Motherhood and Careers

[Pandora II]

No, they are having children - but many are paying a huge price to do so in many different ways.

What some of us are saying here is that it doesn't have to be this way.

The European and Canadian mothers on PS look at our American sisters and are filled with sorrow when we read about their anguish at putting their tiny newborn baby into daycare because they have to go back to work so soon.

We listen to the struggles they have with breast-feeding and supplies dropping (pumping doesn't have the same hormonal effect and makes it much harder to continue to produce milk), and with juggling commutes, workloads and normal life with the changes - and sheer exhaustion - that having a small child brings and feel angry that it is so hard for people.

We can't see that having the rights and benefits that we have, has meant that we have less in any other way than you guys do - and we wonder what the mindset is that makes a country not feel that these things are important and why women aren't marching in the streets.

 

[LJL]

Well said Missy - I was hoping you would come back and say something more eloquently than I I'm just gonna +1 to all of that -especially children as a luxury and limits on government. I think one of the big reasons why we don't have maternity leave like in other countries is that a lot of people wouldn't want it/vote for it. There are a lot of people raising their children without help from the government that wouldn't want it if it meant higher taxes, there are those who will remain childless who don't want to be taxed so that others can take a year to comfortably child-rear (regardless of large-scale benefits of better citizens, etc), and there are those who have had children already who would say "I did it without help and so can you!"

I think if you put out a national initiative right now (in a fantasy world where thats possible lol) - I think the types of health care and maternity leave that are seen in European countries would not pass the vote in the US. This is where someone says "yea thats why those in Congress are elected -to give us what we need, not what we want" but I think that its just ultimately a difference in historical values that causes the United States to be different from many European countries. Many would rather sacrifice to make the choice to have their own child than sacrifice money to the government for maternity leave for everyone.

 

[MissStepcut]

Missy, I simply disagree that it's self-serving to ask the government (and yes, that means the rest of the country's taxpayers) to foot the bill for a year of maternity leave. I think that someone raising children is a GIFT that they're giving everyone else, if they're decent parents. Because we need a next generation.

But I see that not everyone sees it that way and I don't think all the studies and statistics in the world could close the gap between the American view and my own view of children as positive externalities. So where it seems that some people think that taxing everyone to benefit mothers is wrong, I think it's simply paying mothers back for the externality they're bearing for everyone else's benefit.

The fact that parents find parenting rewarding is non-responsive.

I can sense that continuing down the road of "who should we encourage to be parents" will lead us into a whole world of controversial issues that I don't really feel comfortable getting into. I am reminded of the controversy surrounding Justice Ginsberg's comments on abortion access (which also was ultimately a public goods/externalities argument that sounds less offensive to lawyers than laypeople).

I will say, though, that I think one of the traits that defines Americans, and that I am quite proud of, is that we have the freedom to act in our own best interest or to our own detriment. It leads to some negative outcomes, but some positive outcomes too... just like any other system. If you give people the freedom to not buy health insurance, some aren't going to buy it, and people in countries with nationalized healthcare are going to be appalled when they hear a story of someone who made the choice not to buy insurance faces negative consequences, but I think that's part of the American spirit and I hope it's something we continue to respect politically.

I do think it doesn't apply to every tenet of life though, and trying to make bad analogies is a dangerous game. For the reasons I've already gone through in this thread, I think motherhood is different than healthcare generally, but I also respect that some people don't value it the way I do.

 

[Circe]

Here's the thing, though: in the parts of the country where the standard of living is lower? You also have fewer job opportunities, and fewer job opportunities that offer less in the way of remuneration, at that. So it's a little disingenuous to say people should just move - it's a case of wherever you go, there you are, still in the beartrap of American culture being astonishingly unfriendly to working mothers.

I cannot for the life of me remember the exact source for this, but I remember reading an article recently that said, soooooooooo ... out of the developed nations of the world, what're the odds that Papua New Guineau, Swaziland, and the USA are the only ones who've gotten it right when it comes to maternity leave? Because everybody else - everybody else - values women's contributions in the workplace more than we three. Good company, eh?

Again, I'm not saying that having children is necessarily A Thing Every Woman Should Do. I'm not even saying it's a thing we should incentivize among our high-achievers (for various creepy eugenics-related reasons, though I do think it would be pure common sense). But I'm happy to go out on a very short limb to say that this country is misogynist as hell, hugely disinclined to promote women in the workplace, and apparently unconcerned with the negative consequences that this will hold for us long-term when compared to other developed nations.

Circe = Concern for Ladies Employment & Social Influence: not Circe = Huge Investment in Entitlement Towards Breeding. It's when we see a persistent pattern of women as a class being forced to sacrifice the former for the latter - not "society," not "people," and certainly not men, but specifically women - that I start to worry that we're not making any progress: that somewhere along the way, we took a wrong turn.

P.S. - Now I want to make a spin-off thread, one with a polling option, but before I do, rough show of hands: people who support the concept of paid maternity leave and/or further subsidized childcare, is it personally relevant to you? Are you members of the workforce who have or intend to reproduce? People who object to it ... similarly, is this a practical concern, or a philosophical one? Just curious.

 

[LJL]

Circe, if you make the poll, put lots of options! I think this is a circumstance where many people might believe in some small change (due to ignorance at how stingy the current system is) like 6 months unpaid, but not going as far as other countries..
I know I would support some unpaid options, but not most paid (by govt or compelled employer) options.

I'm quite curious myself... though I don't think PS would be a very unbiased souce

 

[MissStepcut]

Circe, if you make the poll, put lots of options! I think this is a circumstance where many people might believe in some small change (due to ignorance at how stingy the current system is) like 6 months unpaid, but not going as far as other countries..
I know I would support some unpaid options, but not most paid (by govt or compelled employer) options.

I'm quite curious myself... though I don't think PS would be a very unbiased souce

I also wouldn't support employer-compelled maternity leave. It's begging for (even more) employment discrimination.

 

[swimmer]

I live in the US and work for a town and a university who both have chosen to provide childcare so that they can keep their highly trained female employees after they reproduce. I think it could be called the third way...it isn't govt providing childcare and it isn't for the super rich, its just good business sense.

The school where I work kept losing good teachers after they had children because daycare centers don't really meet the needs of teachers hours or schedules and can cost more than a reasonable chunk of paycheck. So, they turned an unused wing of an elementary school into a daycare. The teachers who use the center pay the salaries of the workers and for good health insurance, quality toys, and I think the electricity since that wing had been dark but was heated anyway. The cost is half that of other places since there is no rent, advertising, etc. I stayed at my job because of the availability of this excellent and affordable care. I was not "incentivized" to reproduce, but rather to remain at work with my child in excellent affordable care minutes away. My district did not have to pay to find and train a new teacher, they got to keep a whole slew of highly trained women who they would otherwise would have lost for financial and scheduling difficulties. The school district wins, the students win, and the teachers' families win. Why can't fancy pants law firms figure this out?

At the university where I teach a similar scenario is played out with undergraduates who are studying child development and early education required to spend hours at the child care facility for faculty members. Again, students win through keeping experienced faculty, students gain valuable experience, the university gets to claim that they prepare students with "real world experiences," and the faculty members' families win. So I guess this isn't going to work in a law firm where they see lawyers as a commodity that can be used up, there are after all more freshly minted every year, but someone could figure out another option if they really wanted to that would benefit all involved.

I am never one to think that big business is going to solve any problems, I think that only the govt could build bridges, electrify the rural south, get vaccination popular enough that some now have the luxury of choosing not to get them, and any host of social ills or equity issues that I can't imagine how business would try to "fix" (pizza a vegetable anyone?) but here is an area where business is clearly not thinking like business and they are losing money in the form of high quality employees walking out the door because they don't have options.

 

[iheartscience]

Here's the thing, though: in the parts of the country where the standard of living is lower? You also have fewer job opportunities, and fewer job opportunities that offer less in the way of remuneration, at that. So it's a little disingenuous to say people should just move - it's a case of wherever you go, there you are, still in the beartrap of American culture being astonishingly unfriendly to working mothers.

I cannot for the life of me remember the exact source for this, but I remember reading an article recently that said, soooooooooo ... out of the developed nations of the world, what're the odds that Papua New Guineau, Swaziland, and the USA are the only ones who've gotten it right when it comes to maternity leave? Because everybody else - everybody else - values women's contributions in the workplace more than we three. Good company, eh?

Again, I'm not saying that having children is necessarily A Thing Every Woman Should Do. I'm not even saying it's a thing we should incentivize among our high-achievers (for various creepy eugenics-related reasons, though I do think it would be pure common sense). But I'm happy to go out on a very short limb to say that this country is misogynist as hell, hugely disinclined to promote women in the workplace, and apparently unconcerned with the negative consequences that this will hold for us long-term when compared to other developed nations.

Circe = Concern for Ladies Employment & Social Influence: not Circe = Huge Investment in Entitlement Towards Breeding. It's when we see a persistent pattern of women as a class being forced to sacrifice the former for the latter - not "society," not "people," and certainly not men, but specifically women - that I start to worry that we're not making any progress: that somewhere along the way, we took a wrong turn.

P.S. - Now I want to make a spin-off thread, one with a polling option, but before I do, rough show of hands: people who support the concept of paid maternity leave and/or further subsidized childcare, is it personally relevant to you? Are you members of the workforce who have or intend to reproduce? People who object to it ... similarly, is this a practical concern, or a philosophical one? Just curious.

Exactly. I have absolutely no statistics to back this up, but it seems like the US is one of the few countries with a population who will consistently advocate against their own self-interests. It's just fascinating to me that women who want to have children are opposed to policies that would allow them to stay home with their babies for longer. No mother I've ever met was super stoked to go back to work after 3 months, most likely because it's best for the mother and the child to be together in the early months.

I have no kids and no plans for any at the moment, but as more and more of my friends get pregnant (at least 6 of my friends are pregnant right now ) I find myself thinking about the logistics of having a kid or two. I know if I do have kids I won't want to be a SAHM, but I also know how difficult having a newborn is (I have 9 nieces and nephews), and I can't imagine working full time and doing a good job with a 3 month old at home being fed every few hours at night. My work requires a lot of analytical thinking and even now I have to get a good night's sleep or it takes me way too long to finish a project.

Anywho, I'll stop rambling, but I would definitely be interested in a poll!

 

[Bliss]

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 FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Seriously, I am nodding at everything you wrote. You are so eloquent and I can't help but think that your son is soooo lucky to have you as a mom. You are such an intelligent & caring mother. Little guy is soooo lucky to have you and Daddy.

I love this discussion & am learning so much about how things are in other countries. This is why I love PS...the discourse of intelligent women!!!!

I also agree with what you wrote and the articles you provided about quality daycare. I can't imagine the daycares out there with tons of infants/toddlers to a handful of providers. Many babies have to wait in dirty diapers to be changed, wait to be comforted and are left unstimulated and unloved in lower quality daycares. Some of them give up crying because they learn quickly that their voices aren't important in the chaotic juggle with other crying infants competing for the provider's care. I have a friend who used to work at a daycare and she says they fill out stories of the babies sometimes before the day even starts. She couldn't bear to work there anymore because it was all about making money with as few resources as possible.

With the articles I read (and the one you provided) about how stress and lack of attention affect babies' brains, I can only imagine how lower quality care affects babies' learning and personalities later in adulthood. How can we as a nation allow this to happen? Why can only the privileged have good high quality care for their kids? Isn't our priority to look after everyone? In these lower quality daycares, kids are bitten, hit and kicked by other toddlers with minimum wage workers doing all they can to watch several children at once. They are also rewarded for bad behavior (the ones who fight or scream get attention) and are under constant stress. Also, they are sick all the time. Babies need their mother's arms in those tender critical months. Why do we force women back to work so soon??? Sure, companies make more money...but at what cost to our future? What is the right thing to do? Come on, now! I hardly expect minimum wage workers to get my fast food order right. The last thing I would do is to put my precious child in their care. Can't we develop a system where there is high quality care provided by professionals for every child?

How can we not get this right for all of our kids? So parents who can't afford it have to send their kids to these chaotic stressful environments most of their young lives (6-8 hours a day)...I wonder what they learn? How do they develop empathy? Do they bond with their parents and caregivers? Will their brains get the chance to realize their true full potential in life without one-on-one attention? If a child is a sensitive soul, will she get lost in the herd and lose out on the chance to develop her gifts? It just makes me so upset to think that many moms do not have this choice. They have to put their child in these places because they need to work so quickly after they give birth. And their choices are so limited by their incomes. Many moms don't have partners to help them financially and are forced to drop their kids off wherever they can afford it just to survive. It just seems so wrong. And how in the world can they breastfeed or pump in environments where it is not supported??!?!???????? I had to pump once in a bathroom because I was at a wedding and it was the most unsanitary, messy and awkward thing I have ever done. Why don't all companies have clean private nursing rooms????!!! Mine does because the women would be up in arms if it didn't. Do other companies suppress their female population???? Ridiculous!!!!

Oh, and Bella - you're right. They do feed kids in lower quality daycares (as they do in schools) horrible fatty salty or sugary food - most of it is processed, is full of chemicals and colorings, has trans fats and is setting them up for ADHD and obesity. The cheaper food, the better. So most kids who are at risk and underprivileged get this added stress on their lives. Aren't we just creating more children who are going to end up underprivileged for the rest of their lives? Why can't we give them a good healthy start with lots of support and stability? When does the cycle end?

And why can't we offer ALL moms good choices for child care? I would imagine that moms without good resources need this the most. Yet it is the upper class who can afford good child care - the ones who can stay home or have nannies. Actually, I don't know of any daycares in Manhattan because I have never seen one - I would imagine it's much cheaper to have a nanny here. I have no idea. But I hear over and over again from women, "I don't have a choice." Surely we as women can push for choices so that moms can go to work knowing their kids are safe and loved. Just...ugh.

UGH! BELLA FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Octavia]

No one has the "right" to have a baby. It is a privilege and should be treated as such.

Actually, many U.S. courts say differently. For example:

"The [SUPREME] Court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family. The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed "essential," Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923), "basic civil rights of man," Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942), and "[r]ights far more precious . . . than property rights," May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528, 533 (1953). "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944). The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, at 399, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at 541, and the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 496 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring)." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).

"The rights to marry, have children, and maintain a relationship with one's children are fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1212-13, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (children) . . . Statutes that directly and substantially impair those rights require strict scrutiny. See Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 387, 98 S.Ct. at 681." P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, 998 F2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)

"The Supreme Court has long recognized the right of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children as a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 2504, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979)." Doe v. Irwin, 615 F. 2d 1162 (6th Cir. 1980).

And there are many, many more examples, in both federal and state courts. Sorry, but when the U.S. Supreme Court says I have a right to procreate, I'm going to take that to mean privilege has nothing whatsoever to do with it (either in the sense of parenthood being a privilege, such as obtaining a driver's license, or from a socio-economic perspective).

 

[iugurl]

No one has the "right" to have a baby. It is a privilege and should be treated as such.

Actually, many U.S. courts say differently. For example:

"The [SUPREME] Court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family. The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed "essential," Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923), "basic civil rights of man," Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942), and "[r]ights far more precious . . . than property rights," May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528, 533 (1953). "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944). The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, at 399, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at 541, and the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 496 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring)." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).

"The rights to marry, have children, and maintain a relationship with one's children are fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1212-13, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (children) . . . Statutes that directly and substantially impair those rights require strict scrutiny. See Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 387, 98 S.Ct. at 681." P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, 998 F2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)

"The Supreme Court has long recognized the right of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children as a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 2504, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979)." Doe v. Irwin, 615 F. 2d 1162 (6th Cir. 1980).

And there are many, many more examples, in both federal and state courts. Sorry, but when the U.S. Supreme Court says I have a right to procreate, I'm going to take that to mean privilege has nothing whatsoever to do with it (either in the sense of parenthood being a privilege, such as obtaining a driver's license, or from a socio-economic perspective).

Sure, you have a right to have a baby. But if you honestly cannot afford to feed, house, or in this case, afford to either stay home or pay for daycare/nanny/whatever does that mean you SHOULD?

 

[LJL]

I'm gonna say theres a difference between the legal right to conceive and the practical ability to raise a child given your financial ability or lack thereof. Yes, no one can stop you from conceiving and birthing a child, that is your legal right - but with that does not come the ability to pay for the needs of that child, something that people often have to sacrifice to do. Clearly with welfare and WIC and other programs, the government has helped many people achieve that, but I don't think the Supreme Court would have any sort of support for a right to those programs if Congress created laws against them (though I know you cant legally take it away without reasons, etc).
Just distinguishing between a legal right and whether that practically means you have some right to be helped with procreating/child-raising.

 

[Sha]

No one has the "right" to have a baby. It is a privilege and should be treated as such.

Actually, many U.S. courts say differently. For example:

"The [SUPREME] Court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family. The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed "essential," Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923), "basic civil rights of man," Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942), and "[r]ights far more precious . . . than property rights," May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528, 533 (1953). "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944). The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, at 399, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at 541, and the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 496 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring)." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).

"The rights to marry, have children, and maintain a relationship with one's children are fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1212-13, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (children) . . . Statutes that directly and substantially impair those rights require strict scrutiny. See Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 387, 98 S.Ct. at 681." P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, 998 F2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)

"The Supreme Court has long recognized the right of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children as a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 2504, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979)." Doe v. Irwin, 615 F. 2d 1162 (6th Cir. 1980).

And there are many, many more examples, in both federal and state courts. Sorry, but when the U.S. Supreme Court says I have a right to procreate, I'm going to take that to mean privilege has nothing whatsoever to do with it (either in the sense of parenthood being a privilege, such as obtaining a driver's license, or from a socio-economic perspective).

Sure, you have a right to have a baby. But if you honestly cannot afford to feed, house, or in this case, afford to either stay home or pay for daycare/nanny/whatever does that mean you SHOULD?

I feel like this argument puts all the burden of responsibility on parents, in a system that obviously leaves a lot to be desired. Rather than parents being forced to limit their families because of not being able bear the huge costs of childrearing (financial and otherwise), why can't the system make it easier and more affordable for parents?

I totally agree with Pandora that it doesn't have to be this way, and telling parents to just 'suck it up or move/don't have children' is unfair, and ignores the governent's responsibility to examine the system and see what can be improved.

 

[Octavia]

Iugirl and LJL, I don't disagree that parenthood is a huge responsibility and people should think carefully about whether their situation in life allows them to bring up a healthy, happy, well-fed, well-cared for child. This is one reason my DH and I have not had kids quite yet, although we would be in a fine (just not yet ideal) position to do so. It is perfectly true that having a right to do something doesn't mean you should exercise that right. However, I completely disagree with the idea posited by several people in this thread that childbearing is not a right, but rather a "luxury" or a "privilege." Jewelry and expensive handbags and vacations abroad and feeding one's pets natural, grain-free foods and many of the other things we discuss on PS are luxuries. Qualifying for and obtaining a license for any of the myriad things you need one for in our society is a privilege. Strictly from a biological standpoint, children are necessary for the continuation of our species. From a societal standpoint, they are necessary to the continuance of our standard and quality of life, provided they are well-educated and brought up to be productive citizens. I don't understand why people don't recognize that as we age, even the most ruggedly individual among us (aside from those who go completely off the grid, build cabins in the wilderness with handmade tools, and hunt, fish, and forage all their food) will need to rely on the next generation. If that next generation is not up to the task, either in numbers or in education/training/outlook and ethics, we're all SOL. And the more difficult we make it for mothers AND fathers to produce the next generation, the worse off we're ALL going to be.

I haven't been participating much in this thread because the subject makes me inarticulately angry, and Circe, Bella, MissStepcut, and others have pretty much covered what I would say. But when I saw such blatantly inaccurate statements as the one I previously quoted being tossed around like fact, I couldn't help myself.

 

[mayerling]

Frankly, I am appalled by some of the attitudes in the US: "I did it with no help and so should you", "Why would I want to pay higher taxes for someone else to have kids?".

Fine, I could swallow the attitude that you don't want to have to pay to help other people be with their children for longer than 6 weeks ( ), but it really bothers me that you don't want to fight for someone's right to, at the VERY LEAST, take a few unpaid months off to be with their child and have the established right to come back to their job. How would that harm anyone? And before you say, "oh we'll have to pick up their slack", just fight for the employer to bring in a replacement; it wouldn't cost anything more since the mother is not getting paid.

 

[Pandora II]

A slight sideways tack - out of home childcare.

I'm interested to know what the rules are here in other countries - (not just the USA). Does the government set things like maximum caregiver/child ratios and carry out background checks on the owners and staff? Are nurseries and in-home day-cares inspected? What regulations are there regarding the curriculum? Also when do children start proper (ie compulsory) schooling?


Just to give the UK position:

Compulsory schooling is from the September preceeding the child's 5th birthday (so an August baby will have just turned 4 and a September baby will be about to turn 5) until age 16.

All nurseries and in-home day-cares are inspected by a Government agency called OFSTED (who also inspect schools). The reports are available online for parents and general public to read.

Nurseries/Daycare Centres:
- must be registered with Ofsted and are inspected periodically.
- staff must complete a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check
- must be suitably qualified and have attended First Aid courses.
- must follow the Early Years Foundation Statutory Framework - this sets out what children should be able to do by each stage of development (a curriculum basically) plus a myriad of rules on Health & Safety, regulations etc.

Maximum ratios.
1 carer to 3 children (0-2 years)
1 carer to 4 children (2-3 years)
1 carer to 8 children (3-5 years)

The majority of nurseries don't take children till they are 2, there are very, very few that will take a child under 6 months.

Childminders (Home Day-Care - but outside the child's own home)
- must be registered with Ofsted and are inspected annually
- must attended a pre-registration course and a First Aid course.
- all adults who live in the house must complete a CRB check (even if they are not there when children are present).
- must follow the Early Years Foundation Statutory Framework
- must have insurance cover

Maximum ratios.
1 carer can look after up to 6 children up to the age of 12 (including their own children), of the 6, no more than 3 can be under the age of 5 and only 1 child under the age of 1 (exceptions are made for multiples).

These are the bare minimums that must be offered, many places go way above and beyond - and charge appropriately for it too!

Ofsted also take an interest in things like the food served and a nursery/day-care centre will lose major points if they serve unhealthy food.

Nurseries, daycares and childminders are in the main private and fee charging. The Government does run a Childcare voucher scheme where you can buy vouchers that come out of your salary before tax is applied to it. It's not a huge amount. We are higher-rate taxpayers and the maximum amount we can claim in vouchers is $190 a month (not a huge amount considering that the average cost for childcare in London is about $800 per child, and a really good nursery (Montessori or similar) is around $2,000 . Daisy goes to a 'cheap' nursery which is a mere $1,000 a month...

There are some free places available in the September following your child turning 3 but they are really, really hard to get. Daisy turns 3 in May and I had to fill in 3 long application forms back in October in the hopes that she might get a place next September. If she does then she will go there from 9am to 3.15pm 5 days a week and her current nursery then runs a pick-up service and will keep the children till 6pm for $400 a month.

 

[misssoph]

One of the clear differences between the US and Australia is that most women working with young children part time such as 2 or 3 days a week.
Why do employers find this manageable here but apparently not in the USA.
Why can't employers offer longer unpaid leave and employ workers to replace on 6-12 months contracts.
Why do US women put up with this state of affairs that makes life so much harder for themselves and their families

 

[missy]

When I said no one has a "right" to have a baby I was speaking of not legal right (thanks iugirl) but more of a morally correct right if you will. Right vs wrong which is subject to one's interpretation as much of this conversation has been.

I feel like this argument puts all the burden of responsibility on parents

Sha, I am sorry that you and so many others disagree with my point of view and I am not trying to change what you strongly believe in. I am just sharing my thoughts on this topic. I am highlighting this statement from you because I find it to be at the crux of this discussion.
Who else but the parents should the "burden" of responsibility of parenting be on? In all my life I have never heard any parent (friend/family) say that parenting was a burden. I feel that if one looks at it that way of course one is going to feel defeated before they even start. Life is one big burden if you look at it that way.

Octavia, no where did I compare having children to having diamonds. All luxuries are not the same and perhaps I worded it badly. I am not a gifted writer and science and math were my forte in school. Writing was not. All I was (trying to) say is that if you cannot afford to have kids I don't think 1 year paid maternity leave is going to make a difference in the long run. If one cannot afford to raise a child maybe one needs to rethink priorities. IMO. The continuation of the species is not in jeopardy from a biological procreation standpoint. No, rather, I feel the overburden of the system is jeopardizing this world and who knows what the future holds. I am worried for future generations for what we are doing to this world and how it will affect them. Again a year maternity leave (in my view) won't do anything to lessen that burden.

Do you really think that parenting would be so much less of a burden if you received paid maternity leave for x number of months? And if so how many paid months of leave would it take for you to feel this was no longer a burden? What about women who have 3, 4 or more children? How would their employer/government handle that burden? What about parents whose child is a special needs child? I could go on because my point is when does it stop? There are lots of people who feel deserving of paid leave and the argument that having a child is good for the future of society just isn't moving me. As I said previously if there was a surplus of money to go around, if healthcare and eldercare was all wrapped up etc then I would feel it was more of a good option. I am not against mothers. I am against being in more debt for this to be reality anytime soon in the US.

Don't get me wrong. I empathize for all people (and parents) trying to make ends meet and having a tough time of it. I feel for all children whose parents have to (or want to) work leaving them to be essentially raised by the system much of the day. I am sad for the way it is so hard to have a balanced family/work life and I so agree with the poster (sorry I cannot remember who this is)who said that she wonders if we really are better off today. Choices are great but so many choices have been taken away from us. Many (most?) families need 2 incomes to survive these days and I am not talking about having the extra income for frivolous purchases like jewelry/purses/designer clothes. No, I am talking about having the income to pay for clothing/shelter/food/ etc.

I think it would be great if individual employers would pay for a certain amount of paid maternity leave and then allow up to a certain amount unpaid leave. But that should be left to individual employers and not mandated by the government. This is just how it works in the US and as I said before I shudder with the government's involvement in anything more.

I am just not convinced that this year paid government maternity leave (and what about dads- they should be an integral part in this despite the fact that they cannot breastfeed don't you think?) is going to make any difference in the quality of child raising and produce the best and brightest adults. I see so many talented bright adults whose parents did not have this luxury so I am just not convinced this will make any difference.

 

[iugurl]

No one has the "right" to have a baby. It is a privilege and should be treated as such.

Actually, many U.S. courts say differently. For example:

"The [SUPREME] Court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family. The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed "essential," Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923), "basic civil rights of man," Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942), and "[r]ights far more precious . . . than property rights," May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528, 533 (1953). "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944). The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, at 399, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at 541, and the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 496 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring)." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).

"The rights to marry, have children, and maintain a relationship with one's children are fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1212-13, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (children) . . . Statutes that directly and substantially impair those rights require strict scrutiny. See Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 387, 98 S.Ct. at 681." P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, 998 F2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)

"The Supreme Court has long recognized the right of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children as a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 2504, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979)." Doe v. Irwin, 615 F. 2d 1162 (6th Cir. 1980).

And there are many, many more examples, in both federal and state courts. Sorry, but when the U.S. Supreme Court says I have a right to procreate, I'm going to take that to mean privilege has nothing whatsoever to do with it (either in the sense of parenthood being a privilege, such as obtaining a driver's license, or from a socio-economic perspective).

Sure, you have a right to have a baby. But if you honestly cannot afford to feed, house, or in this case, afford to either stay home or pay for daycare/nanny/whatever does that mean you SHOULD?

I feel like this argument puts all the burden of responsibility on parents, in a system that obviously leaves a lot to be desired. Rather than parents being forced to limit their families because of not being able bear the huge costs of childrearing (financial and otherwise), why can't the system make it easier and more affordable for parents?

I totally agree with Pandora that it doesn't have to be this way, and telling parents to just 'suck it up or move/don't have children' is unfair, and ignores the governent's responsibility to examine the system and see what can be improved.

I have never heard that before, in my life. Everyone I have ever known that has children knows and accepts that the responsibility falls on them. They would not want the responsibility to be on the government, family members, whoever! Who else should be responsible for parenting!?

 

[iheartscience]

When I said no one has a "right" to have a baby I was speaking of not legal right (thanks iugirl) but more of a morally correct right if you will. Right vs wrong which is subject to one's interpretation as much of this conversation has been.

I feel like this argument puts all the burden of responsibility on parents

Sha, I am sorry that you and so many others disagree with my point of view and I am not trying to change what you strongly believe in. I am just sharing my thoughts on this topic. I am highlighting this statement from you because I find it to be at the crux of this discussion.
Who else but the parents should the "burden" of responsibility of parenting be on? In all my life I have never heard any parent (friend/family) say that parenting was a burden. I feel that if one looks at it that way of course one is going to feel defeated before they even start. Life is one big burden if you look at it that way.

Octavia, no where did I compare having children to having diamonds. All luxuries are not the same and perhaps I worded it badly. I am not a gifted writer and science and math were my forte in school. Writing was not. All I was (trying to) say is that if you cannot afford to have kids I don't think 1 year paid maternity leave is going to make a difference in the long run. If one cannot afford to raise a child maybe one needs to rethink priorities. IMO. The continuation of the species is not in jeopardy from a biological procreation standpoint. No, rather, I feel the overburden of the system is jeopardizing this world and who knows what the future holds. I am worried for future generations for what we are doing to this world and how it will affect them. Again a year maternity leave (in my view) won't do anything to lessen that burden.

Do you really think that parenting would be so much less of a burden if you received paid maternity leave for x number of months? And if so how many paid months of leave would it take for you to feel this was no longer a burden? What about women who have 3, 4 or more children? How would their employer/government handle that burden? What about parents whose child is a special needs child? I could go on because my point is when does it stop? There are lots of people who feel deserving of paid leave and the argument that having a child is good for the future of society just isn't moving me. As I said previously if there was a surplus of money to go around, if healthcare and eldercare was all wrapped up etc then I would feel it was more of a good option. I am not against mothers. I am against being in more debt for this to be reality anytime soon in the US.

Don't get me wrong. I empathize for all people (and parents) trying to make ends meet and having a tough time of it. I feel for all children whose parents have to (or want to) work leaving them to be essentially raised by the system much of the day. I am sad for the way it is so hard to have a balanced family/work life and I so agree with the poster (sorry I cannot remember who this is)who said that she wonders if we really are better off today. Choices are great but so many choices have been taken away from us. Many (most?) families need 2 incomes to survive these days and I am not talking about having the extra income for frivolous purchases like jewelry/purses/designer clothes. No, I am talking about having the income to pay for clothing/shelter/food/ etc.

I think it would be great if individual employers would pay for a certain amount of paid maternity leave and then allow up to a certain amount unpaid leave. But that should be left to individual employers and not mandated by the government. This is just how it works in the US and as I said before I shudder with the government's involvement in anything more.

I am just not convinced that this year paid government maternity leave (and what about dads- they should be an integral part in this despite the fact that they cannot breastfeed don't you think?) is going to make any difference in the quality of child raising and produce the best and brightest adults. I see so many talented bright adults whose parents did not have this luxury so I am just not convinced this will make any difference.

I'm certainly not trying to start a mommy war, but you really don't think a child being with its mother for the first year of its life isn't better than an infant going to daycare at 12 weeks? I am a feminist through and through, and if I have kids I won't be a SAHM. That said, even I can admit that it is almost certainly better for an infant to be cared for by its mother, particularly when it's a newborn. And I'm sure it's better for the mom, too. That just seems like common sense. Does it mean that babies who go to day care at 12 weeks are damaged in the long term? No, of course not. But that's certainly not ideal, is it?

I would love to hear from an anti-maternity leave perspective-do you really think the U.S., Papua New Guinea and Swaziland have it right and the rest of the world has it wrong?

A quote from an article on the subject, entitled "U.S. Policies on Maternity Leave 'Among The Worst'":http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200702/family.html
"In a study from McGill University's Institute for Health and Social Policy, the United States, Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland, and Papua New Guinea were the only countries out of 173 studied that didn't guarantee any paid leave for mothers." Hmm...not quite the group of countries I'd choose to be included in!

I know Sweden does offer leave for fathers, too-my brother just took some last year. Sweden is actually offering incentives to encourage fathers to take leave. The parents of a new baby get 16 months of leave and they can split it up however they want it (although the minority parent, usually the father, must take at least 2 months of it), so most mothers take the first year and then the fathers take the rest.

And a Wikipedia page with parental leave broken down country to country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

WOW the U.S. sucks.

 

[Pandora II]

But you could extend that and say that parents are therefore entirely responsible for educating their children. They should all either home-school or pay fees.

What I think Sha meant (correct me if I am wrong) is that in the same way that governments pay for the education of children - in order to produce an educated and more productive population - the same applies to the early years. In the interests of producing productive future generations they should also help parents in the first years of a child's life by making it easier for them to take the time off work to nuture that child and not make it economically impossible, or extremely hard to do so.

 

[iheartscience]

But you could extend that and say that parents are therefore entirely responsible for educating their children. They should all either home-school or pay fees.

What I think Sha meant (correct me if I am wrong) is that in the same way that governments pay for the education of children - in order to produce an educated and more productive population - the same applies to the early years. In the interests of producing productive future generations they should also help parents in the first years of a child's life by making it easier for them to take the time off work to nuture that child and not make it economically impossible, or extremely hard to do so.

Exactly. I don't hear anyone saying "If you can't afford to stay home and educate your kids or pay for private school, you shouldn't have them!"

 

[Circe]

Frankly, I am appalled by some of the attitudes in the US: "I did it with no help and so should you", "Why would I want to pay higher taxes for someone else to have kids?".

Fine, I could swallow the attitude that you don't want to have to pay to help other people be with their children for longer than 6 weeks ( ), but it really bothers me that you don't want to fight for someone's right to, at the VERY LEAST, take a few unpaid months off to be with their child and have the established right to come back to their job. How would that harm anyone? And before you say, "oh we'll have to pick up their slack", just fight for the employer to bring in a replacement; it wouldn't cost anything more since the mother is not getting paid.

I'm developing a theory that you can tell a lot about the agenda held by a society's powerful members by which of its less powerful members they've convinced to argue against their own best interests in favor of said agenda to be complicit in their own oppression.

Off-the-cuff example: Untouchables who defended the caste system. In America, it's the poor who vote against tax increases on the rich, the uninsured who argue against national health care (because they, too, have been convinced that the government is just that incompetent) and the members of just about all "special interest groups" (like, say, women, who compromise a technical majority) who've been convinced that asking for parity that accommodates their circumstances is begging for special favors.

Nice racket, right? Even as I chafe at it, I sort of have to doff my cap.

 

[missy]

Thing, I don't think anyone here is anti maternity leave. I think we differ in opinion about who should be responsible in paying for it.
Responsibility of the parents to raise their children or responsibility of the government.
I have already outlined the reasons behind my thoughts and what I think of socialized government and the drawbacks associated with that form of government. And if you are speaking of ideals I will say is it really ideal to work full time and leave your child in daycare? Is it ideal for the child?

Pandora, so where does it stop? Where do we draw the line?

 

[Circe]

I am just not convinced that this year paid government maternity leave (and what about dads- they should be an integral part in this despite the fact that they cannot breastfeed don't you think?) is going to make any difference in the quality of child raising and produce the best and brightest adults. I see so many talented bright adults whose parents did not have this luxury so I am just not convinced this will make any difference.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse - it's disrespectful to the horse, not to mention downright unhygienic - but I really do feel like this point is falling by the wayside, and so I'd like to underscore it.

It is not about the children. It is about the women who are their mothers.

I don't think that children are hurt by daycare ... or by their mothers staying home with them ... or by being cared for by extended family ... or if Lassie watches over them with a loving doggie eye. Most mother manage to cobble together some patchwork solution that ranges through the above. The point is that it hurts individual women by setting their careers back, that it hurts women as a class by making us second-class citizens in the workplace, and it hurts our nation by presenting a drain on our resources, and by "resources," I mean high-achieving women, who, frankly, are a lot more valuable in the long-run to our government than whatever our government might shell out paying for infant formula, because those women will pay higher taxes on the higher incomes that they will earn if we don't retard their careers.

Seriously. I'm just going to cut and paste this every time is takes a tangent into the traditional "What About the Children" crap. Can we refocus to ask, what about the women?

 

[Circe]

Oh, and a P.S., just because I know not everybody loves to debate as much as I do - any and all aggressive statements? Come from a place of genuinely admiring well-presented arguments, and enjoying the chance to respond to them sans emotionalism, drama, or people taking things personally. I always love it when a thread hits double-digits without anybody flouncing off in a huff.

 

[missy]

Seriously. I'm just going to cut and paste this every time is takes a tangent into the traditional "What About the Children" crap. Can we refocus to ask, what about the women?

Circe, I understand what you are saying but there are other people here discussing other points as well.
To answer your question about the women I think it is difficult as I have previously written to really and truly have it all. If we only care about the women then yes, having children most likely will set their career back a bit until the child is older. But how is having a year paid government maternity going to really change this? If the mother takes a year off from her career she will already be behind others who have been working that whole year. Careers are competitive and taking a year off means you will be a year behind. Govt paid maternity leave or not.

And I 100% agree with you. I am enjoying being able to discuss our differences in thoughts in a calm and respectful way.

 

[Circe]

Seriously. I'm just going to cut and paste this every time is takes a tangent into the traditional "What About the Children" crap. Can we refocus to ask, what about the women?

Circe, I understand what you are saying but there are other people here discussing other points as well.
To answer your question about the women I think it is difficult as I have previously written to really and truly have it all. If we only care about the women then yes, having children most likely will set their career back a bit until the child is older. But how is having a year paid government maternity going to really change this? If the mother takes a year off from her career she will already be behind others who have been working that whole year. Careers are competitive and taking a year off means you will be a year behind. Govt paid maternity leave or not.

And I 100% agree with you. I am enjoying being able to discuss our differences in thoughts in a calm and respectful way.

Yes ... but I think those discussions are a bit of a red herring when it comes to a thread titled "Motherhood and Career." It focuses on the first, but not the second, in the most retrograde fashion possible, a) implying that that's the bit that's really important - women, pfft!, they're supposed to sacrifice for their kids!, and, b) that refocusing the discussion on the negatives in a way that's tough to quantify. If we speculate about the evo-psych of women going back to work and all that, we're in sticky, opinion-based territory: but the stats provided by the other 178 developed nations which provide some form of maternity care? Ah, glorious data!

Fact is, the lack of maternity leave prevents women in the upper echelon from having kids when they're in the less highly-paid professions, but it makes them leave entirely or segue into the less competitive tracks when they're high-earners, making their (pricey, also competitive) educations less of a priority for the next generation of female workers and colleges who would like to encourage them and, indeed, breeding resentment against the women who've been caught between the rock and the hard place (see, all the articles about the "Opt-Out Generation"). I guess I would just really love to see somebody elucidate on the bit where we're supposed to sacrifice our "privilege" on that ... do we really want to argue that women shouldn't get educations? Go into high-powered careers, at all? I'm just curious about the logic of that part of the argument, and I find it's the one a lot of people are less willing to tackle.

 

[missy]

I guess I am not sure of your question. My point is does a year paid maternity leave really change anything re the career of women?
I am certainly not suggesting women not obtain higher education and skilled careers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am and always have been a feminist. I am just saying that having kids is a sacrifice and it must be worked out amongst the couple on how to handle having/raising children. There is no way of getting around the fact that having children is going to take some sort of sacrifice on the part of the family. Whether that falls solely upon the woman or the man or they share in that responsibility re career sacrifice is up to the individuals involved. Not sure the government can help in any real way. As I said, a year off from a high powered career is still a year behind regardless of maternity paid leave or not...

 

[LJL]

For the record, those sorts of remarks "I did it without help and so can you" are things that I have heard from women outside this thread and the others are sentiments I have heard from men and women alike. Its an individualist attitude and I cant say I totally disagree. I know that if I told my mother right now that I couldn't have kids and work within 12 weeks of birth she would say "I did it and so can you, I pumped in the bathroom for months" - in fact, I have heard her wonderful pumping stories countless times.

Again, for the record, I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with UNPAID leave. I think 6 months is a pretty reasonable change to the current system and something that would not be an undue burden. However, I think the problem would still remain in the upper level careers. Law firms are going to assign greater value to the woman who has the ability to stay home for 6 months but comes back earlier. She will have a greater chance for advancement than a woman who has taken the full 6 and will probably do it a couple more times. My mother was climbing the business ladder when my sister and I were born and she wanted to get back to work - I think she would have liked the choice but she never would have left the family without its primary income for 6 months (or her losing opportunities). Fortunately, my father was able to get night jobs when we were young so he could take care of us while mom was gone.