Maternity / Paternity leave for the childless?

Should women without children get maternity leave?

A survey conducted in England found that 74 percent of women would be in favor of receiving a six-month break, or even longer, as mothers are allowed to do when they give birth. More than two-thirds of those in favor were moms themselves, according to the Telegraph, a British newspaper.

Sam Baker, the editor-in-chief of Red Magazine, which commissioned the survey of 2,000 women, told the Telegraph: "I think a lot of women who have worked for their employer for ten, or 15 years look around at their colleagues taking maternity leave and feel some element of envy and think, 'What would I do with that time away from the workplace?'

"This isn't a working mum versus working non-mums argument. Nobody thinks maternity leave is a holiday. Employers, especially now, need to incentivise their staff in imaginative ways and that could involve offering leave. Some companies are already doing this."

The business community didn't welcome the survey results.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=50016#ixzz0UhDYxURs

:D :thumbsup:

who need care. Or maybe a close friend who needs help.

I've never understood why that time away is limited to new babies. Single people have people who depend on them too.

I think a general sabbatical would be good for everybody, men and women. Sometimes you are so busy with your routine work life that it's not possible to be in it and think about alternative lives and goals at the same time.

Generally speaking, those milestone events like birth or adoption and illness are good opportunities to reevaluate one's vantage point in life besides the opportunity to fill an immediate need. That's what people find worthwhile during those times. So why not give everyone the chance? Whether you use it exclusively for childbirth is up to you.

Thats fair. Though, it can take weeks for women's bleeding to stop. Years to physically recover from exhaustion, exacerbated by increased caloric expenditure due to nursing and lack of sleep (constant all night eating and irregular sleeping). Then you have hormonal issues. And it isn't about just giving the baby a sponge bath and putting them in front of a TV with some food. Its 24/7 dependence for months, where they don't get a second to themselves.

Its a tad bit different.

Yes, a sabbatical is good for everyone. But, new parents have some unique and challenging issues to deal with.

than mine to spend sabbatical drinking and couch-surfing.

I oppose special benefits for those who think their choice to make a mini-them should garner special treatment outside their families.

Because there is another life involved. Without the maternity leave, the needs of that child are subject to be neglected, as is their general care and nutrition while the mother is back at work. It isn't just about the mother's little "vacation" (trust me...many mommies would not mind going back to work). The policies are tailored to produce a healthier posterity.

How many babies suffer when you don't get a chance to drink on your couch?

Soon you will bitch that you have to pay taxes to fund education of those mini-thems. Where does it ever fucking stop?

if a single coworker wants to take that six months, the same six months that your wife used for maternity leave (why didn't you?) for something that is *equally* important to the single person as your baby is to you?

And while it may be subjectively to that single person, how is it as important to the ENTIRE society as raising a healthy baby to contribute to future generations?

Got that yet? Its about more than the parent here.

I didn't take paternity because Im self-employed. I don't qualify for paternity pay under those circumstances in Canada. My wife gets an entire year paid.

i could only take two months off for that.

You would be happy if that provision *replaced* standard maternity? Thats the OP here. It isn't that everyone couldn't use more time off, its that everyone deserves it BUT parents deserve no more than standard. Thats a bitter pill to swallow. Some guy is posting here about needing time off to drink and lay on his couch, as much time as a baby needs for their mom to stay home and nurse them.

like having and caring for a baby, and recovering from cancer. i don't think parents "deserve" more time off than someone recovering from an illness or caring for a sick relative.

So you are for abolishing maternity (and the entire Family Leave Act) and just promoting equal vacation for all?

And if someone uses their vacation and their parent falls ill (or they get pregnant) fuck them?

to take care of what they need to take care of. whether it's a child, themselves or a parent. :wtf: are you having a reading comprehension problem?

And just pro vacation?


Yes or no will suffice.

:wtf: people need time off to take care of what they need to take care of, whether it's a child, themselves or a parent. :wtf:

Do you want it repealed in favor of a vacations for all act?

Are these vacation times finite or unlimited yearly based on need? How do you prove how much time you need to take care of whatever?

And if someone uses their vacation and their parent falls ill (or they get pregnant) fuck them?

This happens all the time. One cannot PLAN for a sickness, but one can surely PLAN to have a baby. Perhaps if you did not have the time available to take off from work, one should NOT have a baby! ITS A CHOICE!!!!! What people CHOOSE to do with THEIR time is THEIR business.

To use a vacation up and still face an unplanned pregnancy in a single year. Unless, of course, you mandate abortions for those scenarios.

BTW, again, you don't realize that the baby cannot choose and plan this. While you are grandstanding and forcing someone to go back to work for their ill planning and choices, there is another individual who suffers. Sounds like a nice social policy you are eluding to

You keep mentioning "unplanned" pregnancy, and I will refer you to my other post where I stated that there is no such thing (except for rape and incest).

At this point, pregnancy, planned or not, is over.

Its the CHOICE to have a baby in the first place that were talking about. The personal choice to do something that an employer MUST provide for. The POINT is why one personal CHOICE deserves special consideration while another does not.

sorry for the confusion. i have no problem with maternity leave. i have a problem with the american medical profession. i didn't have enough time to heal, body or spirit, because of the stingy leave my doctors gave me. a cancer diagnosis gets you at least six months off in canada...should be the same here :hi:

People need more of it, not less of it in the name of "equality". It definitely puts people in a bind, when they are already stressed from a society that doesn't even value a normal vacation enough.

Sorry to hear about your specific experience. :(

and that's usually unpaid, unless the mother has disability insurance that will cover part of that time. A lot of new mothers still only take 6 weeks because they can't afford more time off.

I believe that most of the countries that mandate generous maternity leave also tend to mandate a lot more vacation time than we get here. In fact the, as with health insurance, the U.S. is about the only (if not the only) western country that doesn't mandate at least 4 weeks vacation - in fact doesn't mandate vacation time at all. There are people here who still don't get paid vacation or sick days.

In light of this, arguing about who deserves a 6 month leave and who doesn't is pointless. And, when (and if), we actually get real health care reform, we can start working on catching up with Europe in the areas of vacation and medical leave.

in a logged area....that's helping posterity, too!

these are not all either/or situations or choices

yes, raising a child well is important....but, hey, if the parents thought they would not have the opportunity to take crucial time off from work to nurture the child properly, then WHY did they choose to bring the child into the world in the first place?

And is the earth in imminent danger of substantial damage or harm if you do not do so? How do we prove these activities will all help future generations (whereas, nurturing posterity does by tautology)?

Considering the explosion of problems with overpopulation in our world today, perhaps those who think it's so urgently necessary to procreate might want to rethink.

While I love children, it's a very expensive private hobby that those who indulge demand the rest of us subsidize. Plus, I'm sure that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris' parents, among many other former children who didn't turn out so well, thought THEY would be contributing to "future generations", too.

Its nice if society takes measures to allow its parent to attend to its needs

Its nice if society takes measures to allow its parent to attend to its needs

Its also nice of society takes measures to allow equal treatment for all, like gay marriage. So now you are anti-gay marriage?



See I can play that game too.

So, eh...not sure where you pulled that from your ass. Normally when people create strawmans, they at least base them on a substantial twisted comment rather than pure fiction

a US baby, especially, will consume huge amts of resources and contribute to the detriment of life on this planet

it's a conceit to want to have not one, but two, kids!

And why is two children per 2 people (which leads ultimately to a decline in population due to death rates) a conceited thing?

And how can someone who has angst over the process of procreation unbiasely contribute to a thread about how much time is needed, in the interests of the society as a whole, for a new parent to raise a child in addition to standard vacations? I admit my own bias, but at least I have insight about the process. On one hand you are calling me a bad parent, and on the other you are posturing that parenting is bad in general.

Disgusting.

That's what's disgusting, IMHO.

BTW, welcome to the world of the deliberately childless. People tell us right to our faces that we're "selfish" and "immature" for not dutifully following the approved life script. Personally, I can't think of anything more selfish and immature than bringing a child into the world because everyone else is doing it and you want to conform but that's exactly what a lot of people do.

But thats not the issue. Rather, its if people should be allotted time by society to deal with families needs in addition to standard vacation time that everyone gets.

It does affect me. It means that my co-worker who has a baby is getting paid the same as me while I'm being more productive.

Edit to add: Yes, having children is selfish. Sorry, but it is. Doesn't make it wrong, but stop acting like you are making a heroic sacrifice for the world. You had your kid because you wanted a kid, for whatever reason you chose. You get tax breaks and subsidies and social approbation for the choice you made. The fact that some parents on DU take such umbrage at a few critical comments on the internet is a vivid illustration of just how entrenced the entitlement mentality of a lot of parents is.

Everyone gets a "vacation" (clearly more fun for those without obligations). If you need more due to some extraordinary circumstance, fuck off? Correct me if I am wrong.

It may not affect you so much if the pay is being done by a third party insurance entity, because a premium policy comes due. Thats our situation, and its not the same pay anyway.

Again, another value judgment that fostering posterity is not productive.

We exist to subsidize families. But when we need help we can fuck off and die. I am once again unemployed, after the job I've been in for the last 6 months was eliminated. Because I don't have a child I don't qualify for my state's Medicaid program. There's an income cap of $850 a month for a single person with no dependents, which the meager UI I qualify for now would put me under. But a friend of mine who works for the agency says that if you don't have children you can pretty much forget getting on the program. Yeah, I know, health care reform...but HCR hasn't happened yet and this is the situation that exists now for childless adults. No health care, no food stamps, no public assistance of any kind is available for you until you are literally out on the street. I don't mind paying taxes for schools and programs that help children, not one bit. I'm glad to do it. But it'd sure be nice if I could get a hand when I need one.

Everyone gets 3 to 4 weeks or something, and if you use them up and find you are having a baby or your spouse has cancer, fuck off? The baby or the spouse is SOL?

Thats your magic alternative? Take away benefits? Seems more regressive.

Now I understand establishing a standard vacation in addition to need based leave....but, ug, not sure where you are going here.

A quick hint, with some crude math, if you abolished 6 month maternity and distributed that as a standard vacation for all employed, everyone gets 3 extra days off total to take care of their shit. Sounds like a beneficial progressive change for the benefit of society, right.


You sure you aren't just angry and have no better ideas?

Everyone should get longer vacations and/or sabbaticals and everyone should be able to get emergency leave for things like pregnancy and illnesses in the family. That emergency leave should be underwritten by the government, not the employer. I'm for single payer, publicly subsidized college, and a social safety net for everyone. Those things need to be untethered, to as much an extent as possible, from employment. Your employer should pay you for the work you do, not the number of dependents you have.

Where we depart is most likely on the tax burden of parents vs. non-parents. Parents of all income levels have grown to expect that non-parents should subsidize their families, which is understandable considering that has been the government policy of countries like the U.S. and Canada. I don't necessarily think parents should pay MORE in taxes but I'm opposed to things like "baby bonuses", child tax credits to middle class parents, and vouchers and tax credits for affluent parents to send their kids to private schools. Obviously, low income parents need assistance but so do low income non-parents. I'm sorry but the "they're going to be future taxpayers" argument doesn't cut it. They're also going to be users of limited natural resources and contributors to pollution and global warming. I'm not saying that to hurt your feelings, just pointing out the facts. It does take a village to raise a child, but parents are part of the village too.

Unfortunately, this entire question was poised in a divisive manner that even I fell for a bit. It just doesn't need to be a one thing or another type of a thing at all, and while equality is challenged by making exceptions for need, you have a society that is SOL without it.

Im pretty ambivalent about the tax issue really. On average, the government will hand me $13K in cold hard cash (tax benefit/childcare subsidy/maternity pay) to buy crack with in addition to tax write-offs. It seems odd, these entitlements, but so does my healthcare here in Canada (its strange seeing it from an American perspective). But, I assume by the time I retire I am going to pay that all off many times over for another new family. Im sure there are exceptions and the abuses, but sometimes when the absence of a policy does more harm than trying to help foster a better society, its worth it. But I understand how, when you live in the US which doesn't even have so much as a decent health care social net, you can feel like you keep getting without getting much back.

The problem in the states is that the whole country needs to move forward for everyone instead of being angry and trying to hold everyone back.

People with kids get less pay and less time off. If you want maternity leave, you lose your job if your co-workers think you are less productive than they are. Maybe they can put it to a vote among the single/childfree people in the office! That would be fun!

Single/childfree folks would get unlimited paid vacation time because they are the only productive members of the workforce and their lives are so much more important and because supporting one person or a couple on their income is so much harder than it is to support a family with children.

And if you have kids, based on other threads here, you should be consigned to places with large fences around them so that people who don't want to see or hear children can avoid you and your family and not be bothered by the fact of the next generation until they have use for them (as caretakers and nurses when they are elderly and need care).

Really?

I guess you would have agreed with the people who opposed paying women equal pay as men for the same jobs back in the '60s when the Equal Pay Act was passed. I mean, men were more likely to be supporting a family back then. Right? :shrug:

It's not always fair

On edit: I didn't read your entire post before I responded; rather, I only read the subject line. It was not my intention to minimize the difficulties you are facing given the current economic climate, especially in your area of the US. My response of "life isn't fair" was directed more towards the people with a mindset like the poster upthread who thought he should get 6 months to lie on the couch and drink beer since new mothers get 6 months of paid maternity leave.

And Id venture to guess, finding yourself in a crappy situation that has an inadequate social net isn't grounds to argue for the abolishment of other parts of that safety net (and hence, a more regressive society). One benefit shouldn't have to come at the costs of another for a group you may or may not despise.

This is why we hate you.

Not your kids. You.

How objective could your opinion on policy really be then?

:nopity:

:rofl:


Because some people just don't understand that the primary objective of all forms of life is...wait for it...to promulgate their own species and ensure that it continues with a new generation!


on edit: Yes, I'm a parent, and the only paternity leave I got was the week of PTO that I took. My wife got 9 weeks - 3 weeks of PTO and 6 weeks of short-term disability at 60% pay. We were SO blessed with entitlements

No kids = Nobody to pay Social Security.

Just one thing to bear in mind. That's one reason why I don't mind the Duggars.

Yes, your kids will help pay my SS. Just like I've been paying for the SS of current retirees. My own parents died long ago so I've been paying for other people's parents. And all the property and income taxes (at a higher rate because I don't have kids) are helping to pay for your kids now. I figure by the time I retire I will have earned everything I get.

BTW, while we're on the subject of retirement and the care of the elderly, I'd just like to point out that an economic model predicated on endless population growth - because you'll always need a LARGER generation to replace the preceding one to fund their retirements and provide the care they need - is hella unsustainable. Maybe it's time to re-think it? :shrug:

Not really. Its more like a triangle....no, not a pyramid, you see, these people pay for those few, who pay for this guy. Like a triangle. :)


LOL

"catching more breaks" once we had kids. Not that I am advocating having kids to get the breaks or doing away with those breaks. Kids need food and medical care. Rather I think we need to revamp the system so that _everyone_ gets those breaks. No one should be left without assistance or healthcare.

I think of the European nations that have universal healthcare and some sort of assistance for all people in need (heck I think some even put you up in housing?) and all of that. Then I think of this thread and how we eat our own for inequalities real or perceived. (I am still going round in circles with someone right now, and I need to stop it because ultimately I think we agree on a lot, but the one point we disagree on is just adding to the bad vibes in the thread. :( )

and insisting that you deserve special breaks for having made that choice.

If you aren't going to move, stop bitching and advocating change already



Where does that help anyone at the end of the day?

Organisms that don't reproduce cease to exist.

Babies need care. LOTS of it. They are HELPLESS.



You were a baby once, I assume.

No one I know of in this country
is "getting paid the same as" you.

We have a guarantee that we won't be
fired while caring for an infant for
up to 3 months.

No one I know has those three months
at full pay. Six weeks, tops, the rest
as unpaid leave.

As soon as you stated having kids was "GOOD" for society etc., etc., THATS when you MADE it about MORALITY.

to complete that task. You, sir, are a hypocrite.

It is becoming quite telling by your tone

:sarcasm:

Hell, why not just go all the way and say that only wealthy people should have babies?

There seems to be a lot of resentment towards people who have children, as if they are getting some special bonus treatment to be able to spend a little time off with their newborns.

Did I wander into the Free Republic or the twilight zone?

Having a child, while important to some is not important to others. As to your argument that raising a child is important to society, well, until we get rid of all the bad parents, that argument is bunk.

Without that action, there would be no society. Or without it exercised with concern, the quality of society can be degraded. While a social policy cannot ensure every case of parenthood produces a positively contributing member, it can attempt to aid such acts of parenthood hoping to do so.

wants kids procreating

Its necessary to not only procreate, but foster a quality posterity to contribute to the future health of society. This thread is as much about the later part than procreation in general.

My opinion is that if half or more of the people that have kids, didn't, then society would be better off.

should be looked at as a medical leave for the care of a needy family member, which is exactly what it is. As long as coworkers with no children have the same access to medical leave to care for someone in need, then I don't see an inequality here.

My two cents worth and hopefully a perspective that will take the pro/anti child sentiment out of this apparently touchy subject. :hi:

at least not on my part.

My thinking is, if we call it a sabbatical or whatever neutral term and open it up to everyone, it doesn't ask us to place value judgements on what each of us finds important and meaningful in our lives.

I wouldn't pretend to know what it's like to be a new parent. I never had kids, not because I don't like them, but because just keeping a roof over my head and clothes on my back seemed like a big enough challenge.


I only ask that we as a society make sure that that opportunity for taking time to pull back and do what is necessary for our own lives, is available for everyone. Because you can't decide for someone else what they would find meaningful and rewarding.

some apparent resentment in this thread (not from you but from others) is that Americans are overworked and underpaid, so of course they are going to start sniping at anyone who looks like they are being given preferential treatment and extra time off for no good reason. If we had a system that was more supportive of all of our workers in terms of pay and time off, I don't think the maternity thing would be such an issue.

Sadly, I think that employers are screwing themselves over by going for the cheapest and most overworked workfoce possible. Not much incentive or energy to be as efficient, productive, or creative as possible.

:thumbsup:

:applause:

:D

get to clean up baby shit all night and get screamed at around 115 db all day?


"I only ask that we as a society make sure that that opportunity for taking time to pull back and do what is necessary for our own lives, is available for everyone."

Its necessary for more than 1 life

"to drink and sit on your couch in the name of fairness"

I've been on DU for seven years. Never have I posted anything like that. But, go on; try to find a link.

Dude, take a nap. You're obviously a very exhausted Dad.

Id love a nap. 4 hours a night sucks. But then my wife would be up with both of the kids. That sucks for her. Eventually I have to work too.

Its about promoting a safe and healthy environment for your future members of society

also maternity leave for gay couples too.

But parental leave and medical leave are two separate issues in the unemployment. So you don't get all the time off unless the actual birth was made (which doesn't work for men)

talk about getting up to "clean up baby shit all night and get screamed at all day"

you sound frazzled and overwhelmed

are you a parent?

seriously, you are depicting raising a child and its responsibilities in very negative terms

the thing is, if someone thinks so negatively about the responsibilities of raising an infant and a child, they should have thought twice about bringing the child into the world

I have an infant and a 3 year old.

Firstly

"if someone thinks so negatively about the responsibilities of raising an infant and a child, they should have thought twice about bringing the child into the world"

NO ONE knows about the responsibilities of raising an infant UNTIL they have one. So that doesn't work so well.

Yes, we had a second one. We were planning on more but our experience is curtailing it at two. We decided to shotgun the experience to get it over with while we were still in a daze from our first child (it lessens the impact and makes the demands redundant). We would not have gotten relief from the responsibilities until our first went into 1st grade, so the additional impact of another was minimal for the time being. We would never go through this experience again (and wont after my operation shortly). As your child's needs diminish while they age, the rewards grow. Within the time the discussion is about, the post natal period, there is all demands and work, and virtual no rewards. This is no vacation.

Besides, my wife gets paid maternity leave for 1 year through the government. That makes it a bit more palletable.

you could have spent time around infants and talked to new parents to learn the reality beforehand

or read about it

you say you decided to "shotgun" the experience and "get it over with"

that sounds immature and scary

you don't "shotgun" when another human life is involved

not every new parent feels the way you do, believe me

and "the additional impact of " a second child is NEVER minimal!

each child needs time, attention, nurture

you really sound overwhelmed

Being a new parent is overwhelming. Throw in another kid and its exhausting.

If anyone tells you otherwise, or suggests a couple Dr Phil books you read before hand will solve it, they are full.of.shit.

>NO ONE knows about the responsibilities of raising an infant UNTIL they have one. So that doesn't work so well.<

I was a nanny throughout my twenties. It's most of the reason we do not have children now.

Anyone who is observant or spends time with children will get the general idea of the amount of responsibility, work and expense involved. If they don't, perhaps they should embark on something else to fill the time.

There are not enough nanny positions available to transfer such knowledge to everyone, nor do they pay well enough to provide universal incentive. :)

I do not think mere "observation" is enough. Observing something from a comfortable position is different than living in it without escape, at all hours of the day (a nanny would know something about that). You don't watch your favorite programs, enjoy your favorite clubs, or so much as read your favorite book....ever. Not even the weekends. You are on the clock, more so than graduating with Honors from a prestigious college while competing in national level athletics.

I'm saying this all tongue and cheek. Look, I'm a stay-at-home dad for the most part. Its really been a hellish experience at times, but I don't hate my kids nor act irresponsible around them in terms of parenting (quite the opposite--I'm attentive to all the hellish experience and completely available at all times for them). I merely recognize the challenges it poses, and the benefits to society by doing it right. It is definitely not something everyone should do (and probably more people sign up for it than should).

Its sickening people are jealous though of this "vacation".

What's more, you can't see beyond the end of your own nose.

>Its sickening people are jealous though of this "vacation".<

It's even more sickening that the rest of us don't have an opportunity to take advantage of the same offer to deal with the life choices we've made, and that our hard work pays for your choice, while you are less than supportive of others in the same workplace or society.

:eyes:

Nothing extra for those with family need?

Or do you want need based vacations? How then do you prove need or the time needed? What is the maximum amount of time for each person a year?

Currently the US attempts to define "need" and set arbitrary time periods for the length required for a positive outcome (which is lacking in some scenarios). This seems to be a policy you are critical of in totality. What is your alternative?

There are rewards too, but frankly, lack of sleep makes it hard to recognize and appreciate those rewards.

I adore my kids, but the first two months or so are not fun.

But it doesn't mean that this person is a bad parent, it means that when he or she (I think he) gets the baby to the point where a 5 hour stretch of sleep isn't a fantasy anymore, things will be better.

Watching kids learn and experience things for the first time is amazing. Watching them make connections, you can see them learning about the world and you can experience is totally differently through their eyes. It really is fascinating.

But everything else is ok, right? Or are there any other personal CHOICES you would like to exclude. Please make a list.

Sorry to unreasonable to think that a society that allows need based leave, in addition to more generous allotted of vacation time, works out better in the interests of its citizens.

Having a baby is a natural part of being a human, NOT a medical condition. Its a choice one makes.

EVERYONE gets medical leave after all. Why not someone whose body tissues experienced recent trauma.

Unfortunately, a baby doesn't have that choice, and doesn't also get to decide if their parent will stay home and care for them. I'm not sure why it is so wrong for a society to create measure that make it easier for that individual to have their needs met.

was on bedrest for 3 months so as to avoid having a stroke, and another few weeks after to heal up from having 130 stitchses, I would disagree about it not being a medical situation. Even those who have perfectly healthy pregnancies still have some risk, and of course the entire pregnancy is about forming a new person so there is a medical aspect to that as well. Without proper medical supervision there can be complications that can result in a devestating loss of the pregnancy or mother's life, or problems which could contribute to issues for that baby that could trouble them their entire lives.

So even if starting a family is a choice it has medical repercussions and therefore needs to be considered as part of medical leave. If you are upset at not having some kind of leave of your own because you choose not to have children, then fight for a mandatory sabbatical system. That way everyone gets to choose to have some time off, but not in a way that demeans women by saying that their pregnancies aren't somehow medical in nature. It would be wrong to say "Well, you can choose to have a kid or to start a small business. But you can never have both." There is nothing progressive in that.

My wife had a pregnancy that was nearly flawless. In fact, it was so much the opposite as yours, hers was also the exception, not the rule. But the fact remains, PREGNANCY is NOT a medical condition. High blood pressure, or any other ailment, IS a medical condition BROUGHT ON BY pregnancy. The two are mutually exclusive.

Without proper medical supervision there can be complications that can result in a devastating loss of the pregnancy or mother's life, or problems which could contribute to issues for that baby that could trouble them their entire lives.

And without "proper" (what does that mean?) medical supervision, there can be a completely NORMAL pregnancy without complications that ends normally with a healthy child. My point is, that a "normal" pregnancy does NOT require medical attention. Sure, it is prudent to ensure that everything is going well, but thats a different point.
What were talking about here is time away from work, which I agree with, but I also think that the SAME time needs to be made for ALL of the employees, not just Pregnant ladies that CHOSE to have a child.

maternity leave. If you choose to have more kids, I will be interested to hear whether or not you also choose to forgo medical care during the pregnancy since it apparently doesn't mean very much.

Sorry, but no matter how much you talk about babies being a choice they just don't fall under the category of a sabbatical. If you don't like it, ask Congress to rescind the Family Leave Act. You will probably find plenty of Republicans who would gladly join the cause.

I will be interested to hear whether or not you also choose to forgo medical care during the pregnancy since it apparently doesn't mean very much.

I never said OR implied any such thing. I also said that I thought it WAS prudent to seek medical advise during pregnancy. None of that has anything to do with what I said about pregnancy NOT being a MEDICAL CONDITION. It just isn't. Please, make sure that you consider what I ACTUALLY said before making asinine comments that I said something different.

Sorry, but no matter how much you talk about babies being a choice they just don't fall under the category of a sabbatical.

Please explain why not? How is CHOOSING to do something VOLUNTARILY(and don't talk to me about women pregnant from rape or incest, that is NOT the topic here) not fall under the category of a sabbatical?

pregnancy and early childcare being health-related and sabbaticals being for non-health related issues. You clearly disagree with the medical portion of it. I doubt that either of us will change the other's mind based on that basic premise.

As for my comment about choosing medical care during pregnancy I will leave as it was, wondering why someone would choose medical care for a non-medical condition. Call it asinine if you will but I feel it's contradictory. If it is prudent to seek medical care during pregnancy then it must have something to do with the realm of medicine.

It would be irresponsible NOT to utilize the tools available to ensure a pregnancy is going well. As I stated, ours was so "normal" we were able to have the baby at home, in a tub, with a midwife who supervised ME, the non-medical guy, that delivered our baby.

For the sake of argument, lets assume that pregnancy IS a "medical condition". Are there any other voluntary medical conditions that should be given medical leave? How about cosmetic surgery? How about lasik eye surgery? Any others? I think you see my point. We can argue about whether it is a medical condition or not, but the true fact remains that getting pregnant is a CHOICE! Something we ALL believe in, right? Why should the "choices" of some be afforded special treatment while others do not? At the VERY least, fathers should also be given the same opportunity to take time off without penalty.

The bigger picture here, IMO, is about choice. We cannot reward, or accommodate, the choice of a select few. What is important to some is not important to others.

The woman who had a car accident after choosing to drink before driving.
The man who wiped out on his motorcycle after choosing to drive a little too fast around a corner.
The kid who fell after choosing to climb too high in a tree.
The grandparent who got diabetes or had a blocked heart after choosing a poor diet all his/her life.
The woman who wound up in rehab after choosing to do drugs and become addicted.
The teen who chose to make a failed attempt at suicide and blew off half his face which now needs to be reconstructed.
The person who was laid up after choosing to donate a kidney.

Once we open the door to debating what situations are the result of a choice we will be reviewing every medical case that comes through the door. Even if the above issues don't get questioned in terms of qualifying for FMLA (you'd have to be a real Scrooge there, right?) what about the mother who takes her sabbatical to have her baby and runs into medical complications? Does it now qualify as a medical leave or did she just chew up her sabbatical time as well? And which complications count and which do not? And if she should happen to have a second child before her next sabbatical comes around, is she supposed to get up out of bed or the tub or wherever the day after and go back to work? What if that affects her ability to nurse the baby? Will she be much good at work if she is constantly in the bathroom trying to pump? Yes, the co-workers are happy because everyone had the same time off, but what about the baby who didn't get to nurse? Wasn't it penalized in that case, or does it not matter because it wasn't an employee?

This is why I think all medical issues should be put into one category, other work or self-development issues under sabbaticals, and personal time/fun stuff under personal days and vacations. (Of which there should be far more.)

Finally, I have zero problem with paternity leave. A lot of places have that and it's important. I would have loved for my husband to have been available to help me when my kids were born not just for my sake but for theirs. :)

All of those are the possible results of a different action.


Drunk Driving is not a medical condition.
Driving a motorcycle too fast is not a medical condition.
Climbing a tree is not a medical decision.
Eating a poor diet is not a medical condition.
Doing drugs is not a medical condition.
Suicide is not a medical condition.

Sure, those actions can LEAD to a medical condition, but the acts themselves are not, they are CHOICES one makes. They do not ALWAYS end up with a medical condition either.

You ask whether if a woman who has a sabbatical to have a child runs into medical problems, what then? Well, she is now sick, isn't she, that's a whole different issue. You ask what if she should happen to have a second child before her next sabbatical? I say she shouldn't just "happen" to have a second child. Children do not happen spontaneously, they happen because one INTENDS to have one, and if one gets pregnant despite taking ALL the precautions (did they REALLY take all precautions?) then there is still a CHOICE about whether to carry that child to term. Again, we are back to the CHOICE a woman had to have a child. You or I are in no position to determine if that CHOICE is good or bad because its not up to us.


I am glad to see you support paternity leave. Do you feel that paternity leave and vacation leave are, or should, be two different things?

any of the people who might be in your family who made choices with sad outcomes listed above. Whether I choose to have a baby or move in with my dad to help him recover after surgery shouldn't be distinguished from each other. Yeah I could abort the baby, but maybe I could have also pulled the plug on my dad. :shrug:

As I said before you and I are clearly not going to agree on this issue because you are looking at the choice aspect and I am looking the needs of the mother, father and especially the child in terms of medical care and development. Just because it was a choice does not negate the fact that the care is needed.

On the same subject, but from a slightly different point of view I found a list of maternity leave days from around the world: http://www.apesma.asn.au/women/maternity_leave_around_the_world.asp (I saw an article that mentioned paternity/parental leave but haven't yet found a chart.)

I also found an article that mentions which countries get the most vacation time: http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/14/news/international/vacation_days/index.htm?postversion=2009101416

It appears that the vacation time and parental leave are not one and the same in the top countries of either because the numbers don't match up. (Although we have to allow for the different dates of when the data was collected. Something might have changed.)

My interest is does the public in those countries have the same disagreement that we are having now? I don't know how to find that out but I would be very interested to know. :)

I do not mean to make light of any situation where a family member has to care for another, but that too, is a choice. Very different from a pregnancy as well. I guess that you make the point for me about different choices and what is important from one person to the next.

I will go so far as to concede that a [regnant woman deserves special consideration ONCE she is pregnant, but can you agree with me that the CHOICE to have a child in the first place is not something an employer SHOULD have to bear the responsibility for, especially at the cost of preventing the same choices for other employees?

a workable system that people will find equitable, but the first step is going to be doing something, anything to improve the workers' situations at any level. It is clear that we are lagging badly as a nation in the areas of time off and pay just as we are in health care coverage and costs and school funding (and many other things.) :(

The perverse pride our culture seems to take in the rugged individualist bootstrapper's way drives me crazy. Better to have your pride than food, medical care, or a decent education, eh?

Lance is arguing (and I agree with him) that people should be offered sabbaticals from work for other things besides procreation. This may come as a shock to you but some companies do just that. I used to work for a major company that gave all employees a sabbatical every 7 years. Some companies *gasp* even offer cafeteria style benefit plans that give all their employees an equal monetary value on the benefits, which people with children can use to cover their health insurance and people without kids can use for other things.



Soon you will bitch that you have to pay taxes to fund education of those mini-thems. Where does it ever fucking stop?

That slippery slope goes both ways. Parents are demanding (and getting) ever more breaks, bennies, tax credits, subsidies, etc, for doing The Most Important Job In The World^TM. Soon you will bitch that people without kids shouldn't have any money at all because it belongs to parents. When will that ever fucking stop????

Hey, Im consistently for them.

I am not for replacing maternity leave with sabbaticals for all. New parents have some uniquely challenging circumstances, which is great to get time for in addition to sabbaticals (which are for people, whereas maternity is for the babys primary benefit)

You're not following the conversation eh?

The OP suggests essentially abolishing maternity leave for some standard vacation for everyone/anyone.

In that scenario, everyone but parents get a vacation. Maternity is not a vacation, so their "sabbatical" time would be exhausted.

if some choose to have children, they can use the sabbatical as maternity leave

Nice.

Good points, sure, but it is your opinion. That same opinion is NOT shared by many Americans, so why should the opinion of some be considered and not the opinion of others? I will agree that ONCE a child arrives, we have a duty to care for it, but the fact remains, having the child IN THE FIRST PLACE, is a choice, a CHOICE! Equal protection under the law, IOW, the same treatment for EVERYONE.

But we don't live in a society that values equal social policy, right or wrong. We have food stamps, income & housing assistance, affirmative action, Medicaid, and other need-based aid programs that many people depend on for existence. We have graduated income tax rates that are not equal for those making the least. And this is also another social policy a baby depends on for optimal health and nurturing.

As a liberal, Im not sure how your rallying cry for "equality" can be used to take benefits away from others in need. Its absurd

Please dont deviate from the topic. All of your points are valid, but not part of this discussion.

You are talking about a red-herring. The same type of distraction that right wingers use to deride aid for poor people whose "choices" led them to be that way. How people become in need doesn't undermind their need for special consideration (though it may influence what the optimal response may be)

The primary issue is if social policy should take in account two individual's need, and how it benefits all parties involved, including society in general.

What, give her a lunch hour to deliver and then get back to work?

Because after all, children are just a drain on the resources YOU need, right?

That is bs. If you think employers should offer a sabbatical for everyone fine, but that is a different issue entirely.

And, if they are going to give sabbaticals, it should be in ADDITION to maternity or paternity leave. Not in lieu of it!

Dealing with an adult who is gravely or chronically ill is just as worthy of time off from work as a newborn.

Ever have to keep up with a dementia patient?

Ever have to care for someone while they go through cancer treatment.

Ever have to constantly remind an elderly relative to take all their meds, or eat properly.

Even at that. I think a general time off from work, for six months or whatever limit is set, is good for men and women. What the individual does with it, is up to them.

Perhaps a single person would like to travel during that time. Be a full time student. Or even have a baby.

I don't think it should matter, from a business owner's perspective, what you do with your time off.

No it isn't.

People with Alzheimers, for example, can live for Decades with ambulatory bodies, and the mind of a three year old.

Dealing with a 3 year old mind is a breeze. Id know.

Try dealing with a new born when you are physically and mentally exhausted, and sleep deprived to top it all off. Its a breeze when you are a woman with blood dripping from between your legs for a month who wakes up hourly to feed in a soaking wet bed from milk lactation

had to be put in a home finally because he was so physically rough with my grandmother. And they had to put him in lock-down because he kept escaping from the regular nursing home.

So I have been in both boats, the woman you described and seen the elderly as described by the other poster. Neither is a fun thing to deal with, but at least with the baby odds are you are happy that you have it. :)

Ask me that after 11 PM tonight. :)

days. I wasn't very happy then, I'll admit. LOL

My mom took care of my dad as he was dying of Parkinson's disease, and it was like two full-time jobs.

She herself said that babies were easier.

From an exhausted, nursing mother?

Keeping my sanity, as just a father, in the toughest venture I have ever been through (amongst national level athletic programs, regimented university education, running my own business, back-breaking labor, etc), took everything I had and a whole lot of beer (and I still lost it a bit).

People tend to think babies are all giggles, drool and farts. What a fucking misconception.

and doesn' know.

Illness and End of life issues aren't even on his radar.

like you learned anything of value.

That is very sad to me.

Just curious

like you enjoy yanking people's chains for the fun of it.

You haven't responded to anyone here with anything except hardheadedness and obstreperousness.

didn't know how to ask questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFFXQ6iz3jE

Note that my mother, who has obviously gone through both experiences, thought that taking care of a dying invalid was harder.

Not everyone thinks there's something heroic about reproducing. For thousands of years it was just a part of life.

This conversation is more about the next 6 months of little-Barack's life.

people carried babies around with them while doing a full day's work. The mother might take a day off, but the next day it was back to her usual chores.

Take your baby to work with you day, every day?

Take your kids too...and have em work like they used to. In fact, bring the black guy down the street who could be your slave for the day. Slavery and indentured servitude used to be quite prevalent

and on top of the incredible 24 hr a day job of caring for a dying relative, there's the fact that there is no reward and nothing to look forward to

caring for them is its own reward in a sense, but it's grim, stressful, heartbreaking, with no light at the end

Yes, I couldn't possibly imagine a 24 hour job! Im glad babies sleep all day and gurgle.

they they probably should have waited to have the child

their negativity and stress ALSO affects the child and simply getting a 6 month sabbatical would never be enough to cure their attitude

What sense does that make? Chalking up the negative experiences of raising an infant to an "attitude", is, fucking ridiculous.

now, to the detriment of your kids, i fear

Thats, eh, real big of you. Way to dive real deep into the subject.

When I moved them from another state I took a month off. And after that I had days off to take them to medical appointments or be there when they had surgeries. It kept them out of nursing homes.

You might not think that kind of time off is worthy. So it sucks to be you.

So beware of the straw man here that was weaved. Equally so to the demands of a new parent? I don't buy that, so I don't see "as worthy". Parents need a little *extra* time under their unique circumstances.

Everyone needs a break. Everyone most certainly needs some time when they have the demands on them you bring up. But its a whole other world for a new parent, where you become a virtual zombie for months.

I'm taking care of my dying cancer-stricken mother right now. Every day is a new ordeal - it's a living hell. I change diapers too, you know - except my subject is 150lbs and screams in agony when I move her. I change dressings, bathe her, juggle a complex array of meds, feed her, brush her teeth, clean up vomit and blood, constantly monitor vital signs and hold her when she cries in fear and anguish. I'm so wiped out physically and emotionally I could sleep for a week. But my task is not equal to yours??

I can't believe the obliviousness and insensitivity of your posts.

Not every case of taking care of a family member is the same--Im sorry to hear about your experience and wish you luck. Not every case of parenting either (my first child was 20X more demanding physically and emotionally than my next). Sometimes social policies have to look at the averages and set blanket policies by picking arbitrary timelines that are generous to some and non-forgiving to other exceptions.

Fortunately, what you mention is need based, and not only should it be protected, but it already is. Much of this debate here is about eliminating need-based leave completely and just replacing it with a general vacation (if you need arises over the vacation, then good. If you use up vacation and have a need, you are up shit creek). There is no reason in the first place for those caring for family members to be upset with those who need maternity--they are really on the same side in this debate.

Because It's on! :eyes:

Seriously. What in heck makes you feel like one of these things should ever be pitted against the other? Seriesly. :wtf:

Everyone deserves vacation time, and its nice to have them in response to life's challenges. Parental challenges are beyond unique, especially for mothers due to sleep, lactation, hemorrhaging, hormones, etc.

You're in thrall to what your wife is going through, as you should be.

It's sweet. It really is.

However, the world is comprised of a lot of us who have very difference circumstances and we deserve equal time off for life events and passions we want to see in our lives also.

"world is comprised of a lot of us who have very difference circumstances and we deserve equal time off for life events and passions"

The "world" doesn't see it that way, or vacations would be as standard as maternity leave already. Maybe there is something more too it.

Look, I agree that everyone deserves equal time off for "life events and passions". I hope all mommies and daddies also get time off to go surfing if sabbaticals become standard. In the meantime, the baby gets to demand their parents go from an 8 hour work day to a 24 hour work day for their safety and health.

I'm all for everyone getting vacations to pursue their dreams and passions, in addition to the babies who get their demands. Then all workers, including parents, can have some fun in life and chill out. As of now, few, if any, get that opportunity (least of all, parents)

I'm not talking about an extended vacation here. You are trying to belittle and patronize me and my life. Stop!

I see vacation as a separate issue.

Babies are wonderful, but not everyone has them. Some just don't. Some can't or shouldn't due to health reason. Doesn't mean they don't need time away from work for reasons that probably aren't important to you but are important to them and to society at large.

No they aren't. They absolutely suck, with all do respect, but you still love them and take care of them. Every blue moon they give you a smile, but in the meantime its shit, drool, screams and a constant demand on your needs. Eventually they start biting. Doesn't sound wonderful.

into capable little people who can (mostly) dress themselves, say what they want, and who you can trust to put only food in their mouths.

IOW, enjoy the drool and the loaded diapers, because they leave it all too soon.

As, Hunter S Thompson said. Buy the ticket; enjoy the ride.

Which is my current real-time theme. :)

Shes in bed. Still rather loud & shrill.

parenting classes before having a child

and spent time around infants before hand

you sound overwhelmed and the child suffers from this

believe me, not all parents are this stressed and negative

Not all children are stressful.

We forget our newborn is there half the time if my wife wasn't nursing him so much.

Classes, courses, experience are all fine and good, but a 24/7 crash course that never ends with your own is a different story. That is the real life story

:D

He'll get it in a few years when his or her parents start not being able to care for themselves.

Then again, maybe I won't under those circumstances.

I honestly find a lot of parents these days so insufferable that I go out of my way to avoid them. Whiny, attention-starved narcissists.

Funny how it's yet another example of parenthood NOT turning someone who did it into a mature and responsible person.

The difference between them or Octomom and your typical entitled martyr parent* is one of degree, but not kind.

*Note that I'm not making a statement about all parents. Many people are actually able to have and raise kids without turning into insufferable whiny boring drama queens.

If parenthood more often produced these terrible bitter martyr parents, I would assert that Obama would by grumbling in the Senate at President McCain's actions


By in large, on average, parenting doesn't not produce Jeffery Dahmer worshipping children. Im mean...hey, it works...for better or worse, we haven't entirely become a blood sucking society after thousands of years. Hell, its just 1% of the population that is really fucking everyone.

unlike when one CHOOSES to have offspring.
And it was indeed a CHOICE, wasn't it?

But uh, again, you are talking as if this is someone being rewarded for a choice. The only thing being significantly rewarded with maternity is the baby.

Both of those are choices

The married ring thing program, eh?

Again, who cares about the babies needs and choices. Fuck those greedy breeders.

Obviously, they don't need any help from me.

Dealing with an adult who is gravely or chronically ill is just as worthy of time off from work as a newborn.

No it is not. Purely looking at it from the standpoint of what activity benefits society the most, the value of caring for a child vastly outweighs caring for someone who is elderly. A child will grow up to contribute to society by working and paying taxes, an elderly person will not. I know that is a brutal, heartless way to look at old people, but it is nevertheless true.

Yours is an awful response.

I suppose from your POV, people who work at Hospice centers are just wasting their time.

They are being paid for their time. Id imagine some have their pleasure centers stimulated from what they perceive as fulfilling work.

if people who worked at Hospice only did so for monetary reasons.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Most work there because they consider it a calling, not just a paycheck. edit; People who only want a paycheck can't do it; it's too draining, too emotionally challenging.

I know because I've worked with Hospice folks and seen them close up. Some of the gentlest most compassionate people you'd ever want to meet.

If they love their calling so much.


:)

which many parents love to stimulate?

People who work at Hospice centers are not just wasting their time--they provide a valuable service. However valuable that service is, it is less valuable than the service that people provide by raising children.

is to turn this into a who is more worthy argument.

Life events aren't a competition about who has the BEST ONE!

What I'm saying is we all deserve to have time off from work to tend to things in our lives that are important to us, whether that be children, or school, or elderly relatives, is up to us.

Its possible that if early developing humans put more value into caring for their older and dying members than their future warriors, they would of been eaten up by rabid packs of chimpanzees. Society has formed based on these rather ingrained concepts (that may go as far as genetics), which manifest themselves in these types of social policies. Its a door that can be opened to an incredibly complex argument, but Ill just quickly assert that naturally we value one over the other (right or wrong). If we don't there would be no one growing up to take care of the elderly when they needed it anyway. There is a value associated with each action that has been consistently weighed (in favor of the children) for thousands of years. Does it make it universally right? Probably not, but perhaps correct according to human nature or the logistics of survival (which we try to transcend in modern times where applicable)

So you think we should still live like our hunter/gatherer ancestors did and let the elderly go off in the woods to die so they don't take up any more community and family resources that should be left to the baby.

And we should use sleep centers, rather than chance it to the woods.

...because if this were an argument about who is more worthy you would lose.

the point of ridiculousness.

And if you have kids, I feel sorry for them that you are a parent.

and other children who, through no fault of their own, will never be productive members of society? If the children don't have a future monetary value, then the parents shouldn't get maternity/paternity leave, right? You're on a VERY slippery slope with the "raising babies is more valuable work than caring for the elderly" line.

The social ROI on a newborn has 70 to 80 years to mature.

The problem is people are seeing this ONLY in terms of the mother, as if she is getting a vacation. They don't realize this time is rather an investment into a society's future (right or wrong, that is the primary social value OVER investing into the elderly)

You have to dramatically alter how a society thinks and works to change this, if even possible (though it could be subconscious and an inherent residual mechanism left over from natural selection)

If you want to speculate, so can I.

The outcome is mostly decent, except for the 45% that grow up and vote Republican. But we now know they ALL weren't breastfed.

What if they move to another country? What if the die before being old enough to pay taxes? What if they become tax evaders? The what ifs are pretty endless, I could go on but I don't think it's needed.

I'm not buying this one life is more important based on being a possible source of future tax revenue.

What about the fact that the elderly person already paid taxes and contributed?

You gotta go with the numbers.

Thats an argument that could be applied to welfare or really any entitlement program. What if...

You don't. The elderly person has already proven his/her value to the world, whatever that was.

Someone they imagine? Or someone who used to be a baby? Them elderly people may be quite happy to know they were being cared for by a child whose mother was actually able to, by social policy, nurture and develop a sense of caring into that individual.

Depending on one's view of carrying capacity of the planet and the marginal impact of more individuals, society might be much better served by developing patterns in which fewer young people are assisted in making the lives of the ailing humane than in maintaining systems that encourage the breeding of more consumers.

Im not really sure what a sane and effective policy is to handle this issue. Its also a global problem too

And the fact that the elderly person has already spent a lifetime contributing to society, paying taxes, etc. means nothing I suppose? They're just worthless old husks to be discarded - no value at all.

Your definition of "benefiting society" is pretty twisted.

ought to be given due consideration in the granting of a sabattical period.

Or you'll have the right wing saying women are weaker and can't do jobs as effectively.

Its tough enough for me to just be there half the time, and I don't have to nurse all night

As a new parent myself, we made the CHOICE to deal with all that goes along with a new baby.

Societies often make choices to make caring for them easier, that are exception to other members, in order to ensure a healthier posterity continues on.


Again, its not exactly about the parent. What is in the best interest of little baby Barack?

Which require a substantial investment of time when they are puppies.

It includes caring for seriously ill parents, children or spouses. NOT siblings, NOT grandparents, NOT aunts or uncles, NOT domestic partners or their children.

It also doesn't stop them from laying you off before you get a chance to even request the benefit, which happened to me. Whereas a pregnant woman is protected.

But I just don't see how the US significantly benefits if they repeal maternity and the Family Leave Act in favor of some vacation system for everyone. Thats pretty much the gist of the OP and what some people here suggest.