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.
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?
[poll id=”23″]
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…
In reply to sraboneyghose
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.
In reply to Abhishek
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?
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
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
In reply to Abhishek
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…
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
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.
In reply to Anupa
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?
In reply to RenKiss
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
In reply to Richa
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.
In reply to RenKiss
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 :)
In reply to Richa
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!
In reply to Richa
@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!
In reply to Clueless
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?!
In reply to Sangitha
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?
In reply to Sangitha
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.
In reply to Sangitha
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 :)
In reply to Anupa
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?
In reply to Sangitha
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?
In reply to Sangitha
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 reply to Anupa
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..
In reply to Sakthi
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..
In reply to Anupa
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.
In reply to Anupa
@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.
In reply to Clueless
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.
In reply to starsinmeyes
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…
In reply to Bhagwad Jal Park
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
In reply to Hari
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
In reply to Nidaa C
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?
In reply to Nidaa C
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.
In reply to Istari
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.
In reply to john thames
Why is this the “proper” solution?