Motherhood and Careers

[LJL]

LJL, it's not that I don't think any one given person can do it (and I do wish you the best of luck! especially on all the upcoming interviews) it's that I don't think it's realistic for female lawyers on average.

SO and I also both have good job prospects paired with crippling debt... It's hard to think of a less family-friendly set up. And I hope my secondary market firm will honor their family leave policy, and not push me out for getting knocked up... but I don't assume that will happen. I don't even think it's likely.

Of course not! Then 30% (or less, idk what it is) of the legal work force would be part time employees. What I'm saying is I'm willing to make the long-term sacrifices necessary to have the family SO and I want. What you're saying is I shouldn't have to make those sacrifices and the market/country should be more fair/European/whatever - I'm not saying (too) much about what I think should happen for the country at large, I'm just commenting on how I will deal with the situation when it arises

 

[MissStepcut]

Not more fair. More sustainable. It's about the positive externalities for society when educated people have children.

But I really, really need to outline now, lol. Oh Admin...

 

[Black Jade]

Umm, the last I heard, quite a few countries in the EU, which some are saying is such a paradise for working mothers are like, broke. Apparently there were a lot of people enjoying the social programs,all that paid maternity leave and so forth but they cost quite a bit of money, which is now gone. we in the US are also not financially too well off anymore, a balanced budget seems a bit far off, maybe we shouldn't take on more programs that we have no idea how to pay for?

Plus, in all these paradisaical and enlightened European countries, the birth rate is like, in the toilet the last time I heard, apparently all these wonderful programs do not inspire women to actually have babies, of which there are not enough. Meaning, aging populations, and very soon, scads of retirees and not enough young working people to pay the sky high taxes necessary for said 'ideal' (but incredibly expensive) social programs. Euthanasia, anyone? (0r perhaps I should say, 'right to die'?--because no way are they going to call it 'euthanasia' when it comes).

In the US we still have a decent birthrate, except among east and west coast elites. And while long, paid maternity leaves sound great (except for the catch that someone has to pay for them, somehow, sometime) a whole lot of American women are not terribly enchanted by the other option mentioned, which is lots of state run day care, or state mandated company run daycare. a certain vocal element of the population keeps suggesting that american women want this, but when given the choice, women seem to opt for staying with their own babies for a while, whatever way they can manage it--big government makes a bureaucratic mess of everything they get their hands on, why would a person want them arranging for care for kids?

 

[yssie]

Umm, the last I heard, quite a few countries in the EU, which some are saying is such a paradise for working mothers are like, broke. Apparently there were a lot of people enjoying the social programs,all that paid maternity leave and so forth but they cost quite a bit of money, which is now gone. we in the US are also not financially too well off anymore, a balanced budget seems a bit far off, maybe we shouldn't take on more programs that we have no idea how to pay for?

Plus, in all these paradisaical and enlightened European countries, the birth rate is like, in the toilet the last time I heard, apparently all these wonderful programs do not inspire women to actually have babies, of which there are not enough. Meaning, aging populations, and very soon, scads of retirees and not enough young working people to pay the sky high taxes necessary for said 'ideal' (but incredibly expensive) social programs. Euthanasia, anyone? (0r perhaps I should say, 'right to die'?--because no way are they going to call it 'euthanasia' when it comes).

In the US we still have a decent birthrate, except among east and west coast elites. And while long, paid maternity leaves sound great (except for the catch that someone has to pay for them, somehow, sometime) a whole lot of American women are not terribly enchanted by the other option mentioned, which is lots of state run day care, or state mandated company run daycare. a certain vocal element of the population keeps suggesting that american women want this, but when given the choice, women seem to opt for staying with their own babies for a while, whatever way they can manage it--big government makes a bureaucratic mess of everything they get their hands on, why would a person want them arranging for care for kids?

Ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto.



And Ditto Ditto Ditto Ditto missy's post on Pg3, too.

 

[Laila619]

I think we should be able to talk about this issue without putting the U.S.A. down. IMO, it seems like there's a real double standard--it's not PC for Americans to criticize other countries, but it's fine for other countries to not-so-subtly criticize America all the time. You know what I mean?

 

[mayerling]

Which are the EU countries that have good maternity leave but are also broke?

I don't think places like Scandinavia are by any means broke. The UK isn't broke. France and Germany aren't broke. If you're thinking of places like Greece, it definitely does not have the level of maternity leave that would even compare with the aforementioned countries so I don't think we can argue that maternity leave has led them to default.

And yes, most of Europe is below replacement rate. All the more reason to provide incentives for Europeans to procreate. If we faced the same situation as what people in the US face we'd be long gone.

 

[Pandora II]

I think we should be able to talk about this issue without putting the U.S.A. down. IMO, it seems like there's a real double standard--it's not PC for Americans to criticize other countries, but it's fine for other countries to not-so-subtly criticize America all the time. You know what I mean?

I see no problem in openly criticizing any country - I'm the first to criticize the UK if I think some things don't work well or need changing. Ditto with other countries in the world.

The Italian postal system sucks, the British waiting times for diagnostic tests and treatment for chronic conditions sucks as does the cost of childcare and in my opinion the USA's maternity leave sucks.

Last time I looked, being able to criticize was a big part of free speech. I don't do PC I'm afraid, and don't expect others to do so either.

 

[iheartscience]

I think we should be able to talk about this issue without putting the U.S.A. down. IMO, it seems like there's a real double standard--it's not PC for Americans to criticize other countries, but it's fine for other countries to not-so-subtly criticize America all the time. You know what I mean?

When the U.S. sucks in comparison with other countries on a particular issue, I don't think it's really putting the U.S. down to point that out. I don't see any U.S. bashing in this thread.

 

[Porridge]

I didn't see anyone putting the USA or any other country down. We're discussing and comparing the pros and cons of various countries' maternity leave policies. We're not putting down entire nations here.

 

[iheartscience]

Which are the EU countries that have good maternity leave but are also broke?

I don't think places like Scandinavia are by any means broke. The UK isn't broke. France and Germany aren't broke. If you're thinking of places like Greece, it definitely does not have the level of maternity leave that would even compare with the aforementioned countries so I don't think we can argue that maternity leave has led them to default.

And yes, most of Europe is below replacement rate. All the more reason to provide incentives for Europeans to procreate. If we faced the same situation as what people in the US face we'd be long gone.

Exactly-the countries with the most generous maternity leaves are far from broke.

And as for the state run childcare Black Jade mentioned-yep, that sounds great! Again, my brother and SIL live in Sweden with their 3 kids, and the basically free (I think the MOST you can pay is $100/month, which is based on your income) childcare is fantastic. Your kids go to one close to your house starting at I believe 18 months, all subsequent children are guaranteed placement in the same day care, and since the teachers at the daycares are paid a reasonable wage, they're educated in child development and enjoy working with kids. Sounds terrible, huh?

ETA wanted to add that Sweden is also encouraging fathers to take paternity leave, so usually they take their leave after the mother takes her leave. I had never seen so many men out with little kids, pushing strollers, etc. before I visited Sweden. It was fantastic!

 

[phoenixgirl]

I've really enjoyed getting to hear perspectives from all over the world. I don't really have any cohesive thoughts on the subject but I did discuss this with my mother last night -- my mother who felt that her choices were to be a nurse, a teacher, or a social worker, and who always told me I should be a rocket scientist (too bad math and science are not my things).

I'm glad that today women can have careers if they choose. It's still not an equal playing field, but the opportunities are there. Maybe we'll even have a female president in the US some day.

But the negatives, as I see it, are that the economy has adjusted to a standard of living based on two incomes. It is very difficult to live on one income for many people. So now the woman in the workforce isn't about choice or freedom or equality but about necessity. Progress?

While throughout human history I don't think mothers/primary caregivers sat around staring at their babies and reading parenting books. I think everyone worked hard just to stay alive and kids mostly looked after themselves. So I'm certainly not saying that children need a parent at home, but today, like I said, that has become something a lot of people can't afford. And if the parents are not happy to have both parents working full time, then that cause stress and unhappiness.

What people need is good quality childcare, and in many cases only the rich are feeling really great about their nanny or their exclusive daycare. So the people with so-so care are paying a huge percentage of their income for something that isn't even giving peace of mind. Again, what's the point there?

It's been very eye-opening to hear from the female lawyers about the "motherhood penalty." What is the point of "having it all" - the career and the family - if you're penalized for the latter in the former?

Hmmm, it seems I am someone with a lot of questions and no answers. I will say, though, that I am very thankful to the feminist movement for my super involved husband. But the rest of what we women have gotten - I'm still not convinced we've come out much ahead on this one.

 

[misssoph]

Well for the Australian perspective...
(and Australalia is relatively economically Ok at the moment)

I am a specialist physician employed part time , half time actually at 20 hours a week in a large metropolitan teaching hospital. I have a 6 year old at full time school and a 4 year old who attends daycare 3 days a week at a final cost to me after rebates of $110 a week. My six year old attends after scool care at her school 2 days a week at a cost to me after rebates of $ 18 a week.
I completed my specialist training( 15 years after entering university) at 32 years of age and worked long hours to that point. I did the usual thing and then got pregnant... And had my 2 kids at 33 and 35.! I applied for a consultant post when my daughter was 4 months old and started work when she was 8 months old.
When my second one was born I worked until 38 weeks as I was well, people in more physically intense jobs can access maternity leave at 34 weeks. I received 14 weeks paid leave at my usual salary, and then unpaid leave till a total of 52weeks. A temporary staff member, younger person gaining valuable work experience, was employed to cover my leave. I also received a one off non means tested government grant of $ 4000 to help with new baby expenses.
A mother going back to work after only a few weeks to full-time employment would by considered very unusual here.

This parental leave is also available to men, though infrequently taken up. One of my male colleagues is currently on a years parental leave. Coincidentally the one who was initially appointed to cover my leave, the stayed on when someone else retired.

Why is Australia different?? Maybe because our politicians are worried about our birth rate? Maybe because we have compulsory voting so politicians have to appeal to the middle ground non idealistic voters if they want to be elected?

This return to work part time after having children is fairly usual for Australian women, with about half of Australian women with preschool aged children working, but usually in a part time way. Many women increase their hours when their kids have grown older. What I notice looking about my hospital workplace is that the pattern does alter a bit between income groups.
Women with lower incomes, such as the receptionists, tend to return to work after the first child, but not after the second as child care costs, loss of family support benefits make it uneconomic
Women on medium incomes such as the skilled professionals such as nurses and physiotherapists may continue to work a couple of days a week to maintain skills but for little economic benefit whilst their kids are little but increase hours when kids are older.
Women on higher incomes like me are limited by the *second shift*. While working part time are also still responsible for the great majority of housekeeping/child rearing so end up working long hours over all.

Is there any difficulty finding part time work. No. Many employers like part time workouts as they are good value. I mean I work half time but do more than half the work of my full time colleages. I can tell you what I will be doing for every hour of my scheduled hours, I am contactable by phone /email on my non paid working days and do a one on two after hours on call roster.
I understand that law is still a difficult area for women in Australia, very hidebound and traditional in outlook in big firms, women I know still work in law but not in the big firms, often in more niche areas.

 

[Circe]

I think there's also a little bit of confusion/overlap between the motivations for providing maternity leave. Is it meant to incentivize birth, making it likelier that women will breed with greater gusto? Or is it meant to improve the quality of life for women, making it possible for them to fully participate in business and industry, without sacrificing the possibility of child-bearing?

I'd say that the countries using it most effectively have both goals in mind: I know in Sweden and England, at least, there's a conscientious focus on eliminating the onus against maternity leave because they want women to be more equally represented in the upper echelon of management, politics, etc., and they realize that making childbirth into a possibility, removing the stigma by making sure men take leave too, etc., etc., will only benefit the country in the long run.

I'm not, however, quite sure, that that's a big goal in America today, given that large swathes of the population seem to misunderstand any attempt to move from a system that favors white dudes to a biased quota system, AA, feminists taking over, etc. Always fascinates me that the current system is seen as "fair" when it's so clearly biased (just, you know - in the traditional way).

 

[bee*]

I didn't see anyone putting the USA or any other country down. We're discussing and comparing the pros and cons of various countries' maternity leave policies. We're not putting down entire nations here.

I agree. I've actually enjoyed reading the differences between different countries. I do find it baffling that there is so little leave available after giving birth though.

 

[mayerling]

I think there's also a little bit of confusion/overlap between the motivations for providing maternity leave. Is it meant to incentivize birth, making it likelier that women will breed with greater gusto? Or is it meant to improve the quality of life for women, making it possible for them to fully participate in business and industry, without sacrificing the possibility of child-bearing?

I'd say that the countries using it most effectively have both goals in mind: I know in Sweden and England, at least, there's a conscientious focus on eliminating the onus against maternity leave because they want women to be more equally represented in the upper echelon of management, politics, etc., and they realize that making childbirth into a possibility, removing the stigma by making sure men take leave too, etc., etc., will only benefit the country in the long run.

I'm not, however, quite sure, that that's a big goal in America today, given that large swathes of the population seem to misunderstand any attempt to move from a system that favors white dudes to a biased quota system, AA, feminists taking over, etc. Always fascinates me that the current system is seen as "fair" when it's so clearly biased (just, you know - in the traditional way).

Circe, I think you're right. The motivation for providing good maternity leave is so that women will decide to put their career on hold to have kids, and know that they will be able to return to their positions - having lost nothing - and continue to thrive in them.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Question: In the UK, are the same maternity leave benefits (including compensation) provided to all employees? Does an hourly wage worker in, say a coffee shop, get the same type of benefits? What about part-time employees?

 

[mayerling]

In the UK, you need to have been with one employer for at least a week before you fall pregnant in order to be entitled to paid maternity leave from them (which I think it's 13 weeks at 90% of your salary). For another 26 weeks you get the $200 a week from the government that Pandora mentioned earlier.

If you haven't been with them before the pregnancy, but you do have some sort of national insurance contributions (e.g. through self-employment) you still get the $200 a week for 26 weeks. This applies to self-employed people as well, who might not have worked for the whole year - I think you need to have worked for a minimum number of weeks though.

I'm not sure what happens in part-time employment (and by this I mean contract part-time employment, not being paid by the hour) but I assume you still get the 90% of whatever your pro-rata salary is for the first 13 weeks, and the $200 a week for the other 26 weeks.

 

[mrs jam]

This whole idea of "incentivizing" motherhood for a specific group of women gives me the heebie jeebies. It just sounds so weird to want to encourage women to breed for the sake of the greater good. My uterus doesn't owe anything to society. For me, personally, and the higher income couples that we know who are choosing not to have children, our decision isn't really based on what is good for our careers. It's more that we made a conscious decision to reject the social conditioning and societal norms that have made people think that having kids is the next step after marriage. I enjoy my life as it is and have never felt the urge to be a mother. There are too many things I would have to change about my life. And the people who I know who are having kids choose to max out at two so that they can provide their children with the best quality of life and pay for their college education so that their kids won't have to to struggle to work their way through college or deal with paying off student loans. I think Michael Jackson said it best: "If you can't feed your baby... Then don't have a baby." if you can't afford daycare, then don't have a baby.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

I think this is a really interesting discussion and don't find it to be anti-American at all. Different countries have different strengths, it is widely accepted throughout America and the rest of the world that America's family leave/work-life balance and healthcare systems (or at least health insurance systems) are not our strengths. Actually the only comments that I found to be a little insulting/belittling were comments made by people I presume to be Americans about European countries.

IU-
Here are a few studies about the impact of early childhood care, etc. I'm sure there are many more, these came through a quick google search. We adopted our son this year (he just turned 3). Many of my opinions have been shaped by the piles of books on early childhood development, family bonding/attachment, etc. that I read over the past 2 years while were considering adoption and now through our own experiences as we grow as a family and parent our son.

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/seccyd.cfm
http://issuu.com/naccrra/docs/families-in-low-income-communities
http://www.llli.org/docs/Outcomes_of_breastfeeding_June_2007.pdfAccess to quality
http://healthiergeneration.org/about.aspx?id=3439
http://journals.lww.com/iycjournal/Abstract/1998/07000/Stress,_Early_Brain_Development,_and_Behavior.4.aspx

Also it's probably only fair to state that I am a stats skeptic, having seen firsthand in business school and work how stats can be manipulated to support your conclusion

My rationale for the US improving its maternity leave, health care, and daycare options is not to incentivize higher-income people to increase the birth rate, my point is that it is valuable to our society, now and in the future, to help women of all socio-economic backgrounds to remain a vital part of our work force going forward even if they choose to have children. It seems ridiculous to me to derail a woman's career and curtail her contributions to the economy and society simply because she has children (I'm not saying that SAHM are not making a contribution to the economy or that women should have children, I completely respect both of those viewpoints, but I'm just talking about WOHM moms right now ). IMO the far better solution is to provide some support and flexibility, especially during the critical first year, to help ensure that a woman remains able to work if she needs/wants to.

Early childcare has been identified as integral to preparing a child for success. Intuitively we know that Babies can't take care of themselves...Whether that care comes in the form of quality daycare or maternal care seems to be somewhat similar in terms of cognitive and social development (though there are some slight difference); however there are some huge caveats:

-typically parental involvment is usually recognized as the largest factor on a child's development, if parents (men and women) are both worked to the extreme, not allowed time to deal with post-partum mental and physical issues, and not given flexibility to balance work and family, there are certainly some significantly limiting factors to the quantity and quality of their involvement with their child

-for women, 12 weeks is a very short amount of time to physically, psychologically, and hormonally recover from birth (whether vaginal or caesarean)

-if a woman wants to breastfeed it is very difficult to do while working a demanding job, especially during the first 6 months or so, while working. pumping takes an extraordinary level of commitment and many work situations are not ar all conducive to it (in my job it is impossible, not b/c of the work, but b/c of the work culture. Even if you schedule your pumping sessions as "meetings" people disregard them and intentionally schedule other items then and the only pumping option is in the bathroom. No woman has chosen to stay in my department for very long after having a child b/c of this culture. Again, this is not about the work requirements, it is about the culture, and please remember that I work in the non-profit sector which in many cases is theoretically more "Family-friendly".)

-breastfeeding has been shown to often help a child's health in terms of lowering obesity risk and promote immune system development

So, for PSers who have great jobs, can afford to take 12 unpaid weeks of leave (or have paid leave), can hire a lactaction consultant, can pump in their office, can send their child to an excellent daycare environment and/or have an amazing nanny, have support at home through spouse or family, assistance with cooking/cleaning, and are able to schedule some "me time" so that they can be refreshed and patient with their children...there's probably not a significant difference in their child's development, though even with all those luxuries, parents are certainly still dealing with challenging circumstances and a major life change, particularly during the first year and there can be some issues, especially with bonding and attachment and with parents being burnt out and less productive at work and at home.

For the rest of America, there is a HUGE different in their quality of life in their child's development. if you can't afford and/or don't have access to high-quality childcare (which is very difficult to find and astronomically expensive where I live--for infants you really need to go on a waiting list BEFORE you even get pregnant for great care centers and excellent nannys are very difficult to find and ones that will take young infants are very limited and much more expensive), work long days at a mid to low paying job, have no help at home and/or your partner is as overworked as you, are feeding your kid take-out/processed food, are sleep deprived and hormonal...then no, your child is probably not getting optimal care and not being situated for success. Stress is a very significant factor in child development, particularly child brain development (and you are probably not functioning as an optimal worker during the first 6-12 months either!).

Children's brains do not develop properly when neglected and or stressed. in the above situation, you are stressed, your child is stressed, your child is not getting great nutrition or quality time with quality caregivers, especially during the crucial first year, and the majority of your paycheck is going towards daycare that you don't feel great about and is likely not providing your child with a great start in life.
In lower quality daycares (including many of the "good" daycares in my area) most children eat government food (like school lunches--high in fat, sugar, and processed foods) there are many studies that link eating these highly processed foods to ADHD, obesity, etc. in school-aged children. The impact is even greater when they are consumed at very young ages.

I believe that helping to support parents during the first 6-12 months, especially mothers who deal with the physical aspects of labor and breastfeeding, with help promote the development of more "successful" children. I also think that it will help to retain high performing female (and to some extent male workers) in the workforce now--regardless of whether they are cashiers or secretaries or attorneys or doctors.

Someone has to raise children. It takes a lot of time and effort and money. Parents do commit to all those things and certainly must take responsibility and make sacrifices, but in the U.S. it is becoming untenable for many, particularly the middle class namely during the first 6 years and especially during the first 6-12 months; however, as this thread illustrates it is also becoming very difficult for people in top income brackets. I think the fundamental underlying issue, especially in America is that capitalism (the extreme and warped notion of capitalism that we currently espouse which props up the corporation and undercuts the individual--which I personally think are two very unAmerican ideals) doesn't value the importance of people and the necessity of constant, difficult to measure and even more difficult to value, work that goes into raising a human being...I don't know anything about this organization, but I think there are some interesting points in this article: http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Current_Situation/

The issues are not all financial, they include lack of being able to take time away from work with job protection, lack of adequate healthcare coverage while away from work, and lack of access to quality childcare. All of these issues draw women out of the workforce, or severely limit their contributions, and do not set children up for success. So yes, I do believe that longer maternity leave, more flexible career paths/work situations (for all jobs), affordable healthcare and affordable quality childcare for infants and toddlers will result in a more educated, healthy, and creative workforce now and in the future.

(Sorry, about the long and somewhat disjointed point, I am typing this in between playdough creations with my son...when I probably should be giving him my undivided attention as recommended in all those studies I'll log back on this afternoon as I really am interested in this discussion and hearing viewpoints from around the world...it would be amazing if PSers in America could actually use this discussion as a starting point to advocate for change!)

 

[Bella_mezzo]

IU-here is an interesting study that reference the benefits of better leave options and how early return to work dramatically lowers breastfeeding rates, etc....
http://www.mcgill.ca/files/ihsp/WFEI2007.pdf

 

[wildcat03]

I think there are two different conversations going on here. The first addresses the corporate world's support (or lack thereof) for mothers - daycare options, breastfeeding, support for flexible hours. The second addresses government support for mothers - healthcare, paid time off, job protection for new mothers.

The first set of desires, I wholeheartedly endorse. If the hospital at which I'm a resident can pay a six figure income for a non-physician CEO, they can afford to support employees who have children. Granted, some things are just not possible. A doctor can not see patients from home, nurses can not tend to patients from home. But we can have clean rooms for pumping, a subsidized on-site day care, a health insurance that is affordable for dependents.

As for government involvement, I am always reluctant to think that government should "do more" because whatever they get their hands on quickly turns into a mess. That being said, if we lobby for the government to provide all of this, it comes at a cost - our taxes will go up. Given our current economic state and the impending expense of Obamacare, I'm not sure even our current position is tenable.

On another note, I haven't seen much talk about physicians having babies here. Some of the best groups in my specialty are almost exclusively male OR women who have already had their children. Why? Because if someone is out on maternity leave or with a high risk pregnancy (and let's face it - very few women will be able to work until 40 weeks in the emergency department) it places a greater burden on everyone else.

One of my friends (a pathology resident) went to our house staff office with her FMLA leave forms. She planned to take the full 12 weeks after the birth of her son. The director of the office informed her, "Well, you can't do that. You're not an employee, you're a trainee!" I think my friend came back the next day with her paystubs and 403b statements to clarify that although she is a trainee, she's also an employee. She got her 12 weeks. Most people from other programs couldn't even consider taking that much, though. In some programs, if you are "absent from your post" for more than 28 consecutive days, you must repeat the entire year of training. Ouch.

 

[Circe]

This whole idea of "incentivizing" motherhood for a specific group of women gives me the heebie jeebies. It just sounds so weird to want to encourage women to breed for the sake of the greater good. My uterus doesn't owe anything to society. For me, personally, and the higher income couples that we know who are choosing not to have children, our decision isn't really based on what is good for our careers. It's more that we made a conscious decision to reject the social conditioning and societal norms that have made people think that having kids is the next step after marriage. I enjoy my life as it is and have never felt the urge to be a mother. There are too many things I would have to change about my life. And the people who I know who are having kids choose to max out at two so that they can provide their children with the best quality of life and pay for their college education so that their kids won't have to to struggle to work their way through college or deal with paying off student loans. I think Michael Jackson said it best: "If you can't feed your baby... Then don't have a baby." if you can't afford daycare, then don't have a baby.

Er ...okay, I'm the first to admit I suck at math, but ....

In NY, at least, rent is usually around 50% of your income. So, working backwards - let's say a single woman or a couple with one kid, squeezing into a one-bedroom apartment, in the most bare-bones safe-ish neighborhood possible ... mmm, 1500 a month. Multiply that by 12 months, times two to figure out their remaining salary, we've got 36K a year. Add in food, heat, and assume something towards student loans these days: lets say their remaining disposable income goes as high as ten whole thousand dollars a year. So, 46K. Add the 18K worth of childcare that's the cheapest I've found so far: 64K.

We're really saying that if you earn less than 64K a year joint income, you shouldn't reproduce? Yikes. And, let's be clear: it's not that you shouldn't reproduce, it's just that you shouldn't reproduce and expect to be able to work. You (or rather, your partner) can stay at the 40ishK a year figure - less if you skip college and go debt-free, ladies, you don't need those educations! - and have kids if you plan to stay home with them. You're just screwed if you want to participate in public life: to have a voice in industry; make women, as a class, active participants in shaping the world.

While I'm all for breaking free of social conditioning and societal norms that make women into breeders and nothing more, I cannot help but feel that the above is more likely to force a stark choice between living in the paradigm established by men, for men, or conforming to the limited role they've traditionally decreed appropriate for women ....

P.S. - Can I just point out what a sad commentary it is on our government's efficacy that so many people here are like, "Day care would be nice, just don't let them run it! Better our children be raised by feral hamsters than that we let the federal government establish baseline standards!" Yikes.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

This whole idea of "incentivizing" motherhood for a specific group of women gives me the heebie jeebies. It just sounds so weird to want to encourage women to breed for the sake of the greater good. My uterus doesn't owe anything to society. For me, personally, and the higher income couples that we know who are choosing not to have children, our decision isn't really based on what is good for our careers. It's more that we made a conscious decision to reject the social conditioning and societal norms that have made people think that having kids is the next step after marriage. I enjoy my life as it is and have never felt the urge to be a mother. There are too many things I would have to change about my life. And the people who I know who are having kids choose to max out at two so that they can provide their children with the best quality of life and pay for their college education so that their kids won't have to to struggle to work their way through college or deal with paying off student loans. I think Michael Jackson said it best: "If you can't feed your baby... Then don't have a baby." if you can't afford daycare, then don't have a baby.

Er ...okay, I'm the first to admit I suck at math, but ....

In NY, at least, rent is usually around 50% of your income. So, working backwards - let's say a single woman or a couple with one kid, squeezing into a one-bedroom apartment, in the most bare-bones safe-ish neighborhood possible ... mmm, 1500 a month. Multiply that by 12 months, times two to figure out their remaining salary, we've got 36K a year. Add in food, heat, and assume something towards student loans these days: lets say their remaining disposable income goes as high as ten whole thousand dollars a year. So, 46K. Add the 18K worth of childcare that's the cheapest I've found so far: 64K.

We're really saying that if you earn less than 64K a year joint income, you shouldn't reproduce?

There are many areas of the country where a couple would have no issues raising a family on less than 64K per year. I think it would be much more responsible for this couple to move to a city with a lower cost of living rather than having a child they know they can't afford in their current city. Would they want to move? Maybe not, but having kids = making sacrifices.

 

[ksinger]

This whole idea of "incentivizing" motherhood for a specific group of women gives me the heebie jeebies. It just sounds so weird to want to encourage women to breed for the sake of the greater good. My uterus doesn't owe anything to society. For me, personally, and the higher income couples that we know who are choosing not to have children, our decision isn't really based on what is good for our careers. It's more that we made a conscious decision to reject the social conditioning and societal norms that have made people think that having kids is the next step after marriage. I enjoy my life as it is and have never felt the urge to be a mother. There are too many things I would have to change about my life. And the people who I know who are having kids choose to max out at two so that they can provide their children with the best quality of life and pay for their college education so that their kids won't have to to struggle to work their way through college or deal with paying off student loans. I think Michael Jackson said it best: "If you can't feed your baby... Then don't have a baby." if you can't afford daycare, then don't have a baby.

Er ...okay, I'm the first to admit I suck at math, but ....

In NY, at least, rent is usually around 50% of your income. So, working backwards - let's say a single woman or a couple with one kid, squeezing into a one-bedroom apartment, in the most bare-bones safe-ish neighborhood possible ... mmm, 1500 a month. Multiply that by 12 months, times two to figure out their remaining salary, we've got 36K a year. Add in food, heat, and assume something towards student loans these days: lets say their remaining disposable income goes as high as ten whole thousand dollars a year. So, 46K. Add the 18K worth of childcare that's the cheapest I've found so far: 64K.

We're really saying that if you earn less than 64K a year joint income, you shouldn't reproduce? Yikes. And, let's be clear: it's not that you shouldn't reproduce, it's just that you shouldn't reproduce and expect to be able to work. You (or rather, your partner) can stay at the 40ishK a year figure - less if you skip college and go debt-free, ladies, you don't need those educations! - and have kids if you plan to stay home with them. You're just screwed if you want to participate in public life: to have a voice in industry; make women, as a class, active participants in shaping the world.

While I'm all for breaking free of social conditioning and societal norms that make women into breeders and nothing more, I cannot help but feel that the above is more likely to force a stark choice between living in the paradigm established by men, for men, or conforming to the limited role they've traditionally decreed appropriate for women ....

P.S. - Can I just point out what a sad commentary it is on our government's efficacy that so many people here are like, "Day care would be nice, just don't let them run it! Better our children be raised by feral hamsters than that we let the federal government establish baseline standards!" Yikes.

Well, I know I live in a different part of the country than most, but I can tell you, out here in the hinterlands feminism was never on fire, and now it's positively moribund (as anyone paying attention to the truly ugly anti-woman legislation this part of the country is becoming famous for authoring), particularly among younger women I've talked to, who - if they think of it at all, consider feminism to be old, passe, and having ugly connotations, which is odd, since they can only afford to be nonchalant about the protections they DO have, due to the feminism they hate. My irony meter breaks every time I hear that attitude.

I asked the question of a 26 year old in my office - what is your stance on feminism. I wish I'd saved the entire IM chat, but in a nutshell, she disavowed the label, thought feminsm was eating itself(??), and said her generation preferred to consider themselves...humanists? (I think there was more, but I can't recall her exact wording). Then ensued a long discussion of the acrimony and male pushback encountered in the world of online gaming, where she is something of an oddity, online gaming being dominated by males. She also said that she encountered a lot of aggression from females, if she pointed out what she considered some of the not-so-good things that women do.

She agreed that our attitude towards maternity was ghastly, but didn't seem concerned enough to consider it something worth trying to change. She also admitted to not having read any of the seminal (and yes, my irony meter twitched to even use that word) feminist works, so I question if she really has a good grasp on the history of how women were treated in the US, or what the feminist movement was really concerned with. And I get this attitude quite a lot, and not just from young women. Many older women too, seem to think everything is done now.

However, i'm not one of those older women.

 

[mrs jam]

This whole idea of "incentivizing" motherhood for a specific group of women gives me the heebie jeebies. It just sounds so weird to want to encourage women to breed for the sake of the greater good. My uterus doesn't owe anything to society. For me, personally, and the higher income couples that we know who are choosing not to have children, our decision isn't really based on what is good for our careers. It's more that we made a conscious decision to reject the social conditioning and societal norms that have made people think that having kids is the next step after marriage. I enjoy my life as it is and have never felt the urge to be a mother. There are too many things I would have to change about my life. And the people who I know who are having kids choose to max out at two so that they can provide their children with the best quality of life and pay for their college education so that their kids won't have to to struggle to work their way through college or deal with paying off student loans. I think Michael Jackson said it best: "If you can't feed your baby... Then don't have a baby." if you can't afford daycare, then don't have a baby.

.

We're really saying that if you earn less than 64K a year joint income, you shouldn't reproduce? Yikes. And, let's be clear: it's not that you shouldn't reproduce, it's just that you shouldn't reproduce and expect to be able to work. You (or rather, your partner) can stay at the 40ishK a year figure - less if you skip college and go debt-free, ladies, you don't need those educations! - and have kids if you plan to stay home with them. You're just screwed if you want to participate in public life: to have a voice in industry; make women, as a class, active participants in shaping the world.

My thoughts are if a couple can't afford daycare options that are acceptable to them, then they're not ready for the financial responsibility of having a child. Having children is not a must-do in life, so if a couple is living in an area where the cost of living is disproportionate to their income, the sensible thing to do seems to either move or postpone having kiddos until they're in a better place financially. I admit though that the thought of having kids doesn't give me the warm fuzzies, so it's easier to be cold-heartedly logical about it. And quote Michael Jackson lyrics.

 

[iugurl]

Longer maternity leave does not mean everyone will breastfeed. Most women I know have strong ideas either for or against breastfeeding, regardless of maternity leave. Staying home longer may make it easier to continue, but if a woman feels strongly about it, there are other options such as pumping. Btw the first study was regarding the first 4 1/2 years of life. I dont think a year of materniy leave can really be supported by that study since that wouldnt even be 1/4 of the time the study is about. 2 of the other links did not work, at least on my iPhone.

 

[Bliss]

I think it is horrendous how difficult it is for many women in the U.S. who want to have kids. One bourgeois acquaintance sniffed once, "People who can't afford to stay home and mother their kids shouldn't have kids. It's like having a big dog. I'd like one but if I lived in a small apartment, it would be selfish to get one. Why have kids if you're going to dump them in daycare?" Ummmm, because some people HAVE to? Just seems very out of touch with reality for many people who depend on two incomes. I was like, "Really???!!"

Then again, I do know a couple who probably could afford to have the mom stay home with their tiny baby. But they're leaving the baby with a nanny even though the mom wants to stay home. They say they can't afford to, but the mom is crazy for Chanel and diamonds. I think in this case, I would cut back on spending and stay home rather than have the Chanel and bling. Sometimes you can't help working, sometimes you WANT to work and sometimes you don't want to give up the lifestyle to stay home. Like Kenny says, people vary.

I do think that 3 weeks of maternity leave is atrocious. And women ARE penalized for having kids and shifting their priorities. I can't think of a single case in which this would not apply. You can have it "all" on paper, but somewhere...something will suffer: the career, the kids, the marriage, the mother & etc. You can only juggle 10 dishes for so long.

 

[Pandora II]

I find the 'if you can't afford the daycare, don't have children' thing an incredible attitude I'm afraid. So, breeding is purely allowed for the uber-rich and those on welfare?

It could also be phrased as 'if you still have people sleeping homeless on your streets then you can't afford to play soldiers'.

Governments choose to spend tax-money on all sorts of different things, I happen to think that investing in maternity leave and services is a way of spending money well. It allows women - who have often cost a lot to educate and train - to return to the workplace while also providing a good quality of early-years care to their children.


Someone asked about the situation for part-time employees in the UK:

If you have worked for your employer for 26 weeks before the 15th week before the EDD of the baby, then you are entitled to Statutory Maternity Pay - 90% of your wages for the first 6 weeks, then $200 a week max (if your usual pay is less than $200 then 90% of your usual weekly pay) for the next 33 weeks.

You are covered by the same rights as a full-time employee in terms of right to take 52 weeks leave, to accrue holiday during that time and to return to the same role.

If you are self-employed and have been earning at least $50 a week and paying National Insurance contributions for 26 weeks in the 66 weeks before the EDD of the baby, then you qualify for Maternity Allowance. Maternity Allowance is paid at $200 a week or 90% of income (whichever is lower) for 39 weeks.

Forgot to mention a few other things that we also get here:

- paid time-off for all antenatal visits including parenting classes/antenatal classes.
- free dental care and free medical prescriptions from when your pregnancy begins until your child turns 1.
- if you have worked for a company for over a year then you can take up to 13 weeks of unpaid leave up until each child's 5th birthday (max 4 weeks in any year). This can be used for the child being ill etc so you don't need to use holiday time if you don't wish to. Parents with disabled children get 18 weeks per child. Both parents can qualify for this.

Once you have had a baby, we also have home visits from the midwives everyday for the first 10 days (including weekends) and longer if necessary to check that everything is going okay, that the baby is putting on weight and that you're not developing PPD/PPP and help with any breastfeeding issues.

Mind you, I believe in Holland you get a 'kraamzorg' move in with you for 8 days after the birth to help with everything, minimise any stresses and help the mother and baby bond and establish breastfeeding. (Personally the thought of having anyone to stay for 8 days would put my bloodpressure through the roof - but it's one of the ideals that the UK government would like ton eventually provide).

 

[iugurl]

I find the 'if you can't afford the daycare, don't have children' thing an incredible attitude I'm afraid. So, breeding is purely allowed for the uber-rich and those on welfare?

Umm.. no??? I think if you look at the number of women in the U.S. who have kids, I really doubt the majority come from the uber-rich and welfare. I know countless "regular" income families who have multiple kids in daycare. They may not have tons of money left over to spend on fancy vacations or whatever, but they have what the needs plus some! Look over the pregnancy forums geared towards American women. I am sure the majority of these women are not uberrich or on welfare. How do you think so many babies are born every year, if only the very wealthy or very poor have children?

 

[missy]

This whole idea of "incentivizing" motherhood for a specific group of women gives me the heebie jeebies. It just sounds so weird to want to encourage women to breed for the sake of the greater good. My uterus doesn't owe anything to society. For me, personally, and the higher income couples that we know who are choosing not to have children, our decision isn't really based on what is good for our careers. It's more that we made a conscious decision to reject the social conditioning and societal norms that have made people think that having kids is the next step after marriage. I enjoy my life as it is and have never felt the urge to be a mother. There are too many things I would have to change about my life. And the people who I know who are having kids choose to max out at two so that they can provide their children with the best quality of life and pay for their college education so that their kids won't have to to struggle to work their way through college or deal with paying off student loans. I think Michael Jackson said it best: "If you can't feed your baby... Then don't have a baby." if you can't afford daycare, then don't have a baby.

Er ...okay, I'm the first to admit I suck at math, but ....

In NY, at least, rent is usually around 50% of your income. So, working backwards - let's say a single woman or a couple with one kid, squeezing into a one-bedroom apartment, in the most bare-bones safe-ish neighborhood possible ... mmm, 1500 a month. Multiply that by 12 months, times two to figure out their remaining salary, we've got 36K a year. Add in food, heat, and assume something towards student loans these days: lets say their remaining disposable income goes as high as ten whole thousand dollars a year. So, 46K. Add the 18K worth of childcare that's the cheapest I've found so far: 64K.

We're really saying that if you earn less than 64K a year joint income, you shouldn't reproduce?

There are many areas of the country where a couple would have no issues raising a family on less than 64K per year. I think it would be much more responsible for this couple to move to a city with a lower cost of living rather than having a child they know they can't afford in their current city. Would they want to move? Maybe not, but having kids = making sacrifices.

Yes, having children means having to make sacrifices no matter where you live. Period.

The idea that one has the "right" to live in the city (NYC in this instance in response to Circe) and pay 50% of their income on rent is ludicrous (IMO). Most of my friends who have had children have moved out of the city. Just for that reason. I think paying 50% of your income towards rent (or mortgage) is fiscally risky (dare I say irresponsible for most).

No one has the "right" to have a baby. It is a privilege and should be treated as such. (Sure people who shouldn't do but that is another story and we are not discussing that topic right now). To bring another life into this (already overcrowded) world you better be well aware of the expense and long term sacrifice it will entail. Anyone who cannot afford this has no business procreating. To be clear I am not saying only the well off can have babies. Not at all. There are many people who earn well under 64K who can and do have babies. But they just shouldn't do it in an expensive city where they would have trouble making ends meet without children let alone with.

I agree with iugirl. It is just not the wealthy and the poor having children. Not even close.
I work with many different people who earn vastly different amounts and all across the board they are having babies and making it work despite the difficulties when there is not a lot of money. This is where strong family support comes into play as well as being creative. You certainly do not need to earn lots of money to raise a happy family. Even my own sister doesn't have her kids in daycare (doesn't want to and cost would be a factor but it doesn't matter since she doesn't want this option regardless). My parents watch my nieces when she is working and when they cannot she or her husband take off work for that day if I cannot help her out. There are lower cost options out there as well. You just need to get creative.

Regarding breastfeeding- where there is a will there is a way. Most moms I know breastfed even though they had to go back to work after a few months. They did so by pumping. Was it difficult? Yes. Did it stop them from doing it? No. And if it did it was their decision KWIM?

To expect that the government owes you a year off paid so you can raise your infant in comfort is rather self serving. To have kids is an expensive, time consuming and tough job. Let's face it our government simply cannot afford it now (and not sure they ever will be able to) and there are many other important things that need addressing that are less luxurious than a year paid maternity leave.

It is not your right to have children just as it is not your right to have a good job. One must work for these things in life. At least in the US as I cannot comment as to other countries. Though I will say that in welfare states there are (some) individuals that have the mindset that things are owed to them. That it is their right to be happy. In my mind it is one's right to pursue happiness but not to be handed everything on a silver platter so to speak. One of the very real possible consequences of the welfare state- when handing out benefits and thereby taking away the individual's responsibility for his or her own life is that you are turning people into individuals who are weak and irresponsible and needy. I see it in the US with the abuse of the welfare system.


I rather like Thing2's description of Sweden and the way they take care of their citizens in so many ways. Very different and what works there will not work here. And it is important to remember that in a state the confiscates a massive portion of your income nothing is truly free. In addition, from what I understand, many people are paying for private health care since the accessibility to Swedish public healthcare is low. Also, there is the potential for many abuses within the EU welfare system (our system is not the only susceptible to abuse). The lesson from history is that over time, more and more people will choose government assistance as an alternative to work, hide their income from the state, and overuse generous public systems. I just add this as a caveat that there truly is no perfect system though on paper some seem more perfect than others. And I am not putting down any country as I am the first to say the USA has lots of work to do to make things better.

I want the government running as few things as possible. That has always been and probably will always be my view.