearing there. No way. And the whole healthcare system scares the living daylights out of me too. I would always have evac insurance, for fear of going bankrupt or something over an accident or illness.

Things aren't all that great here really. There are still more males in government and in the workforce and they still get paid higher than we do. But comparatively...yeah, just like Mayerling I agree with Pandora's sentiment below.

It seems to outsiders that your population are told that the US is the best country in the world for everything to the extent that people actually believe it, whereas you actually seem to have been given a very bad deal and shame on your government for not doing something about it.

 

[zoebartlett]

Oh Circe, that is so true. Women do it to ourselves sometimes too. If I could only tell you how many times women in my social circle say they *can't* leave their kids with their husbands as things will fall apart. And I keep telling them, YOUR KIDS WON'T DIE! OK, so maybe they're fed Doritos for dinner, or maybe will end up with a bad case of diaper rash, but these wives need to LET IT HAPPEN.

When the men go out to play, they just leave and don't look back. When their wives take an afternoon "off", they often have to prepare EVERYTHING, including food for their husbands to be easily nuked. It infuriates me. When I leave Amelia with TGuy, I bolt and don't look back. And he is fully aware (and capable) that he is her parent too.

I don't have kids, and I don't think they'll be in my future. Even though I can't relate to having kids, this thread interests me a great deal.

I have a few friends with babies, and it drives me nuts when they don't trust their kids to be left alone with their husbands. What, exactly, do they think will happen? I had a friend tell me that she took her son everywhere she went because her husband didn't feel comfortable watching the baby alone. She never got any time for just herself, and she just kind of accepted that. I used to feel bad for her but then I realized that she was doing it to herself. She COULD go out and have fun on her own but she caved to her nervous husband all the time. He had to learn to do things himself eventually, and she finally saw that. He needed to figure things out on his own and build his self-confidence about being a dad. Spending time with the baby on his own was what he needed. I just don't understand what took so long for it to happen.

 

[labellavita81]

Here in Ontario we get 60% of our salary (capped at 44 thousand... or somewhere around there) for 12 months. This time can even be divided by the other parent - it is called parental leave. We also get 365 days of job protected time off, some companies even top up the 60% to 100% for a few months as well.

It's too bad that it isn't like this everywhere.

 

[shihtzulover]

During orientation, one of the human resources specialists at my company told us that here in the US, employers are not required to give us the full twelve weeks of FLMA leave unless a doctor states that it's medically necessary because of complications, etc. Otherwise, the company only allows six weeks for an uncomplicated vaginal birth, and eight weeks for a C-section. Is this really the law?

 

[MissStepcut]

During orientation, one of the human resources specialists at my company told us that here in the US, employers are not required to give us the full twelve weeks of FLMA leave unless a doctor states that it's medically necessary because of complications, etc. Otherwise, the company only allows six weeks for an uncomplicated vaginal birth, and eight weeks for a C-section. Is this really the law?

Uh no, doesn't look right to me.

 

[Porridge]

Woooooowowowwowowow waaaaaaaaait a second, hold up. This 12 weeks of maternity leave...it's UNPAID? Are you serious????? Or am I reading that wrong? That can't be normal?!?!

ETA ok maybe I should have read through properly before posting this - but is it true that it's not common to get paid maternity leave?! Holy...ladies, get out there and march!!

We get 9 months fully paid, 3 months unpaid for new employees. Also during this time you accrue the normal vacation, benefits etc. That's about normal. Some places will pay the full 12 months. Employees that have been with our company for a few years get that.

 

[MissStepcut]

Woooooowowowwowowow waaaaaaaaait a second, hold up. This 12 weeks of maternity leave...it's UNPAID? Are you serious????? Or am I reading that wrong? That can't be normal?!?!

That's the law. Some employers step up. The firm I am supposed to go to after law school does.

 

[vc10um]

Woooooowowowwowowow waaaaaaaaait a second, hold up. This 12 weeks of maternity leave...it's UNPAID? Are you serious????? Or am I reading that wrong? That can't be normal?!?!

Totally serious.

And those who expect more find themselves most often sorely disappointed.

 

[Circe]

I dunno about Scotland, Sweden, or the rest of the EU, but 'round these parts, men get complimented for "baby-sitting" their kids when they take them to the park, or cover for their wives while they do work-related things. A major portion of our advertising sends the unsubtle message that, a) men are incompetent, b) incompetent men can't be trusted with kids, c) incompetent men ARE big kids who need to be taken care of, and, d) women are nagging harpies who don't let them have any fun, just like their mothers, and that's why they should drink Bud (or whatever).

Oh, I don't think it's this bad at all. My dad's generation and my grandfather's generation didn't cook, clean, or change diapers. But the men of today are generally very involved fathers. Times have changed. My husband, and many of my friends' husbands, cook more than we women do. My mom is impressed that my husband changes just as many diapers as I do, if not more. But I told her that things are different now, and that men are expected to be involved fathers in this day and age. This isn't 1952.

Depends on your class and level of education. My anecdotal evidence is more like yours, thank gods. But the statistical average, and the resulting politics? Sadly, those indicate that it is that bad, and maybe even a little worse than it was in 1952 in some ways, because whereas in '52, you had suckage and boredom and The Problem that Has No Name, you also had the single job of household maintenance and the ability to do it on your partner's salary. Now ... not so much. Instead, it's the catch-22 of Having It All (without asking for any special treatment, and certainly without having any of it written into law).

I do feel like one of the ways that other countries dodge the issue of maternity leave and the "separate but [un]equal" quality of women in the workplace is simply by enforcing a need for paternity leave as well: it maintains work/life balance, and it removes the onus of shirking from mothers, placing it equally on everybody who's interested in having a next generation to drive the buses and man the battle stations. But given that we're seeing a move towards eliminating everybody's rights equally instead of expanding them across the board, I'm not going to put money on that coming about spontaneously in the near future ...

 

[icekid]

There's still a fair amount of contempt for activities associated with women here. Sadly, that extends from vapid nonsense like vajazzling to matters of crucial importance ... like child-rearing. I dunno about Scotland, Sweden, or the rest of the EU, but 'round these parts, men get complimented for "baby-sitting" their kids when they take them to the park, or cover for their wives while they do work-related things.

.

Not my husband... With a co-parent who is a resident physician, my husband has never been anything resembling a babysitter. Aside from the fact that I am the one with the boobs, he is truly my equal in caring for our son. He drops him to daycare 99% of the time and picks him up in the evening 90% of the time. I have spent many, many nights away from our son while my husband never has!

I do agree that forcing women to leave their small infants is sub-optimal. Medicine, and my specialty especially, is still a male dominated world in the upper ranks. I am looking for my first attending job and looking at private practice groups as a young woman who does want more children is terrifying. I KNOW they see me as a liability, not a REAL team member, who is going to leave them with extra work when I have another baby. But truly, they are right in that everyone else (90% men!) does suffer when the team is down a member. So I do understand their concern and wonder why they should be expected to pick up my slack. I think Pandora makes a good point that making maternity leave a full year allows a company to hire a long-term replacement where it might not be such a hardship. Unfortunately, it is not incredibly easy to do that in medicine depending on your field.

While I believe women should have the right to extended maternity leave should they want it, I am not so certain that it is our government's job to fund that leave.

 

[MissStepcut]

Not my husband... With a co-parent who is a resident physician, my husband has never been anything resembling a babysitter. Aside from the fact that I am the one with the boobs, he is truly my equal in caring for our son. He drops him to daycare 99% of the time and picks him up in the evening 90% of the time. I have spent many, many nights away from our son while my husband never has!

I do agree that forcing women to leave their small infants is sub-optimal. Medicine, and my specialty especially, is still a male dominated world in the upper ranks. I am looking for my first attending job and looking at private practice groups as a young woman who does want more children is terrifying. I KNOW they see me as a liability, not a REAL team member, who is going to leave them with extra work when I have another baby. But truly, they are right in that everyone else (90% men!) does suffer when the team is down a member. So I do understand their concern and wonder why they should be expected to pick up my slack. I think Pandora makes a good point that making maternity leave a full year allows a company to hire a long-term replacement where it might not be such a hardship. Unfortunately, it is not incredibly easy to do that in medicine depending on your field.

While I believe women should have the right to extended maternity leave should they want it, I am not so certain that it is our government's job to fund that leave.

Interestingly, medicine is one of a few jobs where it's not uncommon to hire a temp to step in to pick up the slack. Hospitals are at least familiar with the idea of bringing in a locum tenens.

Like lots of hard political issues, there's no clear answer about who should pay for maternity leave. I do think women need better protections though, and really, only the government can ensure that happens. Alternatives to gov't funding leave? I can't really think of any.