Upsetting article in W magazine re: Maternity leave

Crissyjo30 · March 2009

I never write letter to the editor, but this prompted me to:

https://www.wmagazine.com/beauty/2009/04/power-moms

What do you think of this? It sounded to me like they were condoning women going back to work at 5 DAYS POST PARTUM (saying babies need "well adjusted" mothers.) So upsetting.

jlb7640 · March 2009

I thought this was sad...

The woman who stayed home with her daughter but not her son.

"She attributes one difference in her children?s behavior to the disparate maternity leaves: ?My daughter is much more dependent on me than my son,? she says, sounding as if she?s not sure whether that?s a good thing or a bad thing. "

mustangsallie · March 2009

I think it is saying that the 12 week leave is going out of style and women are coming back to work sooner. The only reference to 5 days that I saw was that her boss called her 5 days post-partum. It says she went back at 6 weeks.

AngeNAndy4106 · March 2009

I think it's despicable. The pressure for Mom's in the US to return to work quickly is awful. I took as much time as I could paid and unpaid and I given a hard time when I got back for it. I went straight to hr about it b/c I couldn't believe the nerve of some people!

And sorry, but the quote from that woman about that job offer being a once in a lifetime opportunity or whatever is ridiculous...isn't being with your newborn baby also a once in a lifetime opportunity? (sorry I'm not c&ping it). They aren't that young forever! ugh! What is wrong with people?!

AmyDrinkie · March 2009

Among my friends, the only people who went back before the end of a 12wk maternity leave were the ones who ran out of PTO. ?Maybe the real point that isn't mentioned is that not as many companies are offering women STD or allowing them to burn PTO for the remainder of their leave?

tqsbride · March 2009

I didn't get the "condoning" slant in this article. Based on the information, it appears that many career oriented women feel the pressure to return to work sooner. This is nothing new. I feel however that the work environment is not very family friendly and that it's unfortunate that we have to make a choice between a quality career and creating a healthy bond with our children. I don't know what the solution would be--some countries like France will give mothers up to 2 years of post-partum pay (not sure if that's the actual phrase used) for moms to be SAHM before returning to work. It seems that our society once again is punishing women for trying to do what's best for them in their own personal situation.

musiclovers · March 2009

I find this article upsetting. It gives some facts and tells what mothers are facing, but it doesn't go into any detail of how many mothers are taking the full 12 weeks. (I did). The thing I find most upsetting is it continues the old idea that you can't have a career and a baby too. . . you can't be a good mother if you work full time. . .obviously we know this isn't true, but it is a crappy article to get attention to a problem that I thought was getting better.

and why are they talking about paternity leave?

mfield · March 2009

I only read the first page. I don't like it. It made it sound that it's a new trend to take a small maternity leave and get back to your "real life." I only could take 4 weeks of maternity leave and I hated the thought of having to go back to work after such a short time! Maybe further in the article they talk about the plus sides of taking an extended maternity leave....but the opening sure didn't sound like it provide this!

Lucky_Dragonfly · March 2009

I think there is a reason that doctors suggest 6-8 wks before going back to work. Studies have been done and they have found that mentally, emotionally and physical it is better for everyone. I took off 14wks and while I did get bored I did like being home with DS. but I also value my time more now that I am back at work.

jlb7640 · March 2009

mfield:
I only read the first page. I don't like it. It made it sound that it's a new trend to take a small maternity leave and get back to your "real life." I only could take 4 weeks of maternity leave and I hated the thought of having to go back to work after such a short time! Maybe further in the article they talk about the plus sides of taking an extended maternity leave....but the opening sure didn't sound like it provide this!

Nope there was no plus side of a long maternity leave. Basically if you are exhausted, why not be at work exhausted.

GRKaters · March 2009

No, that's not what they're condoning. It was a pretty all-over-the-map article, but what I got out of it was basically that the 12-wk mat leave that used to be "the norm" is kind of falling by the wayside--be it b/c of the economy, self-employment, moms choosing to work sooner, or any number of factors.

It says babies need well-adjusted mothers, but did NOT specify that there was only one way to make that happen. I thought it was pretty open to interpretation. For example, I interpreted that the mom who was on the treadmill three days postpartum was an idiot.

tqsbride · March 2009

My current job isn't my career choice, so I didn't have any problems with leaving for 13 weeks. In fact, many people were surprised when I returned. I pretty much told people that we couldn't survive off of just one income--sure I'm probably shooting myself in the foot at work (who cares? I hate it here anyways) by saying that I didn't have any choice to return, but that's the reality for many of us.

Crissyjo30 · March 2009

It just really bothered me that they didn't go into the pros of staying home on a longer maternity leave. I am a working mom and took 8 weeks, and I wish I could have taken longer.

Being a magazine that focuses on 'trends' I hate that this is discussed. It is not a 'trend', it is discrimination against women with children, and it is appalling. Interviewing women who went back to work after a week, and highlighting world leaders who chose to do so makes it look like it is something 'respectable' women should do.

Crissyjo30 · March 2009

Here is my letter to the editors:

Dear W,

I just read your article "Born Yesterday" and I have to say that I am appalled. As a first-time mother of an 8-month old baby, I could never leave my little girl when she was just 5 days old to go back to work. What was more upsetting was W's tone in the article - rationalizing the horrendous choices these women had made, and saying that babies need "well adjusted" mothers. Babies need their mothers, period. They don't need nannies, they don't need to be in public places with strangers and germs while their mothers focus on their careers. It is heartbreaking to think of those poor infants coming second to a job.

I am sure that anyone who has been touched by this financial crisis can tell you that money comes and goes very quickly. The time these women gave to their careers instead of their children will never come back. Shame on W for condoning such actions.

IckyThump · March 2009

I don't think the article condoned anything. I think it showed both sides of the debate, if you want to call it that. If a woman wants to go back to work sooner than 6 postpartum, be my guest. But, I do think that mothers should have the option for staying home for at least 12 weeks pp. Ideally it would be longer, but I don't see that happening in this country

IckyThump · March 2009

I don't think the article condoned anything. I think it showed both sides of the debate, if you want to call it that. If a woman wants to go back to work sooner than 6 weeks postpartum, be my guest. But, I do think that mothers should have the option for staying home for at least 12 weeks pp. Ideally it would be longer, but I don't see that happening in this country

mfield · March 2009

Crissyjo30:

Here is my letter to the editors:

Dear W,

I just read your article "Born Yesterday" and I have to say that I am appalled. As a first-time mother of an 8-month old baby, I could never leave my little girl when she was just 5 days old to go back to work. What was more upsetting was W's tone in the article - rationalizing the horrendous choices these women had made, and saying that babies need "well adjusted" mothers. Babies need their mothers, period. They don't need nannies, they don't need to be in public places with strangers and germs while their mothers focus on their careers. It is heartbreaking to think of those poor infants coming second to a job.

I am sure that anyone who has been touched by this financial crisis can tell you that money comes and goes very quickly. The time these women gave to their careers instead of their children will never come back. Shame on W for condoning such actions.

I bet it gets published!

mfield · March 2009

Crissyjo30:

Here is my letter to the editors:

Dear W,

I just read your article "Born Yesterday" and I have to say that I am appalled. As a first-time mother of an 8-month old baby, I could never leave my little girl when she was just 5 days old to go back to work. What was more upsetting was W's tone in the article - rationalizing the horrendous choices these women had made, and saying that babies need "well adjusted" mothers. Babies need their mothers, period. They don't need nannies, they don't need to be in public places with strangers and germs while their mothers focus on their careers. It is heartbreaking to think of those poor infants coming second to a job.

I am sure that anyone who has been touched by this financial crisis can tell you that money comes and goes very quickly. The time these women gave to their careers instead of their children will never come back. Shame on W for condoning such actions.

I bet it gets published!

TamTam624 · March 2009

I see the value in being able to be home with your LO for the 12 weeks. I was able to stay home with DS for 14 weeks due to STD and PTO. My BF had her DS and had to return to work 4 weeks later and she has said to me numerous times she can see the bonding difference between me and DS and her and her DS.

I understand why she had to go back the same reason I am working right now we can not survive on one income. She was out of vacation time and her STD policy only paid her 50% and they could not afford her to be off.

When I came back to work many people were suprised since I was out so long with DS, they thought for sure that I was going to stay home with him. Sadly it is not in the cards for us at this point.

mfield · March 2009

I only got 4 weeks off because my work policy is that our short term disability is however many sick days we've built up. I built up 4 weeks. I was allowed to take an extra two weeks off, but I wouldn't have gotten paid for those. Not even a percentage. If I had 12 weeks sick time built up I would have been allowed to use all of that. Get this - I work at a school. You'd think a place that works so closely with children would understand the bonding aspect and the importance of staying home for a little while. I feel bad for any first year teachers who have a baby - they would get two weeks paid time off and then the rest would be unpaid. At least I only had to work four more weeks before summer break...

kate081206 · March 2009

Eh....to each their own. I took four months of maternity leave and I'm glad I did. I was able to do so financially and I had a great boss. Some people are not so lucky. I was pretty out of it at even at six weeks from lack of sleep. My job probably would have sent me home LOL

jlb7640 · March 2009

What is sad is if this does become a trend coming back very soon after having a baby, if someone does want to stay home longer, there boss could hold it against them. "Well, so-and-so came back after 3 weeks, I guess she is more focused on this job than you". Companies will stop offering paid maternity leaves and just expect women to come in sooner.

kgb1411 · March 2009

I missed if it said in the article what these women's husbands did, but plenty of babies are fine being taken care of by dad or aunt or grandma or someone else who cares about them.

If you want to read about kids who are being abused and not bonding, go find an article about incest or child slavery. It is pretty crappy of you to say that women aren't good mothers or aren't giving their children what they need because if they choose to persue their careers.

Angel037 · March 2009

I don't think they are condoning anything. I think its the reality of today's world, sad or not. Sometimes people do not have a choice on taking more time out. Yes, money comes and goes, but if you do not have any paid time off and need two incomes, do you really have a choice? Not everyone does.I don't think women are putting their jobs first. Would you say that if a man did it? Of course not. Then he would be putting his family first. See the difference?

FYI, I did take 12 weeks off..(8 weeks STD, and 4 weeks vacation)

Want a personalized experience?

Upsetting article in W magazine re: Maternity leave

Re: Upsetting article in W magazine re: Maternity leave

Choose Another Board

Search Boards