I have friends with 4 kids. I have friends with 1 kid. I have friends for whom pregnancy was easy. I have friends for whom pregnancy was a nightmare. I have friends whose children have been great sleepers from day 1. I have friends whose kids are five and still sleep like shit. I have friends who were released from the hospital after 24 hours. I have friends who are currently facing a 2-month NICU stay.
I'm not basic enough to think there is a universal experience. And I'm not basic enough to be willfully blind to this country's need for adequate maternity leave policies. So why argue with someone who is that basic?
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.
There's a lot here that I could respond to, but this is really jumping out at me. Do you realize that women with manual labor jobs are the ones who are the least likely to have any paid leave? And also less likely to have high wage earners as a partner?
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.
There's a lot here that I could respond to, but this is really jumping out at me. Do you realize that women with manual labor jobs are the ones who are the least likely to have any paid leave? And also less likely to have high wage earners as a partner?
not all women w desk jobs are married to high earners either. The 35% cut to my paycheck was too big and I went back to work at 7 wks pp.
If you are a god-loving truly good person who accepts all the children God chooses to bestow upon you, and you eschew all material things so that you can stay home with your children and don't grace a workforce with your lady-presence (those places should be staffed by men and childless women only), then you do deserve to bond and recover with your child(ren).
If however you worship the devil by receiving a paycheck from an actual business, then no you don't deserve bonding or recovery time. Why would you? If you are willing to hand your child off to some stranger in a cold, soul-less prison for children (daycare) at 12 weeks why on earth should you not just have to return to your desk at 1, 2 weeks post partum? it doesn't matter that you are still bleeding profusely from your vagina and maybe your C-section scar is about to open and bleed all over your cubicle floor. Or that you haven't slept the entire 1-2 weeks or you can't stop crying. This is what you deserve for not loving your kids enough to give up your career and your iphone 6
Post by sparkythelawyer on Apr 28, 2016 13:20:49 GMT -5
So, Mr. Lurking's relationship with his own children is totally unnecessary, yes? I mean, if his whole job is to work umpteen jobs, I'll assume he ain't home much.
Since we're sharing stories, I paid into short term disability (I think there is this misconception with the general public that STD is some kind of perk of a job. You have to choose it and pay into it. It doesn't happen automatically, if it's offered at all by your employer) when I was working and pregnant with DS.
I had a c-section and received 8 weeks of 100% paid leave that was a combo of STD and my accrued paid time off. I had an additional 2 weeks of paid leave because of leftover PTO and 2 weeks unpaid. It was a fucking miracle I got as much as I did. During the time I was off from work on maternity leave, I could do absolutely NO WORK. If I did, I was at risk of losing my leave. I don't fully understand it, but there was no part time working option if I wanted to get my full paid leave.
That said, I quit my job after six weeks of leave because I was so emotionally overwhelmed and dealing with PPD and PPA, that I just didn't think I could handle leaving my baby to go back to work.
Luckily my boss was super duper awesome, gave me a friendly hug and said, "Let's talk again later in the week when you've had more rest." Needless to say, I got my job back. I consider myself very fortunate to have worked for a company and had a position and boss that were incredibly family friendly and flexible.
I believe my experience is not the rule at all. I also have had the luxury of leaving my job after DS was 2 years old to become a SAHM. I have no delusions that my choice is a) for everyone [fuck! it wasn't even for me for a long time], b) affordable for everyone and c) should be the expectation for anyone.
If we paid more taxes to enable all parents the option of paid leave, I would be happy to do so.
I have a 5 day old baby and a job where I absolutely cannot take a few years off and return (tenure track academic), and I love my job so I wouldn't want to leave anyways. I cannot imagine having to go back to work next week.
I had no idea that made me a selfish, materialistic person, or that I should just "find a church" to help me out.
But at least I have compassion and empathy for other human beings, which AW clearly lacks.
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.
There's a lot here that I could respond to, but this is really jumping out at me. Do you realize that women with manual labor jobs are the ones who are the least likely to have any paid leave? And also less likely to have high wage earners as a partner?
I'll just point out that the original article that I posted was full of examples of women who do not get to sit at a desk all day. That's what started the entire discussion.
There's a lot here that I could respond to, but this is really jumping out at me. Do you realize that women with manual labor jobs are the ones who are the least likely to have any paid leave? And also less likely to have high wage earners as a partner?
I'll just point out that the original article that I posted was full of examples of women who do not get to sit at a desk all day. That's what started the entire discussion.
Post by berrysweet on Apr 28, 2016 14:34:25 GMT -5
Since I've seen jabs at AW and her "Christian" values, I just fell it pertinent to suggest that MUCH of the Christian church in general, outside of the evangelical bubble, do not share her beliefs in this area. In fact, I'm seeing more and more that even my most stringent pro-life friends are vocal supporters of paid maternity leave. One recently posted this article on Facebook, which I thought was sort of a refreshing read:
Though I personally identify as being both Christian and pro-choice, I share the sentiment in the article that paid maternity aligns with Biblical teaching and principles, and that offering it is a way that we can fulfill the commandment to love our neighbors. Maybe I'm off base here, but it also makes sense to me that if your interest is actually in reducing the number of abortions performed rather that just making the procedure illegal (but likely no less frequent),you HAVE to also deal with women's issues pre-conception, during pregnancy, and also postpartum such as access to health care (including access to contraception), lost income, hospital bills, insurance coverage, leave time, etc.
Since I've seen jabs at AW and her "Christian" values, I just fell it pertinent to suggest that MUCH of the Christian church in general, outside of the evangelical bubble, do not share her beliefs in this area. In fact, I'm seeing more and more that even my most stringent pro-life friends are vocal supporters of paid maternity leave. One recently posted this article on Facebook, which I thought was sort of a refreshing read:
Though I personally identify as being both Christian and pro-choice, I share the sentiment in the article that paid maternity aligns with Biblical teaching and principles, and that offering it is a way that we can fulfill the commandment to love our neighbors. Maybe I'm off base here, but it also makes sense to me that if your interest is actually in reducing the number of abortions performed rather that just making the procedure illegal (but likely no less frequent),you HAVE to also deal with women's issues pre-conception, during pregnancy, and also postpartum such as access to health care (including access to contraception), lost income, hospital bills, insurance coverage, leave time, etc.
This is where I'm at too. A sizable number of women choose abortion because they cannot afford maternity leave/daycare/diapers/food/etc for another baby. Support government social programs to ease these burdens should be a pro-life rallying cry and it maddens me that the opposite is so often true.
Post by laurenpetro on Apr 28, 2016 15:07:41 GMT -5
guys, please remember aw is the person whose H's takes care of the finances to the point that if an emergency arose, the plan is: Well, there's a ledger with the info in the desk somewhere. emergency plans do not seem to be her "thing".
Yeah, I had my last child at 43 and that... is not a 2 week recovery. It took more like a month to be walking comfortably, and 2-3 months for BFing issues to (more or less) work themselves out.
AW's family should pay for extended maternity leave because it is in the best interest of the society in which they live. Women work outside the home; that's not changing. They make up 47% of the work force, so if they all stayed at home our economy would collapse. Not to mention the irreplaceable loss of their knowledge and talent. For the majority of women, paid work is not a luxury, but a necessity in order to feed and clothe their children. Family leave benefits these women the most, and in turn leads them to be more productive when they return to work. Higher productivity benefits everyone. Also, women who have family leave, instead of dropping out of the work force, are less likely to need public assistance, saving society money in the long run. Family leave also enhances the overall educational attainment and well-being of children.
These assertions aren't coming from some left-wing think tank, but from articles like this one in Business Insider. This is basic common sense not tied to any ideology. If AW wants to stay at home because that is part of her belief system, great if it works for her family. But as a public policy position, it's unrealistic and ineffective.
Please don't judge SAHMs or Christians by AW's complete asshattery! It's in such poor form.
Yes. Not all of us Christian SAHM's are asshats. I recognize that I am privileged to be able to choose whether I work or not based on what works for me and my family and that other families make other choices and should be supported in that.
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.
Sorry heathens! Nothing for you assholes that choose to have children, aside from a set of bootstraps!
I've read that it's estimated that women lose around 1 million dollars in earnings over a lifetime when they choose to stay home with their kids for the first 5 years. I'm sure for a lot of those women it's the difference between living comfortably and just scraping by, especially in the later years. I imagine too that if you're just scraping by eventually you're going to rely on other resources including government resources, and that you are not going to take as good care of yourself or eat as well as if you had a bit more money and therefore run up costly medical bills that you cannot pay.
To say that you don't want to pay taxes for other people's lifestyle choices is ridiculous. We're all going to benefit in one way or another, at some point.
Post by Velar Fricative on Apr 28, 2016 21:00:56 GMT -5
Whew. Just catching up. Threw out a lotta likes in this thread.
First, Sallie Mae won't be okay with me deciding that I just gotta quit my job and be with my kid because, well, I'm a woman. So whatevs on that.
Second, I work in New Jersey, which has a statewide paid leave program. I just took out my paystub from today. In the first four months of 2016, I paid $91 into the state paid leave program (it's paid into by employees and there's a cap on the amount you can get each week after birthing/adopting a new baby OR taking time off to care for any family member). My salary is...high. $273 for the YEAR paid into this program when I make six figures? I guarantee I'd spend way more than that on stupid shit if I got that money put into my net pay instead. I'd get more than that per WEEK if on maternity leave for 6 weeks. Seriously, what a deal, even if I were to never take advantage of it and millions of NJ workers would. I'm just surprised asshat Chris Christie hasn't repealed it.
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!
Don't be gobsmacked. AW is an ignorant hick that feels her Christianity is right and she is the best example of womandom this side of a bikini trimmer.
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.
You are a fucking troll. Your choice to have them? Bahahaha. Go back on your farm. Christianity and nonjudgement....you need to learn about both tf them. I can't with your ignorance anymore. You are obnoxious and not an example of love or mercy.
guys, please remember aw is the person whose H's takes care of the finances to the point that if an emergency arose, the plan is: Well, there's a ledger with the info in the desk somewhere. emergency plans do not seem to be her "thing".
Her lady bits mean she does not need to worry her hair with it. I can't think of anything nice to say about her so, really, if she can be banned, that'd be great. Troll, she is.
Whew. Just catching up. Threw out a lotta likes in this thread.
First, Sallie Mae won't be okay with me deciding that I just gotta quit my job and be with my kid because, well, I'm a woman. So whatevs on that.
Second, I work in New Jersey, which has a statewide paid leave program. I just took out my paystub from today. In the first four months of 2016, I paid $91 into the state paid leave program (it's paid into by employees and there's a cap on the amount you can get each week after birthing/adopting a new baby OR taking time off to care for any family member). My salary is...high. $273 for the YEAR paid into this program when I make six figures? I guarantee I'd spend way more than that on stupid shit if I got that money put into my net pay instead. I'd get more than that per WEEK if on maternity leave for 6 weeks. Seriously, what a deal, even if I were to never take advantage of it and millions of NJ workers would. I'm just surprised asshat Chris Christie hasn't repealed it.
He's too busy making faces behind Trump.
And I wish more states were like NJ. VA will never get behind something like this, even if we do finally have a way better governor. He's got to spend all his time vetoing the shit that the legislature sends across his desk.
Here's my main issue with AW's assertions (I elect to choose just one).
"Women need to be kind to themselves." Which only works in your specific situation. For a woman who, let's say, loses her husband but still must support her newborn, other children, and herself financially, she can want to be as kind to herself as possible. But if her employer won't accommodate enough time to physically recover from childbirth, what do you propose then?
Seriously, for someone so bent on touting a WWJD outlook, you're treating your fellow mothers pretty shitty. How do you think Jesus sees your outlook that "my taxes shouldn't be used to make others' hardships a bit easier?" Your whole myopic focus on your world and your world alone is hardly conducive to sharing Jesus' teachings of loving one another.
Post by lurkingdobalina on Apr 29, 2016 6:22:56 GMT -5
Husbands die. Even kind, polite, handsome, sexy, devout, devoted, beautiful, hard-working, and financially savvy husbands die. No amount of love or belief in G-d will keep the heartache of a dead husband and father from your door. Your baby could be 2 days, 2 weeks, or not quite 2 years old and have her Tate die.
You only know you are looking at the world through a fog once it lifts.