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.
Yes, it is. It is not a major medical event, sorry.
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.
Exactly if we truly valued a parent being at home we would put our money where our mouth is and fund it. Other countries do it and do so pretty successfully allowing a parent to stay home with financial support because a parent being at home at first is considered important enough to pay for.
Post by picksthemusic on Apr 28, 2016 11:26:22 GMT -5
And, really, this just highlights the irony of how government wants us all to have ALL THE BEBEHS, and yet once they come out, it's our problem, too bad, so sad.
I just can't with this nonsense.
ETA: I'm still fuming. Government (mostly GOP) wants to restrict access to reliable, affordable birth control, teach our children abstinence only, make abortion illegal, ALL of which just adds to the unwanted/unsafe pregnancy problem, only to tell women and families, SORRY YOU CAN'T STAY HOME WITH YOUR BABY.
Lol that I could sit in a desk chair at two weeks post partum. Even for the simple birth that didn't necessitate surgical repair, I was still sitting icing my crotch and sitting on the boppy at two weeks post partum.
To be clear, I don't think you need to have some high risk pregnancy or emergency, to deserve maternity leave. Everyone deserves maternity leave regardless of their circumstances, period. 2 weeks, 6 weeks, or even 12 with less than 100% pay is ridiculous.
Oh and Pdq. I'll DD at some point (paranoia and all that).
I wish I had not opened this thread. I'm amazed at how calm you all are being in the face of "well I did it so :shrugs: anyone can" type chilly disconnect from reality. I don't believe in attacking a woman with an 11 day old. So... Bless your heart AW. Bless your Christian heart.
I'm actually having a good leave. My baby is doing well and naps and sleeps and breastfeeding is going great. I feel physically recovered and emotionally I am of sound mind. I could probably go back to work now at 10 weeks PP and survive. It would not be preferable but I could manage. But being a human with the capacity to realize that not every woman has a post partum period like mine I know that my experience should not dictate the experiences of others. Because some random woman is "fine" at 11 days does not mean that all women should get no more than 11 days of recovery. This is not how public policy is made. Thank God AW is not in any sort of position to set policy, on any subject, for the rest of America. Thank God.
Thanks guys. It was the lowest point of my life, but so as to not make this such a somber point in the thread, I'm doing much better and am ready to give birth to my new baby soon. :-)
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.
I'm just gobsmacked by this. Your H works two jobs to support your family. In my family, we work two jobs- I work one, my H works the other.
Your argument doesn't make any sense because you're still a dual income household. The only difference is that only one person is making both incomes.
How do you not get that other working families need both incomes to survive? You guys do too!
Thanks guys. It was the lowest point of my life, but so as to not make this such a somber point in the thread, I'm doing much better and am ready to give birth to my new baby soon. :-)
I am trying to figure out how LurkingAW's taxes are paying for maternity leave for other women. Isn't maternity leave generally paid through short term disability insurance or directly through a company? Am I missing something?
Also, paid leave programs are not paid for by the tax payers at large, they are paid for by the employer and the individual taking the leave. AW's beloved doesn't actually have to support knocked up women, other than his own.
Let's just call this what this is: AW and her ilk don't think women should be working for pay outside of the home. So they want to throw up whatever road blocks they can to make their version of acceptable behavior a reality.
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.
I'm just gobsmacked by this. Your H works two jobs to support your family. In my family, we work two jobs- I work one, my H works the other.
Your argument doesn't make any sense because you're still a dual income household. The only difference is that only one person is making both incomes.
How do you not get that other working families need both incomes to survive? You guys do too!
My husband works two jobs to support five kids. It's a choice we made to have five kids (plus, Lord willing). If we had atopped at two or three, like the average American family, we would not need the income from both of his jobs.
And also, the difference between my husband working two jobs and you and your husband having two jobs is that our situation leaves one parent home full-time, so, you know, we're not asking anyone else to help us take care of our children after I have them. It was our choice to have them, so we planned a way to do it that would allow me to be home to recover and bond with them.
Let's just call this what this is: AW and her ilk don't think women should be working for pay outside of the home. So they want to throw up whatever road blocks they can to make their version of acceptable behavior a reality.
To be fair, she said that herself in her first post.
Also, paid leave programs are not paid for by the tax payers at large, they are paid for by the employer and the individual taking the leave. AW's beloved doesn't actually have to support knocked up women, other than his own.
No. But I have seen this idea proposed by others here as a way to pay for one year maternity leave for all. That's why I mentioned I wasn't keen on the idea of it. I recognize it isn't reality....yet.
I'm just gobsmacked by this. Your H works two jobs to support your family. In my family, we work two jobs- I work one, my H works the other.
Your argument doesn't make any sense because you're still a dual income household. The only difference is that only one person is making both incomes.
How do you not get that other working families need both incomes to survive? You guys do too!
My husband works two jobs to support five kids. It's a choice we made to have five kids (plus, Lord willing). If we had atopped at two or three, like the average American family, we would not need the income from both of his jobs.
And also, the difference between my husband working two jobs and you and your husband having two jobs is that our situation leaves one parent home full-time, so, you know, we're not asking anyone else to help us take care of our children after I have them. It was our choice to have them, so we planned a way to do it that would allow me to be home to recover and bond with them.
Having a baby isn't always a choice, and with the restrictions on Planned Parenthood and other access to gynecological medical care it's not always easy for low income women to control their fertility to avoid pregnancy.
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."
I think this is a HUGE part of it. Maybe the crux actually, especially now that so many more people are deliberately choosing not to have children. I think it's estimated that up to 20% of the population won't have children now, mostly by choice. I always see this come up on the comment sections to articles on this subject. These people are very much "well you chose to have a baby, what did you expect? This is partly why I decided not to," etc. etc. I guess it's a version of the bootstraps refrain and the American emphasis on individualism. We all have to reinvent the wheel.
I'm just gobsmacked by this. Your H works two jobs to support your family. In my family, we work two jobs- I work one, my H works the other.
Your argument doesn't make any sense because you're still a dual income household. The only difference is that only one person is making both incomes.
How do you not get that other working families need both incomes to survive? You guys do too!
My husband works two jobs to support five kids. It's a choice we made to have five kids (plus, Lord willing). If we had atopped at two or three, like the average American family, we would not need the income from both of his jobs.
And also, the difference between my husband working two jobs and you and your husband having two jobs is that our situation leaves one parent home full-time, so, you know, we're not asking anyone else to help us take care of our children after I have them. It was our choice to have them, so we planned a way to do it that would allow me to be home to recover and bond with them.
So, to sum it up, you are not only a better parent than I am for choosing to stay home with your children, but you are also more Godly (because you have five and I have one), less materialistic (because you choose to forego more income in order to stay home with your children), and less selfish (because I value the lifestyle I can provide my son by working rather than staying home with him) than I am? Got it. :Y:
Also, there are plenty of working families out there who make far less than your household income with both parents working and they don't all have more than two kids to take care of. So you can shut the fuck up with your judgmental Christian ideology.
My husband works two jobs to support five kids. It's a choice we made to have five kids (plus, Lord willing). If we had atopped at two or three, like the average American family, we would not need the income from both of his jobs.
And also, the difference between my husband working two jobs and you and your husband having two jobs is that our situation leaves one parent home full-time, so, you know, we're not asking anyone else to help us take care of our children after I have them. It was our choice to have them, so we planned a way to do it that would allow me to be home to recover and bond with them.
So, to sum it up, you are not only a better parent than I am for choosing to stay home with your children, but you are also more Godly (because you have five and I have one), less materialistic (because you choose to forego more income in order to stay home with your children), and less selfish (because I value the lifestyle I can provide my son by working rather than staying home with him) than I am? Got it.
Also, there are plenty of working families out there who make far less than your household income with both parents working and they don't all have more than two kids to take care of. So you can shut the fuck up with your judgmental Christian ideology.
I am trying to figure out how LurkingAW's taxes are paying for maternity leave for other women. Isn't maternity leave generally paid through short term disability insurance or directly through a company? Am I missing something?
It probably depends on what state you're in. I don't know where she lives but in NY it's funded by employees (but it's capped at like a dollar a week or something low which IMO is not too much to ask to make sure women get 12 weeks).
Post by pinkdutchtulips on Apr 28, 2016 12:18:05 GMT -5
I had a 7 wk mat leave ... I live in a state that offers both std AND PFL paid for through payroll taxes, taxes I pay out of every paycheck. I had at my disposal up to 12 wks of leave paid at 65% of my salary. My mat leave was 7 wks.
The joys of being hired pg (5 1/2 months, started at 7) and not being eligible for FMLA bc my em'or was too small (50 em'ees or less). My mat leave was written into my offer letter and I didn't want to look greedy from the onset in asking for 12 wks. I wanted to show my new em'or I COULD balance work and a new baby.