In the news

Status
Not open for further replies.
I could see giving the women (who are carrying their own babies) an extra 2 weeks before the baby is born, as that is a very exhausting time. But if all the leave time is after the birth, men should be allowed to spend equal time with their babies.

Agreed. While I can't criticize the extended family leave (it would be nice if everyone enjoyed that!), by implementing it unequally, it hurts women's value in the workplace.

IIRC, Sweden ran into an issue with this, due to generous family leave (which resulted in women's careers not being as successful), and they ended up mandating that each partner had to take a minimum of two months off for a new child.
 
I could see giving the women (who are carrying their own babies) an extra 2 weeks before the baby is born, as that is a very exhausting time. But if all the leave time is after the birth, men should be allowed to spend equal time with their babies.
If a woman chooses to breastfeed, the extra time off can make the difference between success and failure. When I worked as a lactation consultant, it was clear that women who went back to full- time work in less than about 2 months had a more difficult time establishing breastfeeding. The longer they were home, the higher the success rate. Some adoptive moms choose to try to breastfeed, so it is applicable there, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thefadedone
I could see giving the women (who are carrying their own babies) an extra 2 weeks before the baby is born, as that is a very exhausting time. But if all the leave time is after the birth, men should be allowed to spend equal time with their babies.

If someone physically gave birth, "right after" is a very exhausting time too. The act of giving birth makes it not an equal scenario for males vs. birthing females.
 
A new mum posted about this on Facebook a while ago. Her reasoning was that it's really not just time for 'bonding', it's recovery time as well. Plus you gotta give yourself time to physically heal, if you can't even use toilet paper for a few weeks, that makes being in the workplace difficult.
 
If someone physically gave birth, "right after" is a very exhausting time too. The act of giving birth makes it not an equal scenario for males vs. birthing females.

All I'm saying is that if women by default gets 16 weeks, and men by default get 8 weeks (such as in the yahoo scenerio), don't be surprised if women of child-bearing age are considered less valuable employees in the workplace since they are going to be more likely to take a longer period of time off of work.

You could avoid this problem by forcing mandatory, equal periods of leave for all parents of a newborn.
 
but would the men necessarily take that leave, or would they be pressurised to return to work?
 
My workplace doesn't even have paid maternity leave, much less paternity leave. (It also specifically excludes parental leave for adoption.) Women taking maternity leave are allowed six weeks, unpaid AND are forced to use up any vacation time they may have when they go on leave. They're also required to pay their entire insurance premium while they're out. So they're not only losing income, they're actually paying money to be out.

As a result, very few women take the entire six weeks they're allowed; some come back in as little as two weeks after giving birth.

It's a female-centric company, too.

Very sad. :(
 
When I was pregnant, the company I worked for offered no benefits whatsoever. No insurance, vacation or sick days. So, I gave notice that I was quitting as soon as the baby was born. They liked my work so they eventually offered to pay half of any child care costs if I would come back, I turned them down. I didn't want to leave my baby with anyone else. I did fill in for one week while someone was out (they let me bring and nurse the baby in one of the offices) and gave me a new offer. They would let me come in and work after hours with the baby since no one else would be there. That I did take them up on. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLS52 and Freesia
Here in the US, the rate of c sections is very high, and most OBs will not allow a mother to attempt a vaginal birth in future births (remote chance of uterine rupture, which is devastating). This is major abdominal surgery to recover from while taking care of a newborn.

:yes: This happened to my sister. When she was pregnant with her first child (my nephew), she had just been diagnosed with a uterine fibroid, a rather large one. So she had to have a C-section to deliver him. First they did a fibroidectomy, then they did a babyectomy. When it came time to deliver her daughter, she told me that she had to have another C-section, not because of any medical problems, but because the direction of the incision she had 3 years earlier could cause uterine rupture. Or something like that.

I suspect one of the reasons why my niece and nephew are so sane and grounded is because they were able to avoid the trauma of a vaginal birth. :p
 
My workplace doesn't even have paid maternity leave, much less paternity leave. (It also specifically excludes parental leave for adoption.) Women taking maternity leave are allowed six weeks, unpaid AND are forced to use up any vacation time they may have when they go on leave. They're also required to pay their entire insurance premium while they're out. So they're not only losing income, they're actually paying money to be out.

As a result, very few women take the entire six weeks they're allowed; some come back in as little as two weeks after giving birth.

It's a female-centric company, too.

Very sad. :(
Exactly the same in the MATERNITY hospital I worked at. :rolleyes::mad:
 
http://www.alternet.org/mitt-romneys-advice-recent-female-grads-have-quiver-full-kids

You know, most commencement speakers give speeches that are full of hope and optimism, exhorting the graduates to get out there and be successful. Mittens has to be different. Can you imagine what kind of president he would have been? :fp:

And besides, the GOP ran one of the most anti-female campaigns ever last year, which was rejected by a majority of female voters (and many male voters), and they're still clueless. :rolleyes:
 
Mitt Romney is an ******* and I hate him, but in his defense, he was talking to mostly Mormons.
 
Mitt Romney is an ******* and I hate him, but in his defense, he was talking to mostly Mormons.

So Mormons (and especially Mormon women) are not allowed to go out and have successful lives but have to stay home and have a million kids?
 
So Mormons (and especially Mormon women) are not allowed to go out and have successful lives but have to stay home and have a million kids?
No, but he wants Mormons to have a bunch of Mormon babies, so that there will be more Mormons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.