I don’t mean to kick up a shitstorm, but I’d like to get this out of my system. Maternity leave is unfair! At least it’s blatantly unfair to those of us who don’t decide to have children. I remember having an interesting debate on IHM’s blog regarding this some time ago. This also applies to men who get paternity leave.
Maternity - a personal choice?
The way I see it, having a child is a choice a parent makes. A difficult choice true, and one that entails a lot of suffering, but a personal choice nonetheless. Their choices are their own, and I assume they’re not doing it as a service to society, but for their own selfish reasons. So my point is that if parents can make a personal choice and get time off for it, non parents should also be given time off for their other personal choices.
So if I feel the need to go and do some soul searching for a few months, I should be able to get leave in the same way that maternity and paternity leave is granted. Both are personal choices and I feel both must be treated on an equal footing.
Some say that maternity leave is the same as accident leave. It’s not. An accident is just that- an accident. Becoming a parent is a choice. And granting someone leave for their choice and not doing the same for another is unfair treatment in my eyes.
Another view is that women bear all the discomfort of pregnancy and childbirth and so they should be granted leave. But again, isn’t that a choice to bear that discomfort for their personal reasons? Moreover, suppose I want to go explore the jungles, that too is a dangerous undertaking and might even kill me. Will I get leave (paid or unpaid) for a few months to pursue my dream? No.
Some say that women in India don’t really have a choice to become pregnant. While this is certainly true in many cases, I feel that a woman working for a company that’s sophisticated enough to give maternity leave isn’t as helpless as another woman in the villages. Moreover, being forced to have a child is a bad reason to have one. If domestic violence is an issue, then the problem is not maternity leave but something else entirely! Also, maternity leave is common not just in India, but also in developed countries the world where women aren’t coerced into getting pregnant.
Finally, there are those who say that having a child is a service to society. I have to say “Gimme a break!” No woman chooses to get pregnant saying “I must do this for the good of mankind” and in India I don’t think extinction of the race is anywhere around the corner.
So what’s the deal here? Why is maternity and paternity leave much more prevalent than say “Soul searching” leave, or just “Personal leave” for a few months in India?
First of all, Bhagwad, maternity leave is not a vacation…How about companies giving time off for further education? Is that fair?
For our society's future, it is important that we enable mothers AND fathers to give children the attention and care that they need to grow into contributing members to society…
You are over thinking things…Don't…
It just strikes me as something that no one has really brought up till now. It's possible I'm overthinking stuff, but it's nice to have an explanation as to why I shouldn't think about it :)
What is a vacation after all? It's time which is given to you so that you can do your personal stuff. And that's my point. Having a child is a personal choice which parents take to enrich their lives. How is it different from activities that others may want to take up to enrich theirs?
I haven't said that maternity/paternity leave should be abolished. All I said was that others who choose not to have children should get time off for their personal choices as well…
I don’t think Maternity leaves are unfair.
Yes its a personal decision but its not something that happens too often, it is bound to happen sometime or the other.
It isn't bound to happen. My wife won't ever get it for example cause we've decided not to have children. But shouldn't each person get time off say, once very 5 years for their personal decisions too no matter what those decisions are?
Ya you are right in the sense when you say once a 5 years we should be given leave for other personal things also.
But looking the pain and time that a Women suffers during her pregnancy maternity leave should be given for humanity basis its an exceptional case.
My recent post Internet And Me
I get where you're coming from Abhishek. I really do. But I'm interested in seeing how it compares to other things.
For example, suppose I want to swim across the suez canal. For that I have to exercise, suffer and maybe even die. Should I get leave for humanity's sake because it's an exceptional case and because I will suffer so much?
I just want to see where it ends…
No, you wont. Coz getting pregnant is not associate with "pleasure".. whereas every other choice you make that requires months off will be associated with "pleasure" in some way or the other. I know, illogical. But thats how it is viewed.
For some strange reason, I dont grudge women maternity leave. Even though I am not going to get that benefit since I am not having kids. Maybe coz I know that they're not really enjoying that time. That they're actually quite miserable through it.
So while I get the principle of the matter, somehow it doesnt rile me up that I dont get a sabbatical whereas expecting mother do.
It is associated with pleasure (or happiness or comfort) though not immediate but eventual e.g. the experience of parenthood (pleasure) or have someone to take of you in your old age (comfort)..
Why would anyone choose pain if there's no personal motive behind it..
I too am not against maternity leave but Bhagwad's point is valid for leave for other personal pursuits
If people should get time off for their personal decisions, then maybe it shouldn't be called maternity/paternity leave. But then let's say someone does decide to have a child how much time should they get in comparison to someone who say wants to volunteer for like an overseas program? I get what you're saying, because it's not really fair that people who don't have families don't get time off to do their personal things. But I guess my issue is, what should it be called and how much time off should people get?
Good question. I believe in some countries it's called a "sabbatical." I think something like 3-4 months every 5 years maybe? Just an estimate.
Interesting question and believe it or not, I have pondered about it before as well. My conclusion, since majority of employee do decide to have kids, company offer such incentives to attract them. For the minority who decides not to have kids, well, tough luck. You see we live in democracy and hence the rules are made according to what majority chooses to do.
Anyway, thinking on the same line, I actually want to go further. What about our tax money (our as in people who choose not to have kids) being used to build schools and pay teachers? Why should we pay for these things when we choose not to take its advantage. Can we choose not to pay for it?
In western world, the taxes actually reduce if you have kids, which according me is unfair. Why should I pay more than someone who decides to have kids? Shouldn't they be taxed more as they will be using all those facilities provided by the government for families and kids? And I should be taxed less since I won't be be using any of those resources? But then voicing such an opinion will make me a horrible and selfish person, which I already am because of my decision of not having kids even though my higher taxes help provide for their kid's education. Don't even try to decipher this circular logic. All I can say is that if you don't conform to society's rules: you are horrible and selfish.
My recent post Thinking aloud
You know, for some reason your reminded me of an episode of Sex and The City. When Carrie Bradshaw went to a baby shower of a friend of hers who was now a full time stay at home mother. Carrie wore an expensive pair Manolo Blahniks(like five hundred dollars), her friend makes her guests remove their shoes. The reasoning was because people bring in all sorts of germs and dirt with their shoes and she didn't want her children to catch something apparently. Carrie's shoes went missing from her friend's house, but all her friend did was send her home with some white tennis shoes. Didn't even bother to help her look for them. A week later, Carrie shows up at her house asking her if she's seen her shoes, but her friend forgot all about them (cause you know, being a parent makes you forget proper manners) *rolls eyes* Carrie's friend offers to pay for them, but guess what? When she tells her that they were five hundred dollar shoes, her friend has the nerve to scold her, saying "we shouldn't have to pay for your extravagant lifestyle." And gives her about two fifty, and to add insult to injury she even goes further to say, that Carrie doesn't have a "real life" because she's not a parent. *glare*.
Carrie made some good points, about how many single and childfree people purchase wedding gifts, baby shower gifts, etc. for their friends, all the money we spend on them, but single and childfree people get nothing. And yet we're labeled as being selfish. So unfair, though I was glad that Carrie got her a brand new pair of Manolo Blahniks in the end. :)
Sorry if that almost went into a rant.
You know, my wife and I were discussing that very episode a few days back – what a coincidence you should bring it up!
But yeah, those of us who decide not to have kids get the short end of the stick in many situations. Perhaps one days things will change :)
I guess you're right Richa. But interestingly, the majority doesn't always get what they want. For example, India decriminalized homosexuality last year even though most Indians didn't want it to happen. It passed cause it was the right thing to do. Perhaps one day the same thing will happen here…
One of my wife's colleagues was making the same point you made above regarding paying for schools and teachers even though people need not have kids. It's odd really because the US prides itself on not being "socialist" and here they're more socialist than even India!
@Richa
About taxes and why people with children pay lesser taxes, I could ask the same question differently. Why should I pay more taxes than someone who is earning less than me? After all, I use the public resources only as much as they do , but I am forced to pay more taxes. That’s also unfair right? Why just single out people with kids? Think about this…some people who are unemployed don’t pay taxes at all! And since they fall into the lower income bracket, a lot of things are subsidized by the government for them through the extra taxes I am paying. In that context, it would be unfair to single out people with kids…atleast they are paying taxes in the first place!
Good points Clueless. In many ways making people who earn more pay more taxes is indeed not correct. But there are some rationalizations. For example, it’s largely because of the facilities provided by the government that we’re able to earn in the first place.
For example, the govt. prints and provides currency facilities, build roads which are critical for business and even maintains a judicial system without which no serious business would be possible. From this perspective it makes perfect sense to tax people a percentage of the income earned and charge more from those people who earn more. If the govt. was a private entity it would likely do the same thing.
Another way of looking at it is that you charge people what they can pay. Suppose a poor person can’t pay their taxes, what are they to do? Where are they to go where there are no roads and no facilities provided by the govt. Ultimately this is the most workable system we have. Perhaps there are others but none come to mind as of now.
Ahem. You forgot one very real being latching on to a physical part – that is why one needs maternity leave. Paternity leave is no good unless the child is on the bottle! Gross but real in the day of a new mom. Besides her needing her time to recuperate. Yes, paternal and maternal leave are needed and are not unfair. They are a specific response to a common choice people make.
Couples who choose not to have children have also made a personal choice, so where is the question of 'paying' for it? The way I see it, there is no entitlement – an organization takes care of the explicit need of its employees. When you have a majority, you have bargaining power. When staying childless by choice becomes the majority choice, then maybe soul searching leave is one for the unions to negotiate.
Until then, the option we all have is common and its called 'Unpaid' Leave. Except in a few countries, maternity leave is a patronizing set up where they grudgingly agree to keep your job open for a few days while you try to deal with the most major change in your life (yes, including marriage) and are kind enough to do it for no pay. If I were you, I would count blessings like sleeping late, getting just yourself ready and being able to do what you want to when you want it. Yes, even with parenting being a personal choice, there is a cost all parents pay daily that you don't. Also by choice – not calling you selfish like someone else said people do. Am still trying to figure out why one feels entitled to get the 'same' when life's choices are so different?!
You're right. It's because the majority of people have children that maternity leave is given. I don't dispute that.
I just feel that employers should treat all employees the same irrespective of the differences in the employees life choices. I wouldn't expect to have the same personal life as someone with kids – of course not. But professional life should be the same.
Having shorter prison sentences for those with kids since they're needed more (just as an example) is unfair even though the life choices of parents and non parents aren't the same. Wouldn't you agree?
One feels entitled to get the "same" because that's what "professionalism" is about. Treating everyone the same without any bias. And when I work for a professional organisation, thats what I expect. After all, how is one life choice more or less important than others? Who decides that?
Like I have mentioned in a previous comment, I dont grudge women maternity leave – in practice. But in principle, heck, I'd like some time off for my personal choices too!
Coz yes, thats what parenting is – a personal choice. No debate there.
And the cost parents pay should not even be part of this discussion. Every one knows the cost of parenting. (Which is why some of us choose not to do it!). But point remains – its a cost you yourself choose to undertake. This is like buying a Mercedes and then saying that it guzzles fuel! No one forced you to!
Should people who buy Mercedes' be offered tax benefits so that they can better afford their "choice"?
Why should some life choices be treated differently than others?
I think all it comes down to is – majority. That's it. There is no other logical rational point to be made in the favor of maternity leave. But we'll still let the mommies have it. No grudges in reality :)
I see this as a semantics issue. Every company I was at gave a variety of vacation options. While most mothers took the tiny maternity leave option, saved up vacation and 'disability' leave (yes, that is what we call raising children in the work world!) and then took unpaid leave, others had unpaid leave. By the way, since unpaid leave is a discretionary thing, it was not always a given and had to be negotiated. Even when to tell the employer when you get pregnant was a big question. I don't see that as professional but parents deal with that day in and day out. And that is life. So negotiate unpaid leave and do what you will with it.
Maybe like the cost parents pay should not be part of the discussion, this is the cost people without children pay. Am sure you are expected to be at work more than those who have children's soccer games. This is your Mercedes. What's the complaining all about then? Life choices that are different are treated that way. Because they are different. For example, an only child (parent or not) will need parental assistance leave to go take care of parents when they have issues. If it is treated the same as maternity, it will not work. I might not need a chunk of time like that but might need the flexibility to go and take care of one this time for 2 days and another for 2 weeks post surgery. Why would you not want customization that way?
I am not quite sure of your point here.
I do very much think that having some people in the team work late while others get time off to take care of their child's need is highly unfair!
You say – "Life choices that are different are treated that way. Because they are different. "
Are you saying that its my lot in life to be treated differently at my workplace because of a choice that I make in my personal life? (The word "discrimination" leaps to mind)
Are you agreeing that professional companies should treat their employees in a biased manner. And that even though I get paid exactly the same as anyone else, I have to work more because I decided not to have a child?
Ok lets try a twist here:
Scenario: You are the manager in a professional IT firm.
Employee 1 comes to you and tells you that she needs to leave early as her child needs to be taken to Soccer practice.
Employee 2 comes to you and tells you and a world famous hairstylist is in town and that she has an appointment for Wednesday afternoon. The stylist doesnt have any other open slots. So she needs to leave early on that day.
Think about it… what would you do. Whose need strikes you as more important?
That's the crux here, in my opinion.
Having a child is a personal choice. But one that is viewed as a serious socially accepted choice. One that society applauds and congratulates you on.
Having a life, on the other hand – is not very noble. Its just selfish :D
In that case am just thankful that it is that way! And am not living in a mad society where *getting ur hair done* by a world famous hair stylist is equated to childcare..
Well given that..
There are 2 different things that are argued about here.. one is maternity leave and the other is child care..
I have no problem with people taking maternity leave so I dont want to talk about that here..
Its about having the flexibility at work to take time off for child care.. Well if my colleague works 8 hours a day and I work 12 hours.. doesn't matter to me.. as long as I get assessed for my 12 hours of work and she gets assessed for her 8 hours..
As long as people are assessed by the quality and the amount of work they do..
Taking time off work to attend a child's soccer game should be treated in the same way as someone taking time off to go to a parlour or go swimming when it comes to assessments and promotions and hikes.. both are personal choices..
I am not saying that having a kid will hinder your chances at work.. But well hey … having your kid was your choice.. so you would have to plan and take up a job suited for your demands..
This is easy to me. Both qualify just the same (and I have been in this position before and have done it – not a hairstylist but someone's hobby time). But that is just me. Most managers are not like that and one needs to negotiate. I have seen both sides of it as a parent and before being a parent. And I don't see that either one is better or worse. Just different.
Different is not discrimination per se. It can be but that does not have to be a given. I go to a parenting analogy because it works and because if you had a sibling, you can resonate with it. I have two children. I give them the same in terms of facilities/resources/my time/love – that is non-discrimination. But my son needs tabla the way my daughter needs time off to read. I get him tabla lessons and I get her books and ensure she has the time to read them. I give them different things – am I discriminating or customizing to give each of them what they want? Would it be okay to give one tabla because the other has it – whether or not they need it?
I don't think having a life is selfish (nor is it noble…it just is because you can and want to!). Even as a parent (imagine the guilt trip then from all of society to even try to have a life – you are supposed to breast feed for hours and LOVE it and can't even talk about the boring aspects without becoming a horrible person and mother for needing some personal space!), I aspire to have a life and have no hang ups telling people – so what if I am a parent? I still want to talk of things beyond diapers and go out and travel and do stuff I like, with AND without children. If someone tries to give you a guilt trip, that is their problem. If I think having a life is selfish, that guilt trip with hit home with me. If not, I keep walking and doing what I think is right.
@Anupa
I see the very premise of this argument to be wrong. You cannot compare having kids to buying a Mercedes. Simply because you cannot equate human beings to objects. We all know what will happen if that ensues! Women have been objectified and ill treated for generations and when we finally seem to be getting over it, please do not equate kids to Mercedes.
Yes, having kids is a personal choice. But why are benefits given for this act? Because the governament and indirectly you have benefits in the long term from making sure my kid is brought up and educated well. Because the kids of today are the future of tomorrow. So unless you plan on living in isolation after the next twenty years after the current workforce is spent, you will indirectly support having kids.
I don’t feel that’s a very valid line of thought Clueless. Most people who get maternity leave work for companies that treat them reasonably well (certainly above the average of most women.) The children of these people need no help from the govt. to raise their children properly. This is specially true of India where we’re not exactly facing a shortage of people!
No one has children for the good of the nation or for the good of society. It’s a selfish choice made by the individuals involved. I don’t feel I need to provide any additional benefits to people who choose to have kids.
Oooooh…what a yummy debate1 Here's my take on it.
The way I see it, each of us has dependents, like you declare for your medical insurance. You choose to have them in the first place, by getting married, having kids, and of course, taking care of your ageing parents when they need you. It's the way society works. If we all lived by ourselves, then great, we'd have over-the-top professional productivity! But we'd all be very unhappy lonely individuals. We all have family. And so I'd group various kinds of leave such as maternity, paternity, grief (that's a new one), adoption, and I'd like to add elder care leave too, under one umbrella of say 'Dependent care leave'. Those people need you WHEN they need you. And you better be there at that time. And because we're there, our social framework carries on. Children are taken care of, elders are assisted, and spouses are there for each other through sickness and misfortune like promised.
Now, for personal leave, I think yes, it should be given, but not on such a high priority as 'dependent' leave. Sure there should be some leave ear-marked for attending to your personal growth/needs/hobbies/self-development. But it's not 'urgent' like a new baby, a dying elder or a disabled spouse would be, right? It's not selfish either, because a happy individual makes for a better employee.
But also consider that a person who chooses not to marry, not to have kids, or not to care for elderly parents, has a lot more free time and energy to pursue those personal desires and goals than one with one or all types of dependents.
I also think it's unfair that a person without dependents would be expected to work more than a person with. But it seems to be common, if so, then I think like Sakthi said, people should be evaluated and paid for the hours and effort.
My wife and I were discussing this yesterday. I agree that dependent leave is valid and unavoidable. Especially in cases where someone gets sick, parents die etc. Because those things happen to you. No control over them. Shit happens, like we say and there’s nothing we can do about it.
The thing about pregnancy is that it doesn’t just happen to one. One chooses to become pregnant and that makes it a different case from regular dependency leave. I think that classifies it as a personal choice just like every other choice…
But one also chooses to get married, no? Or to take care of elders. One can and does choose not to do both.
I believe that every employee should be given the same number of days off (based on experience etc.) in a given year or in a given period (couple of days in the hospital for the delivery costs about $20,000 in the US. Should employees who do not have babies share this cost as well?).
My recent post Racism in India- Honest Discussion Needed
That's pretty much my point too Hari…
Hello Mr. Bhagwad. I am an ardent reader of your blog. They say that if something is good it may not remain so. How true! This blog is the dumbest I have read in a long time. And that is saying something because I have come across the stupidest web stuffs! I may not be able to counter your points cleverly. But that doesnt mean that you made a point. Actually I am kinda speechless!:D I mean that comparison of choice of maternity vs going to jungle! Too hilarious!!! I will get back to you after i think about it a bit…:D
I'm looking forward to hearing your opinions Nidaa :)
And isn't that one of the reasons what blogging on these issues is about – making you think of stuff you thought were obvious?
Nidaa, I am kinda speechless too! As to how people can judge one another's choices. (Coz thats exactly what you're doing – saying that one person's choice of having a baby is superior to another person's choice of going to a jungle). And as to how, equality is much talked about but when it comes down to it, no one really wants it in its entireity.
I look forward to hearing your arguments as well.
Maternity leave is unfair as it employers are less likely to promote/employ others whilst waiting for someone to return to work by law.
I spent 2 years in a call centre with a marketing degree, only to find the reason they hadn’t been hiring in the marketing department was 2 people were on maternity leave. After these two years on the phones a job share position came up, sharing with someone who had returned from maternity leave, I finally got the job (albeit at the lowest pay possible due to the company paying a salary for people that aren’t there) only to find this person was pregnant again. The result is now a position on hold that the company can’t afford to fill, unfilled for 24 out of 28 months!!
Anyone going on maternity leave from their current position has experience and can find another similarly paid job due to that experience, however a younger graduate without as much experience needs to be given the chance to gain experience – a chance that doesn’t become available due to people abusing the maternity leave laws.
Hmm – interesting perspective Istari. I guess every decision or policy has unforeseen consequences…
You are quite right.
The old solution to this problem was to hire men only, pay the man enought to support his wife and family, and let women reproduce on their own time. That is still the proper approach.
Why is this the “proper” solution?
This question goes directly to the fallacy of feminism.
Women are breeding cows, not thinking machines. Birth rates are falling all over the world, frequently below replacement levels, as in Japan and western Europe. This is having grave consequences for retirement systems and future prosperity as not enough workers are being bred to maintain the social systems. You might take a look at “Demographic Winter” website. Because native populations are not reproducing all kinds of foreigners are being imported that cause social dissension because they are not native to the culture. The result is social catastrophe all over the world.
The basic assumption of feminism, that women should have equal rights with men in the job market, is wrong. A man cannot attract a woman as a mate unless he has the income to provide for her and her children. A woman can, however, attract a man as a mate simply by having a baby box. He needs the job to function; she doesn’t. Read “The Woman Racket” by Steve Moxon for confirmation.As I pointed out in a post on another of your threads, women cause all kinds of problems when they are mixed with men. They are sex objects and are always filing law suits because someone propositioned or offended them. They disrupt the operations of the office by reproducing on the company’s time. All these problems are eliminated by keeping them out of the job market in the home.
It is idle to say that men should “learn to control themselves”. Nature is nature and cannot be changed. The biggest problem of the modern world is the forced mixing of incompatible groups. women and men are incompatible in the workplace, just as various races that do not like each other are incompatible (Koreans and Japanes, whites and blacks, Mexicans and blacks, etc.) Segregation by function eliminates these problems.
You don’t seem to be drawing a line between what the facts are and what you think the facts should be. When you say that women are not “thinking machines” (and men are,) you’re making up your own facts which is not accepted in a logical argument.
http://www.rebelnews.org/opinion/genders/7938-feminism-refuted
This explains my position very well.
You are ignoring the essence of the argument.
My point is that there are indeed valid reasons for keeping women out of areas of society where they do not belong. The military is another example. It makes little sense to allow women to be killed and horribly mutilated on the battlefield while simultaneously protecting their tits and ass from their own troops. Societies for millenia have segregated women from men by biological function. If you think that this is an accident, then read my very logical essays and you will quickly see that you are wrong.
Please don’t make derogatory comments against anyone on my blog. If you do so, I will delete them. You’re welcome to project your views in a logical manner but don’t insult anyone or put them down. Please take this as a first warning.
Indeed, the essence of your argument is that women are supposed to “stay in their place.” This is an opinion from your end and not a fact. If it’s a fact, please provide appropriate references. And don’t point me to articles you’ve written or ask me to read a book. Give your reasons here in a short and concise form if you can.
May I ask: What derogatory comments? I do not see any. My postings are very concise.
To debate anything, one must first read and analyze a position. If you are not willing to read one page essays, how can you seriously debate anything? Do you imagine that all issues can be reduced to one paragraph sound bites? Your distinction between facts and opinions is also hard to fathom. All debates involve the interpretation of facts. Facts, standing alone, lead to no conclusions as different people shall interpret the facts differently. I see no response to my arguments, I merely read unfounded allegations that I am confusing arguments with facts.i
Is this sufficiently concise? I see no possible way of doing the subject justice in fewer words.
WHY MEN SHOULD HAVE THE JOBS
Everyone these days accepts the idea that women should have equal job rights with men. But this view is entirely fallacious. There are sound reasons why men should be given preference over women in the job market. A man cannot attract a woman as a mate unless he has a job to provide for her and her children. But a woman can attract a man by offering her sexual services and her reproductive capacity. He must have the job to get married; she can get married without the job. A man’s money strengthens the marriage and the family; the woman’s money weakens it. When a man is supporting a family, the child grows up with two parents. The male children have a role model to aspire to. The woman, being dependent on her husband’s pay check, has an incentive to stay married and function as a home maker. When the woman has the job and the money, she can reproduce on her own with the father absent. The social consequences are disastrous. Single mothers generate male criminals by the bushel. Even when the woman does marry, her economic independence enables her to file for divorce without fear of the consequences. Thus, marriage exists at the woman’s whim. It ceases to be the bedrock of society.
There are additional problems caused by giving women the jobs. Women like to marry up; women like to marry down. Marriages where the wife out earns the husband have a considerably higher divorce rate than marriages where the husband out earns the wife. When women must marry down, the usual consequence is an increased divorce rate with increased chances of spousal abuse. Women pursuing careers tend to suppress their reproduction to climb the corporate ladder. Despite maternity leave, women know that corporations do not like maternity disruptions. The old “family wage” system of paying a man enough to support a family encouraged reproduction. The woman could raise the children without the extra burden of working at an office.
In short, giving women job equality is theoretically wrong and has proved disastrous in practice. Few realize that driving women out of the home and into the job market under the pretense of “liberation” has always been basic Marxism. When the industrial revolution began women demanded that employers pay their husbands sufficient wages to allow women to stay home and raise the children. It was Marx and Engel’s and their disciples who wished to destroy the system to make women members of the working class. Today, the old Marxist ideal has been achieved by the capitalist wage-slave system. Both husband and wife must work to afford what they used to have on one pay check. Women have achieved proletarian equality by enraging their men folk. The family has been destroyed and sex roles have faded into oblivion. Neither men nor women have benefited from this process. But one red-haired Khazar who writes of “The End of Men” in the Atlantic Monthly, knows precisely who has really won.
Again, you’re not presenting facts but an opinion. Take this as an example:
“A man cannot attract a woman as a mate unless he has a job to provide for her and her children”
Obviously false. Not every woman wants to be supported. My own wife is an example. I earn half of what she does and we don’t have children either.
Your entire comment is littered with unsubstantiated sentences like this which anyone can refute with even a cursory reading. Of course, you can bolster your claims by providing scientific references, papers, or research from reputed sources, but you have done nothing of the sort.
So you have a right to your opinion, but no one will listen to you unless you present substantiated facts.
Here is the ultimate in conciseness.
Women will be entitled to equal pay when they want equal child support and alimony deducted from their pay checks.
Wrong again.
Although there are exceptions to every rule, as a general proposition it holds true. Women, generally speaking, want a man with a paycheck to support the family. Apply this test. How many men with money are willing to marry a woman without money versus how many women with money are willing to marry a man without money? That should give you the answer. The last time I checked womern outearning their husbands had a 40% higher divorce rate than the reverse. That is a fact – and one that speaks in support of my position, not yours.
You still have to show that this stems from something in women’s nature rather than for cultural reasons. The fact is that the numbers of women who can support themselves is rising, and that means there’s nothing in women’s nature as such which makes them want men to support them.
Women have been the physically weaker sex and have therefore been historically taken advantage of. Now that physical strength doesn’t matter, they’re showing what they’re capable of.
@ Bhagwad- Even if what he is saying is heartfelt, it isn’t such an issue I feel because one odd such thinkers will always exist.
Maternity leave is not unfair, and here is why.
Also, pregnancy and child bearing has more consequences than just granting leave. They are the citizens of tomorrow. They are future customers for your company. They may be the ones who will contribute to your senior citizen discounts through their tax payments tomorrow. And especially when parents are educated and working, as in the case in workplaces where women get maternity leaves, the chances are much higher that these children will grow up to be contributors to the society of tomorrow and indirectly contribute to your well being. So even from a purely selfish standpoint, it is only beneficial to you in the long run.
Also think about this. Say you are a smoker. Or a mountain climber. Health wise, both of them put you at higher risk for cancer / accidents. Both of them are choices you make personally. Yet, when you fall ill or break your leg, your company gives you sickness leave so that you can recuperate and come back to work. Now, people with healthier lifestyles / aversion to risky hobbies may argue about why they should indirectly contribute to your sickness leave / accident leave when they do not get to take this leave as a result of their choices. Maybe they want to take off for soul searching in the time you are off for the leave you took after your mountain climbing accident. Why are these cases not brought up as examples of unfairness? It is because the workplace has traditionally always been male dominated. So all the rules and benefits were tailored to fit the males. So when we now have a mixed workplace and there are benefits tailored for women, suddenly you feel that it is not fair. Because you are not used to it.
Btw, just like maternity leave, there is paternity leave offered in the USA to offer the same child bonding experience to men. And men here take it very proudly and look forward to it.
This is probably the most logical rationalization I’ve heard till now. Not your first point about children being an investment, but your second talking about giving accident leave to those who are more susceptible.
But I feel it’s not enough for two reasons. First, it’s difficult if not impossible to link a particular sickness/accident to a person’s lifestyle. I can get cancer even without indulging in a dangerous lifestyle. So in the absence of any clear determination, a person is innocent until proved guilty.
Second, when a person has to take real sick leave, it’s not a benefit provided to them. It’s a net loss. I would rather be healthy and not have to take sick leave than to get cancer/broken arm/tuberculosis and take medical leave! So the leave is not treated as a “reward” or an incentive at all.
Having children is a different matter since it’s a net benefit. Not only do people have children to improve their life but they also get rewarded for it :)
Finally, I’m not against maternity leave (or paternity leave.) I’m saying we should stop calling it maternity/paternity leave and call it “personal leave” for any personal activity – whether that activity is having babies, or going rock climbing.
@Bhagwad
I guess when you are climbing a mountain, fall off a cliff and have multiple fractures, you can indeed directly co-relate it to climbing that mountain :) Lung cancer and tobacco pretty much go hand in hand. And when you say that sick leave is a net loss, pregnancy disability can also be viewed the same way. No one really thinks of going through labor or having your stomach cut up as a pleasurable process and the recovery is not fun either!
And about the other comment that no one has children for the benefit of the society, it is true that we have children for our own benefit. But it also directly has an impact on the workforce of tomorrow even if we are not thinking about it when we have children. It is like me buying a home. I don’t buy to improve the economy. I buy a home to improve my own lifestyle. But at the same time, my purchase does contribute to it, which is why the government makes it more attractive for me to buy a home by making my interest payments tax deductible!
You’re right – hospitalization is unpleasant. But the point is that one chooses to be hospitalized. The discomfort is part of a larger plan to ensure greater happiness in the future which doesn’t apply to a mountain climber.
Now if we felt that the mountain climber was purposely falling and breaking his bones, perhaps we can talk about removing their sick leave! And let’s face it – how many people in a regular workplace take time off for lung cancer? I’ve never met any (though I’m sure there are lots of them.) But pregnancy is far more commonplace…many orders of magnitude more commonplace. So comparing the two isn’t really useful.
@Bhagwad
Now, I want to put a serious twist on what you are saying. You say you are losing out because I made the choice of having a baby and you did not. You also agree that majority of the people do go ahead and have kids. So I can ask you what is preventing you from availing this benefit. The work place is not stopping you per se from having babies. It is a benefit they offer to all. If you choose not to avail this benefit, why should it be taken away from everyone else? It is just like some other subsidy a workplace may offer. It could say that it will give a discount of $X if you buy a phone of a particular brand. You don’t like that brand and you don’t buy the phone. But it would be wrong to say that just because you are not availing the benefit, it should be taken off for everyone else too!
My workplace may offer a lot of benefits that I may not be utilizing because they don’t suit me. Why is maternity leave, which is also a benefit, then singled out every single time? You may say that only women can have babies. Then I can also go ahead and say that only men have prostrate cancer, so why should my insurance cover it when I will never have prostrate cancer!
I’ve never made the argument that maternity leave should not be given! I’m making the argument that it shouldn’t be called maternity leave and that I should get the same leave for my personal pursuit…that’s it.
In the example of prostate cancer, no one chooses to get prostate cancer. And even if the person gets leave for prostate cancer, it’s a net loss. The man doesn’t benefit from the experience. In any case, one assumes that the male specific and female specific diseases kind of balance out. Otherwise they’ll fall into different risk groups and pay separate insurance premiums (in fact it happens like this most of the time.)
With regard to the phone and discount example, the reason a business will have such a scheme in the first place is because of some tie up – not due to ideological reasons. The first is valid since it’s a business. The second is outside its purview which is why I have a problem with it.
You have made me think and I feel you do have a point.
Both Baghwad and Clueless are truly clueless.
Clueless is trying to argue that what is good for women and babies is good for everybody. It is nonsensense. Anyone can make this argument to justify anything. I note that women who resort to this argument are the same women who bump off millions of unborn children down at the abortion clinic as part oftheir so-called “right to choose”. Clearly, the propagation of the future generations is not their real concern. To argue that because a woman has a right to have a baby that therefore she has the right to do so on the company’s time is like arguing that because a man has the right to sleep that therefore he has the right to do so on the company’s time. What Clueless really wants is corporate socialism for breeding cows. The fact that someone has to do the extra work does not occur to her.
When this feminist nonsense began in the late 1960′s, women swore up and down that they would never make babies on the company’s time. They swore that motherhood was obsolete in an overcrowded world and that they would never do any such thing. The “Population Bomb” and the “Parent Trap” were the best sellers of the day.They lied. No male politician with his nose up the vagina of 54% of the voters would dare remind women that they ever told those lies. Clueless argues that the workplace is biased in favor of male needs. In fact, what she wants is a workplace biased in favor of female needs so that women and babies can always come first – on somebody else’s time.
Poor Baghwad has obviously bought the feminist nonsense that women have been “historically oppressed”. Just to show him how wrong he is I shall describe “sex discrimination” as it existed in my country, the United States, before the rise of male feminism.In 1950′s America women work to support men. A man’s place is in the home, obviously. Women give everything to men in divorce court (the house, the car, all the furniture and all the money). Women pay massive child support and alimony to automatic custosy fathers. Women suffer hundreds of thousands of deaths fighting and dying for their country while combat exempt male suffraggetes demand, and receive, the vote. Women go down with the Titanic so that biologically more valuable men and children can climb on the life boats. Women work themselves into heart attacks so that men can outlive women by seven years and inherit 80% of all the personal wealth of the country paid for by men’s efforts. Men have it made.
In 1963 a revolutionary book appears on the market. It is called “The Male Mystique” by Betty Schmuckstein. Schmuckstein poses as an ordinary housewife but is in reality a life long Jewish Communist and devotee of Joseph Stalin. She has been a member of the Congress of American Women, the chief Communist legal front for females in America. She was also a newspaper editor for the United Electrical Radio Workers and Machinists Union, one of the largest Communist Unions of the 1940′s and 1950′s. All these provable facts about Schmuckstein’s Communist background are deliberately ommitted by the Jewish editors of her book. Schmuckstein argues that the average male house husband is living in a camouflaged Auschwitz concentration camp. Men should “liberate” themselves from this concentration camp and pursue careers in addition to men and babies first. Women tell men to shove it. All the real discrimination is in favor of men. Women are not going to men all the high paying jobs too. Men have too much already. Men scream that they are being paid less than women. Women retort that it is women who must support the opposite sex, not men. It is women who must give away everything their money paid for in men take all divorce court and women who must pay child support and alimony to automatic custody fathers. Women deserve higher pay because they have greater expenses.
Now, just to further educate you on the lie called feminism, I shall point out the obvious. The entire movement was created and promoted from inception in the 1960′s by Jews. Recall the names: Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Shulamith Firestone, Andrea Dworkin, Linda Ellerbee, Gloria Allred, Ruth Ginsberg, Stephanie Coontz, Adrienne Rich, Nadine Stroesser, the list is endless. The media which are the cheerleaders for feminism, are equally Jewish controlled. Now let me list for you some vey interesting facts on how women are treated in Israel. These facts are almost never mentioned by the media. Israel granted women legal equality in a 1953 law. Yet they made one glaring exception: family law.In Israel, a woman cannot get a divorce without her husbans’s consent. She cannot make her own decision on abortion. She must apply for permission to a state board. If her husband dies while she is childless, she must offer herself in marriage to the brother of the husband, who will release her from the obligation provided she relinquishes the community property to him. If she has a child out of wedlock in consequence of adultery, her child is a mamzerim or bastard and can never marry, except to another bastard. If her husband disappears in war, she cannot remarry without absolute proof of his death, no matter how many years he has been missing.Women in Israel are forced to ride in the back of the bus as they ride through Orthodox neighborhoods. There also exists a vast sex slave trade in Israel in which thousands of women are kidnapped each year to the brothels in Tel Aviv.These facts are thorougly documented in very small copiy editions of books like “Between The Banner and the Flag” by Yael Yisrael and “Women In Israel” by Lesley Hazelton. But they are nowhere mentioned on the Jewish controlled TV set or in mainsream books for the gullible goyim published by mainstream Jewish publisher. Even Baghwad and Clueless should be able to figure out why.
Women of a certain character have always been prominent in politics. Communism in Germany after the First World War was led by two vitriolic little Jewesses, Clara Zetkin and Ruth Fisher. Hilda Benjamin was the “hanging judge”, the Minister of Justice of Communist East Germany. Helena Volinska, another Jewess, was one of the chief prosecutors of Communist Poland. Communist Romania was run by a hideous Jewess hyaena, Ana Pauker. Her real head of foreign affairs was another Jewess, lka Wasserman. Still another high level Jewess Communist in Romania was Ghisella Vass. Today, two Bolshevik Jewesses named Ginsburg and Kaganaovitch sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. They are not noted for demanding that Palestinian females be promoted over Orthodox Jew boys in Israel.
Figure it out. I already have. I’ve given you the facts. Can you correctly analyze them?
Now that I have explained the fallacies of feminism, let me explain the origin of certain concepts.
When the industrial revolution began, employers wanted to employ women and reduce their labor costs. Women objected. They demanded that employers pay their men folk a wage sufficient to support a wife and family so that women could stay home and be with the children. This was the origin of the concept of “family wage” and it was set up at the insistence of women themselves. Now, the idea that women should be driven out of the home and given “equal opportunity” was devised by the Marxists. Whether one reads Marx and Engels on “The Origin of the Family” or Madame Kollontai or Clara Zetkins interview with Lenin, it was the policy of all Communist states from the beginning to destroy the one income patriarchal family. Thus, immediately upon the establishment of Communism in both Russia and China, the Communist state immediately began efforts to move women into the labor force with men.Maternity leave was a Communist idea to prevent women from having to choose between motherhood and career. Under no circumstances did the Communists wish to preserve female economic independence upon men because they regarded that as an essential element of the capitalist order they wished to destroy. Rather than the traditional family, they wanted a barracks existence where both male and female worked and the children were raised in state communes (read: day care center).
This system has now been achieved, ironically enough, by the very capitalist system Marx wanted to destroy. Employers now pay two people less money than what they had to pay one man under the old “family wage” system. Before anyone says that family wage was “sex discrimination”, analyze the issue this way. Single men were paid less money than married men even though they were doing the same work. Why? Because the married man had expenses that the single man did not, i.e. supporting a family. Women have traditionally been paid less money than men for the same reason.
Driving both men and women into the labor market is merely a way to destroy the patriarchal family in preparation for the coming “Jew World Order”. And, as I demonstrated, feminism was unleashed upon the world by ths same Jews who concocted the “gas chamber” hoax and the lie of the murdered six million.
See, I have it all figured out, don’t I?
[...] to listen to her parents and her refusal to go live her own life.Of course, I’ve always had a problem with maternity leave instead of “general personal leave” for everyone.Happily, we see many instances of [...]
[...] to listen to her parents and her refusal to go live her own life.Of course, I’ve always had a problem with maternity leave instead of “general personal leave” for everyone.Happily, we see many instances of [...]
Baghwad:
I was rereading your comments on my positions and laughing at how mentally incompetent you are. Most women want a man who is more successful than they are as a husband. But, at the same time, they want to make as much money, or more, than men in the work place. That the one objective precludes the other occurs neither to them, or you.
You babble constantly about the need to distinguish between “facts” and “opinions”. Yet when I posted the documented facts on who was behind feminism and how women were treated in Israel, you had nothing to say. You really should invite the British back to rule your country. The whites did a better job of it than racially inferior Hindus will ever do.
Bhagwad, I think the reason companies have made maternity leave a given, was mentioned by Clueless though you didn’t find it entirely convincing. At the end of the day, people need to have children for the human race to go on. This may not seem relevant to India where there is overpopulation but in many countries, especially those with generous maternity leave, there is a very low birth rate. Hong Kong is one of them, one of the lowest birth rates in the world and an alarmingly aging demographic. Who is going to care for these old people when the ratio becomes 1 young person to every 4 elderly people? The burden on the state would be enormous. We are already in a situation in Hong Kong where there are old people (well 50+) looking after older people in old age homes. So if countries want a balanced demographic, people need to have children even as healthcare improves the life expectancy. And so maternity and increasingly paternity leave becomes the socially responsible thing to do. It helps that the majority do want to have children – this is something of a primal human urge (again to ensure the continuity of the species) though all may not share it.
If there was no maternity leave, two things might happen:
1. In societies like India, almost all women would leave the workforce. The fact is that after giving birth, a woman needs at least a month to recover and longer if she wants to establish breastfeeding. Breastfeeding really suffers once you go back to work and breastfeeding has been proven to be healthier for the child. By breastfeeding, we are ensuring a generation of kids with less allergies, healthier immune systems etc. which is better for society. Most societies have recognised that it is in the interest of society to have women in the workplace.
2. In societies like Hong Kong and Scandanavia, most women would decide they’d rather just not have children. These societies can either see the demographic imbalance that we’re experiencing in Hong Kong or take urgent measures to encourage women to have children. Thus, you have Sweden where there is one year maternity leave and one year paternity leave paid.
Yes, having a child is on one level a deeply selfish act. On the other, though, it is also an unselfish act because you are spending time, energy, your own money on ensuring the continuity of the species. Sure, parents do get rewards from raising children – they would have to otherwise nobody would do it – but so does society.
I agree with everything you say. And I’m not saying that women shouldn’t get time off after having children at at all.
What I’m saying is that everyone should get a substantial time off for their personal pursuits and not just mothers.
In the order of society’s priorities, though, it seems that there is broad agreement that the continuation of the human race and the need to encourage people to have children for that purpose trumps other considerations like indulging personal pursuits. (Countries could consider restricting maternity/paternity benefits to two children though, especially places like India, though Sweden or Hong Kong or Japan would love people to have three and four).
In Hong Kong, because of our aging demographic, companies are going to have to put in place measures to allow people to take time off to look after sick/old parents. So this might be the next thing.
Enlightened companies, however, are moving towards flexible working hours, sabbaticals etc. for everyone because they recognise the benefits of work-life balance. In my husband’s company, for example, everyone gets to pick a day in the week to work from home, not just people with kids though I think the initiative was started for people with young kids. That said, maternity/paternity leave (and I strongly believe in paternity leave) may continue to be extra because it is not just a personal pursuit – it is providing for a need of the larger society. This sounds abstract but if you live in a place like Hong Kong you see the real consequences of people not having kids and then you know why society needs to avoid that situation. Companies may also prioritise granting long leave to employees that take time off to work on some socially-responsible project, which is deemed as contributing to society. For example, my husband’s company has a sabbatical programme where employees can take a year (or maybe less) to do something related to climate change. They are expected to come back and act as climate change embassadors after that year (in addition to their jobs).
I still don’t agree that we need to encourage children in India – people will have kids regardless of anything here :) . In any case, if something is so fundamentally good then it should be addressed by the government and not individual companies – just like China took upon itself the role of curbing its population.
In fact, the need is to discourage children in India as of now. Perhaps we can start encouraging them a century later!
Bhagwad, companies don’t function in the air, they recognise that they are part of society and it is in their own interest that society remains stable or they wouldn’t bother. Companies also value women in the workplace; the fact is that in societies like India where there is over-population, women will be pulled out of the workplace to have children if there was no maternity leave, thereby depriving companies of having talented women in the workplace and also creating a society where women are universally financially dependent on men which is really not desirable.
It does not take a century for a population to drop, once the tide turns it can be very rapid. So a society shouldn’t be pursuing a strategy that is not really sustainable. By the way, one of the ways for the tide to turn is to educate women and make them financially independent. They will on their own refuse to have more than a couple of children. By that logic, keeping women in the workplace benefits the population-control advocates too.
The point about majority is an important one too. A company is not obliged to provide benefits that are applicable to all. But they will go for a policy that they feel benefits most, and if it benefits society too, then all the more reason. For example, my company offers dental insurance to all. Some may never use it. My husband’s company has a bar for employees – some may be teetotallers.
Bride, as I mentioned earlier, I’m not against maternity leave. I’m against classifying it as maternity leave. I’m all for potential mothers being able to take the time off for properly raising their children. So there’s no fear that women will be pulled out of their jobs because of this insufficiency.
All I’m asking for is that others get time off for their choices too. In India, we already have plenty of incentive to have children – religion of course is a big one that isn’t going away any time soon. The family concept in India is powerful and there’s no need to incentivise having children.
In fact, the government is aggressively pushing for single child families in India to counter the tendency of people to have more than two children. We certainly don’t need another policy to encourage giving birth!
But like I said, I’m not suggesting that women either have children or quit the workplace. Not at all. Rather I’m suggesting that other people who choose not to have kids get time off for their pursuits too.
Your point about the majority is well taken though. I do feel however, that leave is something which should be standardized…
Ok so if one accepts that since India doesn’t need to encourage people to have children – my thoughts on the misguidedness of government’s population control initiatives left aside – and that everyone should have long leave, how does it work?
Maternity leave is event-based… so you have kid, you are entitled to the leave. Generally, people will avail of it once or twice in an entire career.
How would the long leave work? You are entitled to it every couple of years? Or once in your lifetime in the company? That concept doesn’t fit in with maternity leave which is event based.
I think personal leave should be given once every five years or so to everyone. Those choosing to use it for motherhood are welcome to do so. Those using it for other reasons are allowed as well.
I’m sure we can come up with something that suits everyone…
Hmmm. Could work if it was every two years. Most people would not want a five year gap between children, leading them to quitting the workplace after the first child, which I’d hope companies would not want. Unlike a lot of other interests, pregnancy is not something that can be scheduled so exactly either.
Also what about people that don’t take the leave. Can they encash? I actually don’t see it as as simple for HR to organise as you are suggesting.
PS: Thanks for patiently having this discussion. The reason I am going on so much is that it has made me think, not simply seeking to convince you here.
I’m sure maternity leave has its limits too – something like once every so and so years…A lot of companies in the US force people to take vacations now and then. I think that might a good policy to enforce.
I enjoy discussing this too without getting emotional. It’s stuff like this that makes having a blog worthwhile :)
Observe:
(1) Allowing women to make babies on the company’s time increases the birthrate and is good for society;
(2) Allowing women to kill off unborn generations at the abortion clinic does not harm the survival of humanity; does not reduce the birthrate and is a purely personal decision with no consequences for society (otherwise known as a woman’s “right to choose”).
Purely fabulous, ladies.
The way Baghwad “thinks” is priceless. All employees should get time off for “personal affairs”. Gee, Mommy is making her baby on the company’s time, Eddie is taking time off to play with his cats, Johnny is taking time off to go drag racing and Lucy is taking six months off at full pay to take care of Grandma. Who is doing the work and dealing with the disruptions? Why, let us all genuflect before “personal needs” and ignore the relevant question. Corporate socialism for everyone is the solution; so says the “mind” of the womb.
First off if you know something is going to bring a “Shit Storm”, then you already know your opinion onthe subject is either flawed or outlandish.
Here is where my shit comes flying back at your comment. My wife and I have a hard enough time as it is just being the two of us and we have twins. Daycare especially for twins is outrageous in price. I work a full time job as does my wife. Even with its still near impossible for us to be able to just get buy and we make 12/hr(each). The first few months is essential for establishing doctors appointsments(checkup and what not), also when a child is very young it isnt always possible to get child care for them. Again even if child care was possible it isnt affordable. Besides the fact how much sleep you lose with your child when they are born is astonishing. You more likely to lose your job and sanity in the process if both of the parents worked. I personally already have a hard enough time trying to not get fired because of unscheduled-vaction time because of my kids beign sick and day care wont keep them if they so much as have loose stool. A life a parents is damn near impossible living in a word full of irregular variables and unsurcummed surprises. I for one never try to get extra care of attention from anyone because it isnt right to ask for help when it was my choice to have a child(or in my case children). Even with that concept at some point in time you have to draw a line. Continued exposure to this type of environment is unhealthy at the least and deadly in some curcumstances. I personally feel they do not give enough to parents. I firmly believe in the beginning years of the childs life (ages 1 -3) the parent should be allowed a higher unscheduled-vacation/sick time because they are written up or terminated. Between daycares and kids in general it is nearly impossible for the parent or the child not to get sick.
Here is my opinion stop bitching, because once you fuck up or decide to have children whichever might come first your going to wish you kept your mouth shut. Besides without people who have children we wouldn’t have a society like we do today. People would be without jobs and businesses and merchandise would be far and few. Businesses thrive off the birth of children and continued grow requires it. So with logic in place it is only reasonable for a benefit to those whom have or will be having children.
Please take your selfish thoughts and opinions and lock them up. The world does not evolve around you.
Ok here is my part two in regards to your statement with non-child leave time. By the way I had forgotten to mention the first time I personally am not upset with your comment and I apologize for my vaguer realism.
I also agree a none parent should be allowed time to grow. It is outlandish to suggest that we should live our lives never accomplishing what we want in our lives. When it comes to business it would make since to allow growth of a employee as it can benefit both the business and society. Most of all this will benefit the employers customers. I work in a call center so my potential to snap after working 40 or more hours a week is super high and common. I believe based off the stress of your job and the hours they could and should come to an alotted time off for personal growth.
Again dont take my vagure tongue and realism offensively. You gave your opinion in your anger an I just simply gave mine. :)