IDK, the world doesn't stop turning just because you have a baby. I mean, I'm a SAHM with an 11 day old baby and I've been back at "work" for four days. I have four other kids to care for, homeschool, feed, and entertain. I was in my garden pulling weeds yesterday, because it has to get done. Life goes on. My household still has to function.
And businesses are no different. They have to keep going when we choose to have babies. I don't fault them one bit for putting profits first. That's their job.
You are fine with women who have not physically recovered from childbirth or had necessary bonding time with their babies going back to work so soon? You don't find that problematic from a societal perspective? Running a household and running a business are two different things. We should expect more from society.
IDK, the world doesn't stop turning just because you have a baby. I mean, I'm a SAHM with an 11 day old baby and I've been back at "work" for four days. I have four other kids to care for, homeschool, feed, and entertain. I was in my garden pulling weeds yesterday, because it has to get done. Life goes on. My household still has to function.
And businesses are no different. They have to keep going when we choose to have babies. I don't fault them one bit for putting profits first. That's their job.
You are fine with women who have not physically recovered from childbirth or had necessary bonding time with their babies going back to work so soon? You don't find that problematic from a societal perspective? Running a household and running a business are two different things. We should expect more from society.
Well, you know me, I sort of feel like women belong at home anyways. I don't see how leaving a child at six or twelve weeks is any easier than leaving them at two weeks. It's all the same to me. And I say this as someone who had to return to work (WAH job) at six weeks for my last four babies.
But to be honest, I don't see a difference either between returning to a job at two weeks when you're not physically recovered and returning to a life like mine. In fact, sitting in an office would be a heck of a lot easier on me physically than what I am dealing with at home. Unless your job is physically demanding, like manual labor. Or perhaps it's different if you've had a c/s.
I think it sucks that women have to leave their babies. It's sad to me. But I don't think mandating paid leave is the answer. I think changing our priorities as parents and families is the answer.
But I'm also all about smaller government and more personal responsibility, so there's that. We all have to make our own choices and priorities. The government shouldn't force businesses to bail us out of them at their expense.
was5 i asked to make a 6 week paid maternity leave a bargaining platform for my employee union last year (I've since moved and switched jobs). I was STUNNED when a female colleague said "why would we ask for that. What do *I* get out of that?"
Are you fucking kidding me?
That is so frustrating. It is a good policy, even if she won't benefit from it herself. It will benefit other women, but why would we care about them and their families. So much for solidarity. Ugh.
I was looking through old union contracts when I was pregnant trying to get the exact language on maternity leave. At one point, my union allowed for 6 months off after child birth. It wasn't paid of course, but I think you could use vacation time to get paid for a portion. At least you knew your job would be safe even if the financial part was a struggle.
The more I think about it, it seems that we as Americans are so resistant to good maternity leave because we don't think mothers should work. Most people have adapted to the idea of women working, but there is an underlying belief that once you become a mother you should do everything you can to stay at home with your child. If we had better maternity leave policies, say for 6 months, more mothers would probably return to work. But, if you are forced to make that decision when your baby is 4 weeks old and you have the means to stay home with your child (at least in the short run) you are more likely to stay home. If you know you are going to have a solid 6 months off to be with your baby before returning to work, you are probably more likely to make the choice to go back. It is unfortunate that this doesn't take into account the mothers who cannot afford to stop working or the women who really love and get fulfillment from their jobs.
I think this is part of it, but I really think it's more about sheer selfishness. "Well, I don't get a 3 month vacation so why should other people?" and "Why should I help you when it doesn't benefit me?" and "You're the one having the baby, not me, so why should I have to pay or help?"
I really think our society has been swallowed by "if it doesn't benefit me personally, it's not worth doing/paying for."
You are fine with women who have not physically recovered from childbirth or had necessary bonding time with their babies going back to work so soon? You don't find that problematic from a societal perspective? Running a household and running a business are two different things. We should expect more from society.
Well, you know me, I sort of feel like women belong at home anyways. I don't see how leaving a child at six or twelve weeks is any easier than leaving them at two weeks. It's all the same to me. And I say this as someone who had to return to work (WAH job) at six weeks for my last four babies.
But to be honest, I don't see a difference either between returning to a job at two weeks when you're not physically recovered and returning to a life like mine. In fact, sitting in an office would be a heck of a lot easier on me physically than what I am dealing with at home. Unless your job is physically demanding, like manual labor. Or perhaps it's different if you've had a c/s.
I think it sucks that women have to leave their babies. It's sad to me. But I don't think mandating paid leave is the answer. I think changing our priorities as parents and families is the answer.
But I'm also all about smaller government and more personal responsibility, so there's that. We all have to make our own choices and priorities. The government shouldn't force businesses to bail us out of them at their expense.
You are fine with women who have not physically recovered from childbirth or had necessary bonding time with their babies going back to work so soon? You don't find that problematic from a societal perspective? Running a household and running a business are two different things. We should expect more from society.
Well, you know me, I sort of feel like women belong at home anyways. I don't see how leaving a child at six or twelve weeks is any easier than leaving them at two weeks. It's all the same to me. And I say this as someone who had to return to work (WAH job) at six weeks for my last four babies.
But to be honest, I don't see a difference either between returning to a job at two weeks when you're not physically recovered and returning to a life like mine. In fact, sitting in an office would be a heck of a lot easier on me physically than what I am dealing with at home. Unless your job is physically demanding, like manual labor. Or perhaps it's different if you've had a c/s.
I think it sucks that women have to leave their babies. It's sad to me. But I don't think mandating paid leave is the answer. I think changing our priorities as parents and families is the answer.
But I'm also all about smaller government and more personal responsibility, so there's that. We all have to make our own choices and priorities. The government shouldn't force businesses to bail us out of them at their expense.
Do you think this about recovery from all major medical events (surgery, etc) or just childbirth?
Well, you know me, I sort of feel like women belong at home anyways. I don't see how leaving a child at six or twelve weeks is any easier than leaving them at two weeks. It's all the same to me. And I say this as someone who had to return to work (WAH job) at six weeks for my last four babies.
But to be honest, I don't see a difference either between returning to a job at two weeks when you're not physically recovered and returning to a life like mine. In fact, sitting in an office would be a heck of a lot easier on me physically than what I am dealing with at home. Unless your job is physically demanding, like manual labor. Or perhaps it's different if you've had a c/s.
I think it sucks that women have to leave their babies. It's sad to me. But I don't think mandating paid leave is the answer. I think changing our priorities as parents and families is the answer.
But I'm also all about smaller government and more personal responsibility, so there's that. We all have to make our own choices and priorities. The government shouldn't force businesses to bail us out of them at their expense.
What does this mean, specifically?Â
This isn't going to be popular, but here goes...
I think that the average American parents value material things over time spent with children. Very few of the families I know with two working parents truly need both parents working, at least not for the first few years when the kids are cheap to care for. The reason they "have" to work is to afford vacations, new clothes, manicures, cable TV, expensive cell phone plans, houses that are beyond what they need, expensive activities for their kids, etc. These families have decided that the bigger house and newer car, and best of the best on entertainment and exteacurriculars, are worth the sacrifice of more time with their children.
And then, of course, our own personal wants and desires play a role in this. Parents put their own career growth ahead of time spent with kids. A parent could take a few years off and then go back to work when the kids are older, but we as individuals tend to value our own lives and career potential more than that time home with kids. Parenting is all about sacrifice.
We are a consumer culture. We value things and experiences outside of the home and family more than we value time spent in our homes and with our families. It's why both parents and kids are run ragged in our culture.
But to speak to your other point in an above post, yes, I have a problem with my husband paying tax money (at the two jobs he has to work so I can be home with our children) so that some other working mother can be paid to stay home with hers. DH and I have sacrificed so much so that I was finally able to be home full-time with our children. We made it happen - selling a home in a terrible market, cutting our home's square footage in half, moving to the cheapest district in our area, getting rid of all extra spending (including "essentials" like home internet), and him taking on extra work - it took years to happen. The thought that he should have to subsidize maternity leave so another woman can be with her children for a year is ridiculous. We are happy to support the benevolent fund at our church, which helps families during hard financial times, including when mothers have to take time off work to recover from birth. But the government forcing that support - I guess I'm just not cool with that.
Well, you know me, I sort of feel like women belong at home anyways. I don't see how leaving a child at six or twelve weeks is any easier than leaving them at two weeks. It's all the same to me. And I say this as someone who had to return to work (WAH job) at six weeks for my last four babies.
But to be honest, I don't see a difference either between returning to a job at two weeks when you're not physically recovered and returning to a life like mine. In fact, sitting in an office would be a heck of a lot easier on me physically than what I am dealing with at home. Unless your job is physically demanding, like manual labor. Or perhaps it's different if you've had a c/s.
I think it sucks that women have to leave their babies. It's sad to me. But I don't think mandating paid leave is the answer. I think changing our priorities as parents and families is the answer.
But I'm also all about smaller government and more personal responsibility, so there's that. We all have to make our own choices and priorities. The government shouldn't force businesses to bail us out of them at their expense.
Do you think this about recovery from all major medical events (surgery, etc) or just childbirth?
I guess I don't view birth as a major medical event either. That's why I do it at home and not in a hospital.
I view a c/s as the same as any other surgery. But a vaginal birth, IME, isn't a huge medical event on par with surgery.
Women need to be kind to themselves for a while after the birth. I wouldn't think it would be wise to return to a manual labor job at two weeks PP. But nothing would prevent a woman from sitting at a desk at two weeks out.
That is so frustrating. It is a good policy, even if she won't benefit from it herself. It will benefit other women, but why would we care about them and their families. So much for solidarity. Ugh.
I was looking through old union contracts when I was pregnant trying to get the exact language on maternity leave. At one point, my union allowed for 6 months off after child birth. It wasn't paid of course, but I think you could use vacation time to get paid for a portion. At least you knew your job would be safe even if the financial part was a struggle.
The more I think about it, it seems that we as Americans are so resistant to good maternity leave because we don't think mothers should work. Most people have adapted to the idea of women working, but there is an underlying belief that once you become a mother you should do everything you can to stay at home with your child. If we had better maternity leave policies, say for 6 months, more mothers would probably return to work. But, if you are forced to make that decision when your baby is 4 weeks old and you have the means to stay home with your child (at least in the short run) you are more likely to stay home. If you know you are going to have a solid 6 months off to be with your baby before returning to work, you are probably more likely to make the choice to go back. It is unfortunate that this doesn't take into account the mothers who cannot afford to stop working or the women who really love and get fulfillment from their jobs.
I think this is part of it, but I really think it's more about sheer selfishness. "Well, I don't get a 3 month vacation so why should other people?" and "Why should I help you when it doesn't benefit me?" and "You're the one having the baby, not me, so why should I have to pay or help?"
I really think our society has been swallowed by "if it doesn't benefit me personally, it's not worth doing/paying for."
Yeah, I see that too. It's hard to fight for something that doesn't benefit you unless. If I'm honest with myself, if my company changed its policy and gave 6 months for maternity leave, I would be super jealous of those who benefitted from it now. Not that I don't think they should have it, they should, but it's hard to get over that personal jealousy and accept change or fight for change because it benefits society as a whole.
Do you think this about recovery from all major medical events (surgery, etc) or just childbirth?
I guess I don't view birth as a major medical event either. That's why I do it at home and not in a hospital.
I view a c/s as the same as any other surgery. But a vaginal birth, IME, isn't a huge medical event on par with surgery.
Women need to be kind to themselves for a while after the birth. I wouldn't think it would be wise to return to a manyal labor job at two weeks PP. But nothing would prevent a woman from sitting at a desk at two weeks out.
Being on pain medications that her employer prohibits? Being prohibited to drive?
I had a c-section and I know that makes you think I'm a special snowflake, but at 2 weeks PP, I still had a hard time walking any distance (and my car is about a 5-10 minute brisk walk to my desk), and my doctor strongly suggested I not drive (which I thought was stupid, but whatever). I was also taking occasional Rx pain medications that I'm pretty sure I can't have in my system and be at work. So I'm not being dramatic when I say that while I could've physically sat at my desk, I couldn't have actually gotten there. And could've exposed myself to discipline or termination for being there.
Oh. Well, as long as AW doesn't think that birth is a major medical event, it must not be. It's not at all possible that other women might have experienced it differently.
I think this is part of it, but I really think it's more about sheer selfishness. "Well, I don't get a 3 month vacation so why should other people?" and "Why should I help you when it doesn't benefit me?" and "You're the one having the baby, not me, so why should I have to pay or help?"
I really think our society has been swallowed by "if it doesn't benefit me personally, it's not worth doing/paying for."
Yeah, I see that too. It's hard to fight for something that doesn't benefit you unless. If I'm honest with myself, if my company changed its policy and gave 6 months for maternity leave, I would be super jealous of those who benefitted from it now. Not that I don't think they should have it, they should, but it's hard to get over that personal jealousy and accept change or fight for change because it benefits society as a whole.
I joked to my husband the other day that I'd be in board for a second kid if my company bumped up its maternity leave policy from 12 weeks to 6 mos.
Do you think this about recovery from all major medical events (surgery, etc) or just childbirth?
I guess I don't view birth as a major medical event either. That's why I do it at home and not in a hospital.
I view a c/s as the same as any other surgery. But a vaginal birth, IME, isn't a huge medical event on par with surgery.
Women need to be kind to themselves for a while after the birth. I wouldn't think it would be wise to return to a manual labor job at two weeks PP. But nothing would prevent a woman from sitting at a desk at two weeks out.
Does this include my friend who just had a baby and a major hemorrhage requiring a blood transfusion?
Physically it's going to take her more then 2 weeks to recover from that much blood loss (BTDT personally from an intestinal hemorrhage and I was a kid without a baby to nurse/care for and a 2 yr old to chase)
she is going to have to go back to work in 2 weeks because her husband is in school and not making money right now. They have to have her income and she doesn't have paid leave.
It is going to be physically difficult for her to go back to work that soon but she has no options.
I think that the average American parents value material things over time spent with children. Very few of the families I know with two working parents truly need both parents working, at least not for the first few years when the kids are cheap to care for. The reason they "have" to work is to afford vacations, new clothes, manicures, cable TV, expensive cell phone plans, houses that are beyond what they need, expensive activities for their kids, etc. These families have decided that the bigger house and newer car, and best of the best on entertainment and exteacurriculars, are worth the sacrifice of more time with their children.
And then, of course, our own personal wants and desires play a role in this. Parents put their own career growth ahead of time spent with kids. A parent could take a few years off and then go back to work when the kids are older, but we as individuals tend to value our own lives and career potential more than that time home with kids. Parenting is all about sacrifice.
We are a consumer culture. We value things and experiences outside of the home and family more than we value time spent in our homes and with our families. It's why both parents and kids are run ragged in our culture.
But to speak to your other point in an above post, yes, I have a problem with my husband paying tax money (at the two jobs he has to work so I can be home with our children) so that some other working mother can be paid to stay home with hers. DH and I have sacrificed so much so that I was finally able to be home full-time with our children. We made it happen - selling a home in a terrible market, cutting our home's square footage in half, moving to the cheapest district in our area, getting rid of all extra spending (including "essentials" like home internet), and him taking on extra work - it took years to happen. The thought that he should have to subsidize maternity leave so another woman can be with her children for a year is ridiculous. We are happy to support the benevolent fund at our church, which helps families during hard financial times, including when mothers have to take time off work to recover from birth. But the government forcing that support - I guess I'm just not cool with that.
I don't think a person who is supporting a family of 5 should see an increase in their taxes either. However, that doesn't mean the tax money from other sources (corporations, the very wealthy) couldn't be used to cover the cost of extended leave. Companies benefit from the women's education and experience. If they want these talented women to work for them, they should provide benefits that allow them to be both good mothers and good employees.
Also, a lot of the need for dual incomes is to pay off student loan debt, or personal debt that is accrued by people trying to make payments on their loans when they are barely making enough money to pay the for the essentials (I used my credit cards to buy groceries and gas on many occasions because my paycheck was used make student loan payments). Does that mean that women shouldn't take out loans for college if they ever plan on having children?
The reason I think we don't value maternity leave is because we allow businesses to take over our lives. If companies truly baled work life balance EVERYONE would take more leave. As a culture we do not value time off of work and often view a one week vacation as a long time away from work. It is what leads to corporate burn out as well as higher stress, which in turn leads to stress related disease.
I feel like for the US to value maternity leave we first would need to mandate every person not only receive vacation time but also take it, and require it to be planned so that it does not slip into additional sick days that parents usually have to take for their children's illnesses.
I think that the average American parents value material things over time spent with children. Very few of the families I know with two working parents truly need both parents working, at least not for the first few years when the kids are cheap to care for. The reason they "have" to work is to afford vacations, new clothes, manicures, cable TV, expensive cell phone plans, houses that are beyond what they need, expensive activities for their kids, etc. These families have decided that the bigger house and newer car, and best of the best on entertainment and exteacurriculars, are worth the sacrifice of more time with their children.
And then, of course, our own personal wants and desires play a role in this. Parents put their own career growth ahead of time spent with kids. A parent could take a few years off and then go back to work when the kids are older, but we as individuals tend to value our own lives and career potential more than that time home with kids. Parenting is all about sacrifice.
We are a consumer culture. We value things and experiences outside of the home and family more than we value time spent in our homes and with our families. It's why both parents and kids are run ragged in our culture.
But to speak to your other point in an above post, yes, I have a problem with my husband paying tax money (at the two jobs he has to work so I can be home with our children) so that some other working mother can be paid to stay home with hers. DH and I have sacrificed so much so that I was finally able to be home full-time with our children. We made it happen - selling a home in a terrible market, cutting our home's square footage in half, moving to the cheapest district in our area, getting rid of all extra spending (including "essentials" like home internet), and him taking on extra work - it took years to happen. The thought that he should have to subsidize maternity leave so another woman can be with her children for a year is ridiculous. We are happy to support the benevolent fund at our church, which helps families during hard financial times, including when mothers have to take time off work to recover from birth. But the government forcing that support - I guess I'm just not cool with that.
Well, yes, I completely disagree with this, and I don't think your personal experiences are indicative of all American culture.
What happens to mothers who don't belong to a church, or whose churches don't have such a fund? The point of government providing these benefits is so that they are available to everyone, regardless of whether they're lucky enough to have the support of a church or community or not, regardless of whether a charity deems them worthy of help or not.
I guess I don't view birth as a major medical event either. That's why I do it at home and not in a hospital.
I view a c/s as the same as any other surgery. But a vaginal birth, IME, isn't a huge medical event on par with surgery.
Women need to be kind to themselves for a while after the birth. I wouldn't think it would be wise to return to a manyal labor job at two weeks PP. But nothing would prevent a woman from sitting at a desk at two weeks out.
Being on pain medications that her employer prohibits? Being prohibited to drive?
I had a c-section and I know that makes you think I'm a special snowflake, but at 2 weeks PP, I still had a hard time walking any distance (and my car is about a 5-10 minute brisk walk to my desk), and my doctor strongly suggested I not drive (which I thought was stupid, but whatever). I was also taking occasional Rx pain medications that I'm pretty sure I can't have in my system and be at work. So I'm not being dramatic when I say that while I could've physically sat at my desk, I couldn't have actually gotten there. And could've exposed myself to discipline or termination for being there.
Right. You had a c/s, which as I mentioned, should be treated as any other major abdominal surgery would be.
Do you think this about recovery from all major medical events (surgery, etc) or just childbirth?
I guess I don't view birth as a major medical event either. That's why I do it at home and not in a hospital.
I view a c/s as the same as any other surgery. But a vaginal birth, IME, isn't a huge medical event on par with surgery.
Women need to be kind to themselves for a while after the birth. I wouldn't think it would be wise to return to a manual labor job at two weeks PP. But nothing would prevent a woman from sitting at a desk at two weeks out.
This is what bothers me (a recovering Republican) about small government- just because x, y, z worked for you doesn't mean that everyone who experiences something different is only entitled to what you needed. Vaginal birth is still dangerous, people (mothers and babies) still die from it. Just because you have been fortunate enough not to experience that does not mean that vaginal birth is not a major medical event.
IDK, the world doesn't stop turning just because you have a baby. I mean, I'm a SAHM with an 11 day old baby and I've been back at "work" for four days. I have four other kids to care for, homeschool, feed, and entertain. I was in my garden pulling weeds yesterday, because it has to get done. Life goes on. My household still has to function.
And businesses are no different. They have to keep going when we choose to have babies. I don't fault them one bit for putting profits first. That's their job.
Just please, stop.
I could go chapter and verse on you about how a robust paid parental leave approach would actually help companies, but I gather it will be a waste of time.
I guess I don't view birth as a major medical event either. That's why I do it at home and not in a hospital.
I view a c/s as the same as any other surgery. But a vaginal birth, IME, isn't a huge medical event on par with surgery.
Women need to be kind to themselves for a while after the birth. I wouldn't think it would be wise to return to a manual labor job at two weeks PP. But nothing would prevent a woman from sitting at a desk at two weeks out.
Does this include my friend who just had  a baby and a major hemorrhage requiring a blood transfusion?
Physically it's going to take her more then 2 weeks to recover from that much blood loss (BTDT personally from an intestinal hemorrhage and I was a kid without a baby to nurse/care for and a 2 yr old to chase)
she is going to have to go back to work in 2 weeks because her husband is in school and not making money right now. They have to have her income and she doesn't have paid leave.
It is going to be physically difficult for her to go  back to work that soon but she has no options.  Â
Has she looked at local churches? Many have funds available to help families in her situation. Mine would pay their bills for the month and give her more time to get back on her feet.
You are fine with women who have not physically recovered from childbirth or had necessary bonding time with their babies going back to work so soon? You don't find that problematic from a societal perspective? Running a household and running a business are two different things. We should expect more from society.
Well, you know me, I sort of feel like women belong at home anyways. I don't see how leaving a child at six or twelve weeks is any easier than leaving them at two weeks. It's all the same to me. And I say this as someone who had to return to work (WAH job) at six weeks for my last four babies.
But to be honest, I don't see a difference either between returning to a job at two weeks when you're not physically recovered and returning to a life like mine. In fact, sitting in an office would be a heck of a lot easier on me physically than what I am dealing with at home. Unless your job is physically demanding, like manual labor. Or perhaps it's different if you've had a c/s.
I think it sucks that women have to leave their babies. It's sad to me. But I don't think mandating paid leave is the answer. I think changing our priorities as parents and families is the answer.
But I'm also all about smaller government and more personal responsibility, so there's that. We all have to make our own choices and priorities. The government shouldn't force businesses to bail us out of them at their expense.
i am THE SOLE PAYCHECK in my family. So please, o wise one, re-prioritize my life for me.
I think that the average American parents value material things over time spent with children. Very few of the families I know with two working parents truly need both parents working, at least not for the first few years when the kids are cheap to care for. The reason they "have" to work is to afford vacations, new clothes, manicures, cable TV, expensive cell phone plans, houses that are beyond what they need, expensive activities for their kids, etc. These families have decided that the bigger house and newer car, and best of the best on entertainment and exteacurriculars, are worth the sacrifice of more time with their children.
And then, of course, our own personal wants and desires play a role in this. Parents put their own career growth ahead of time spent with kids. A parent could take a few years off and then go back to work when the kids are older, but we as individuals tend to value our own lives and career potential more than that time home with kids. Parenting is all about sacrifice.
We are a consumer culture. We value things and experiences outside of the home and family more than we value time spent in our homes and with our families. It's why both parents and kids are run ragged in our culture.
But to speak to your other point in an above post, yes, I have a problem with my husband paying tax money (at the two jobs he has to work so I can be home with our children) so that some other working mother can be paid to stay home with hers. DH and I have sacrificed so much so that I was finally able to be home full-time with our children. We made it happen - selling a home in a terrible market, cutting our home's square footage in half, moving to the cheapest district in our area, getting rid of all extra spending (including "essentials" like home internet), and him taking on extra work - it took years to happen. The thought that he should have to subsidize maternity leave so another woman can be with her children for a year is ridiculous. We are happy to support the benevolent fund at our church, which helps families during hard financial times, including when mothers have to take time off work to recover from birth. But the government forcing that support - I guess I'm just not cool with that.
And you wonder why you have a hard time at family functions.....
Does this include my friend who just had a baby and a major hemorrhage requiring a blood transfusion?
Physically it's going to take her more then 2 weeks to recover from that much blood loss (BTDT personally from an intestinal hemorrhage and I was a kid without a baby to nurse/care for and a 2 yr old to chase)
she is going to have to go back to work in 2 weeks because her husband is in school and not making money right now. They have to have her income and she doesn't have paid leave.
It is going to be physically difficult for her to go back to work that soon but she has no options.
Has she looked at local churches? Many have funds available to help families in her situation. Mine would pay their bills for the month and give her more time to get back on her feet.
Yes she has (I suggested that as my local church has and does do this but back home not so much), she found one church that will help with the electricity bill but that is all. that leaves them with the mortgage, water, food, diapers, etc. and it's just not doable.
Being on pain medications that her employer prohibits? Being prohibited to drive?
I had a c-section and I know that makes you think I'm a special snowflake, but at 2 weeks PP, I still had a hard time walking any distance (and my car is about a 5-10 minute brisk walk to my desk), and my doctor strongly suggested I not drive (which I thought was stupid, but whatever). I was also taking occasional Rx pain medications that I'm pretty sure I can't have in my system and be at work. So I'm not being dramatic when I say that while I could've physically sat at my desk, I couldn't have actually gotten there. And could've exposed myself to discipline or termination for being there.
Right. You had a c/s, which as I mentioned, should be treated as any other major abdominal surgery would be.
You do realize that one in three women end up with a C-Section, right?
You do realize that husbands get sick, injured, or die, right?
You do realize that husbands sometimes leave, right?
You do realize that food, diapers and shelter don't buy themselves, right?
I get so motherfucking tired of women telling other women to just know their goddamned place.
The only thing making this thread more entertaining for me is the fact that I am reading it during my luxuriously long maternity leave, subsidized by the stolen wages of beleaguered men from sea to shining sea.
Post by jeaniebueller on Apr 28, 2016 11:15:49 GMT -5
I just can't reconcile being a family or society that supposedly values family and children, and not having some kind of standardized paid medical leave for having a baby. The stuff about infant bonding with her caregiver, is not made up. There are studies that back it up. The issue of women needing to physically recover from childbirth, whether you had a vaginal or cesarean delivery, is not made up either.
IDK, the world doesn't stop turning just because you have a baby. I mean, I'm a SAHM with an 11 day old baby and I've been back at "work" for four days. I have four other kids to care for, homeschool, feed, and entertain. I was in my garden pulling weeds yesterday, because it has to get done. Life goes on. My household still has to function.
And businesses are no different. They have to keep going when we choose to have babies. I don't fault them one bit for putting profits first. That's their job.
But to be fair, you're choosing to make things harder than they have to be by homeschooling the older ones. You choose to do that. They women don't even have that choice.