I guess I'm the opposite. When we go somewhere with the kid and H, I immediately let him deal with her.
Lucky
One of my sister's are like that. Her ex husband seemed to watch the kids while she did her thing, and now her current husband does. I'm always watching them thinking, how does she do that? Lol
I guess I'm the opposite. When we go somewhere with the kid and H, I immediately let him deal with her.
Lucky
One of my sister's are like that. Her ex husband seemed to watch the kids while she did her thing, and now her current husband does. I'm always watching them thinking, how does she do that? Lol
My SO watches our son at parties too. I have no idea how the hell I lucked out in that aspect.
I guess I'm the opposite. When we go somewhere with the kid and H, I immediately let him deal with her.
Lucky
One of my sister's are like that. Her ex husband seemed to watch the kids while she did her thing, and now her current husband does. I'm always watching them thinking, how does she do that? Lol
My SO watches our son at parties too. I have no idea how the hell I lucked out in that aspect.
Ditto, usually. In my case it's because I enjoy socializing way more than he does - it gives him an excuse to remove himself! This is also why he usually cleans the kitchen when we entertain
I guess I'm the opposite. When we go somewhere with the kid and H, I immediately let him deal with her.
Lucky
One of my sister's are like that. Her ex husband seemed to watch the kids while she did her thing, and now her current husband does. I'm always watching them thinking, how does she do that? Lol
My SO watches our son at parties too. I have no idea how the hell I lucked out in that aspect.
Ditto, usually. In my case it's because I enjoy socializing way more than he does - it gives him an excuse to remove himself! This is also why he usually cleans the kitchen when we entertain
Now that you mention it, it's probably because he doesn't want to talk to people haha
Maybe it's because we've been doing it for 7 and a half years but traveling with kids is just what we do. I don't know if I would know what to do with myself on a vacation with just my husband.
I am pro leash. We luckily never needed them, but coming from a group of multiples moms, I know plenty of moms who did. You get 2 or 3 2 year olds out in public, and without speaking they will head in two different directions.
Married - 7/29/06 Ben and Maggie - 4/10/09 Mia - 6/16/11 Surprise! due 2/23/17
Re: the maternity leave convo/comparison that I think was in randoms, my UO is that I don't think anyone else should have to pay you/me/women to stay home. I think bonding time is important and our jobs should be protected, but I don't think the govt or employers should have to pay our salary during that time. Nor do I want to pay higher taxes in order to cover yours! I, of course, would love and make use of more paid time off, but I'm not in the "I'm appalled the US doesn't do this" camp.
I guess I'm the opposite. When we go somewhere with the kid and H, I immediately let him deal with her.
Lucky
One of my sister's are like that. Her ex husband seemed to watch the kids while she did her thing, and now her current husband does. I'm always watching them thinking, how does she do that? Lol
I'm like "she spent her first 2 years attached to my boob, it's your turn." When not pregnant I always make/let/beg him to DD.
Re: the maternity leave convo/comparison that I think was in randoms, my UO is that I don't think anyone else should have to pay you/me/women to stay home. I think bonding time is important and our jobs should be protected, but I don't think the govt or employers should have to pay our salary during that time. Nor do I want to pay higher taxes in order to cover yours! I, of course, would love and make use of more paid time off, but I'm not in the "I'm appalled the US doesn't do this" camp.
SITB
I disagree wholeheartedly. That "bonding time" is vital. It improves your and baby's health and baby's IQ. There are tons of other benefits. To pay for that maternity time off would cost so little in taxes that I'm appalled anyone would be opposed to it. Seriously, think less than $100/year.
Many women can't afford maternity time if it is not provided. My friend has a college degree and has worked since high school. Her last job gave her 3 PTO days per year. THREE. And they wouldn't pay maternity leave. Many other moms work jobs that offer no paid time off or vacation time. Most people can't afford to take unpaid time off-- their health and their children suffer because of it. Or they fall further into poverty and rely on other government programs to make ends meet.
I'd much rather pay for maternity leave and invest in the health and safety of our next generation than some of the other things our government pays for.
What @gretchypoo said. And it's not just about maternity leave, paternity leave as well - that is if you are interested in a more equitable division of child rearing and housework.
@MissMerciBeaucoup YAS. Paid paternity leave. I hate that DH has to either take out FMLA or vacation if he wants to spend time with baby. And we plan on taking one of his vacation weeks because it is paid and fmla is not but it's frustrating because having a baby isn't a vacation at all.
Edited bc I just realized it made no sense to tell Gretchy to "peach" it. Lol
Re: the maternity leave convo/comparison that I think was in randoms, my UO is that I don't think anyone else should have to pay you/me/women to stay home. I think bonding time is important and our jobs should be protected, but I don't think the govt or employers should have to pay our salary during that time. Nor do I want to pay higher taxes in order to cover yours! I, of course, would love and make use of more paid time off, but I'm not in the "I'm appalled the US doesn't do this" camp.
SITB
I disagree wholeheartedly. That "bonding time" is vital. It improves your and baby's health and baby's IQ. There are tons of other benefits. To pay for that maternity time off would cost so little in taxes that I'm appalled anyone would be opposed to it. Seriously, think less than $100/year.
Many women can't afford maternity time if it is not provided. My friend has a college degree and has worked since high school. Her last job gave her 3 PTO days per year. THREE. And they wouldn't pay maternity leave. Many other moms work jobs that offer no paid time off or vacation time. Most people can't afford to take unpaid time off-- their health and their children suffer because of it. Or they fall further into poverty and rely on other government programs to make ends meet.
I'd much rather pay for maternity leave and invest in the health and safety of our next generation than some of the other things our government pays for.
I can't afford to stay home unpaid either, so I'll be going back to work when I exhaust my sick leave. It'd be great to be able to stay home longer and get paid, i just don't think the government is obligated to foot that bill for me.
ETA: I want to add/reiterate that I know bonding is important. I'm going to be really sad when it's time to leave my baby and go back to work at 6-8 weeks! I just don't think I'm OWED more than that, that's all.
Maybe it would be different if I worked for the government, but working for a $2.5B company, paying my salary for a few extra weeks is a rounding error. I get STD at 60% of my salary for five weeks...you can't do 6 more?
Though I would totally pay more in taxes to give government workers these same benefits though.
I think standard and across-the-board paid maternity/paternity leave is a luxury, and that's unfortunate. However, there are rules place (either short mat leave, FMLA, short term disability etc) to keep one's job should they choose to take advantage of those programs. It's not just the cost of one employee taking leave, it's millions collectively as well as the cost of temporary workers to fill those positions during the leave. Plus however unethical, it stands to reason that employers would eventually shy away from hiring people that havnt had kids yet (or are planning more) to skirt the responsibility entirely. I can't say I blame them.
Personally, I take care of my dad full time and get paid peanuts by his insurance. I get zero PTO or mat leave, a set number of "approved hours" per week even though thats exhausted within the first 2-3 days, and while im recovering from birth my dad will have to pay out of pocket for help because the going rate of a caregiver is much higher than I'm actually paid to begin with. Is it the governments responsibility to pay me when I can't do my job? I don't feel it is, as having a child was my choice, and my job was absolutely my choice.
Where would the government's obligation end? Should everyone recieve free childcare, free healthcare, free meals, free college because it's better for families? In a utopia yes, in a microcosm society yes, but realistically those programs would dwarf the financial burden of military spending, foreign aid, and welfare combined. It also takes the onus of responsibility off of families to have the number of children they can afford in the first place. It's a monotonous complaint that the cost of living for families is too high, meanwhile they're making car payments on newer cars than they need, living above their means in a house that requires 2 incomes to maintain, etc etc then looking to government programs to pick up the slack so they can have adequate bonding time with their offspring. It seems backwards to me. My DH and I fully believe in the recovery time and bonding periods for both parents, so we're finding ways to make that work by living well beneath our income and waiting until our mid 30s to start a family so we can make that happen. Not everyone can do that, but I really don't feel it's up to someone else to pick up the slack either way.
That being said, the world isn't black and white. And I'd love to hear some exploration into the gray areas to see if our country can at least make things a little better as far as mat/pat leave go without the automatic response being "I should get a year off fully paid with benefits for each of the children I have!" Because that just isn't realistic in a society the size of the US.
I think standard and across-the-board paid maternity/paternity leave is a luxury, and that's unfortunate. However, there are rules place (either short mat leave, FMLA, short term disability etc) to keep one's job should they choose to take advantage of those programs. It's not just the cost of one employee taking leave, it's millions collectively as well as the cost of temporary workers to fill those positions during the leave. Plus however unethical, it stands to reason that employers would eventually shy away from hiring people that havnt had kids yet (or are planning more) to skirt the responsibility entirely. I can't say I blame them.
Personally, I take care of my dad full time and get paid peanuts by his insurance. I get zero PTO or mat leave, a set number of "approved hours" per week even though thats exhausted within the first 2-3 days, and while im recovering from birth my dad will have to pay out of pocket for help because the going rate of a caregiver is much higher than I'm actually paid to begin with. Is it the governments responsibility to pay me when I can't do my job? I don't feel it is, as having a child was my choice, and my job was absolutely my choice.
Where would the government's obligation end? Should everyone recieve free childcare, free healthcare, free meals, free college because it's better for families? In a utopia yes, in a microcosm society yes, but realistically those programs would dwarf the financial burden of military spending, foreign aid, and welfare combined. It also takes the onus of responsibility off of families to have the number of children they can afford in the first place. It's a monotonous complaint that the cost of living for families is too high, meanwhile they're making car payments on newer cars than they need, living above their means in a house that requires 2 incomes to maintain, etc etc then looking to government programs to pick up the slack so they can have adequate bonding time with their offspring. It seems backwards to me. My DH and I fully believe in the recovery time and bonding periods for both parents, so we're finding ways to make that work by living well beneath our income and waiting until our mid 30s to start a family so we can make that happen. Not everyone can do that, but I really don't feel it's up to someone else to pick up the slack either way.
That being said, the world isn't black and white. And I'd love to hear some exploration into the gray areas to see if our country can at least make things a little better as far as mat/pat leave go without the automatic response being "I should get a year off fully paid with benefits for each of the children I have!" Because that just isn't realistic in a society the size of the US.
With the exception of meals (I think) there are a lot of countries that are doing this in Europe. This gets into a political/philosophical discussion, and although I know the prevailing philosophical culture in the US means that it will not happen here, but I am someone who sees the benefits of this type of system. I know there are many arguments against it, but there are a lot in favor of it as well.
I do believe that everyone should have access to free (or scaled to income) high-quality childcare. I would rather see the government invest in this than free college, because there is substantial research to show that it actually has a larger influence on future outcomes. This investment would lower costs on correctional facilities, healthcare, and welfare. I also would prefer a single-payer healthcare system to what we currently have in place (while I do acknowledge their substantial downsides). Free college is something I have a hard time getting passionate about, largely because I think the current push has come more from a place of whining/student loan regret than sound policy discussion and analysis. What I would really like to see is a system like Germany's where although not everyone goes to a traditional four-year college, those that do not receive substantial high-quality apprenticeship-based job training. Many of these will be UOs and I'm okay with this. I know my taxes would go up.
For maternity leave, I actually think my state has a system in place that would be a great starting point for the rest of the country. Short term disability has always been a state program here. It pays 75% of your salary up to a certain level (around $700 a week before taxes) for 6-8 weeks depending on vaginal vs. c-section. If your regular salary is above this, you'll need to save a bit extra to make it up, but you probably have a greater ability to do that than someone who generally makes $300 a week. In 2014, they added on something called "temporary caregiver insurance" (TCI) which will pay at this rate for four additional weeks for the care of an infant or a sick/disabled member of your immediate family. This can be used for bonding time, and it can be used by men or women. I am in the payroll budgeting loop at my job, and this new program had such a minor impact on our costs that we did not even have to raise our fringe rate, despite being a TINY nonprofit with between 4-5 employees depending on the season. It's not perfect, but it's a lot more than most states have and will probably allow many women more time with their new baby than they would get otherwise.
I don't know what the answers are, but the state of maternity leave in our country is insane. There has to be a way that is fair, and if it is working in so many other countries, there has to be a way to make something work here.
I am in a job now where I am very fortunate to not have to worry about it. I work from home, and make my own hours. It will be up to me to see how I can handle things, but this is the best scenario I can imagine for me, and I am nothing but sympathetic for anyone struggling with how to make it work.
Married - 7/29/06 Ben and Maggie - 4/10/09 Mia - 6/16/11 Surprise! due 2/23/17
On the topic of paternity leave, my husband's job doesn't currently have a policy. This is a very high revenue business in a top-paying field, but it's a "small business" in that it is run by the co-founders and privately-held. Employees and their families have to go to events several times a year where they talk about company values and their #1 value is supposedly "family." But they think that this means having the President learn all the kids names and playing the jolly uncle. Um, I don't need another adult to play peekaboo with my kid, I need my husband to have time off (preferably paid) when baby comes. I should probably dig up some citations and such on the long-term benefits of paternity leave, because DH is gearing up to talk to them about this soon.
I work at a food pantry part-time and am self-employed part-time, I'm leaving the food pantry in December and have reduced my client/project load on the free-lance work through next summer.
Where I live it is run through Employment Insurance. (Unemployment) Some people will also never need that but we are all paying into it. What I would like is if men were offered leave that didn't affect time a woman can take.
It has been around a while and women are still being hired, with or without kids. You will always find a company who dislikes women taking their time off but those people would feel the same no matter what.
I don't think not being able to afford a lot of unpaid time off means not being able to afford kids.
I have more to add but I am on my way out. I will finish laterm.
I saw someone mention something about military spending and it's only going to get worse. I don't know how many military families are here but H is in the army and he says his commander claims they're downsizing the National Guard drastically to upsize more highly trained service members like the special forces because he feels we're on the verge of another war. I don't know how true that is, but I've noticed many more commercials, billboards, etc to urge young people to join the military. And military training is expensive! DH says his BT and AIT was equivalent to upwards of a $20k education, so multiply that by all the new recruits. And the U.S. just sent $38 billion to Israel. Which, I do understand. They're the strongest intelligence in the world and it's good to have them as an ally, but I fear there sadly won't be any changes made to maternity leave, childcare, or other government assistance for quite a while.
I appreciate this discussion and all the opinions given, and I think probably your individual view on maternity/paternity leave comes down to your feeling on the role of government generally. I personally think that we need a strong social safety net to take care of those who need it and I put maternity/paternity leave in that category. This isn't anyone getting or giving free stuff - it is paid for by the taxes that we all pay. Unfortunately in a free market economy, usually those people who need help the most are the least likely to have access to it. Highly skilled workers, those with multiple degrees, who work in a lucrative field, etc. will naturally have valuable benefit packages that the average low wage worker could never dream of. I would be thrilled if more of the taxes I paid went to help mothers and fathers, who otherwise wouldn't have afforded to, stay home for a period of time and bond with their children.
@yogadevil that was probably the least emotional explanation of the differences in people's expectation of the government's role in social safety net I've seen. Can I leave my husband for you? Lol. I'm a libertarian, and tend to be relatively cold when it comes to social nets. I get villianized as wanting people to be abandoned with their struggles, which is not my opinion; I dont think I (or the government) should have a strong right to dictate to someone who they must financially assist. Like you said, there's a gray area. There has to be some support, we'll argue about how much until the country dissolves.
ETA: I do feel fairly warm about paid maternity. If I had a check box on my tax form to dictate where my financial support went, I'd probably choose that for part of it. I just don't support being told where and how much I'll be donating.
On the mat leave issue, here in the uk we get 6 weeks full pay then the government give £145 a week (which my company top up to £200) for 9 months with an option to take 3 months unpaid at the end of the paid leave. On one hand it is great that we get the leave we do but also on the other hand i feel that having worked full time for 16 years and paid taxes all of this & my husband currently pays 40% income tax that we should get something & have no issue with taking from the government on this occasion. There are so many people who take advantage of the "welfare state" here that have never worked yet get benefits and act extremely entitled to take from the system despite never having paid into it.
Gtfo with your the government shouldn't help support people on maternity leave. Should they also not provide public schoooling or health coverage for people with children who can't afford it? I mean it's the first step in building a productive society.
I feel really strongly about this issue but, as per usual, I am so glad to have the thoughtful ladies on this board. I'm glad we can have these conversations. I agree with PPs that your feelings about the role of government most likely determine your stance on this issue.
I personally think how we spend our money shows the things we value. I wish that were people, not corporations and war. It saddens and angers me that PP said military spending was shifting to prepare for another war- I wish we spent military spending on our current soldiers and veterans, they don't get paid enough and they often don't get the care they need when they come home. Instead, we spend billions on toys we don't need and never use.
Re: UO Thursday 09/22
One of my sister's are like that. Her ex husband seemed to watch the kids while she did her thing, and now her current husband does. I'm always watching them thinking, how does she do that? Lol
I am pro leash. We luckily never needed them, but coming from a group of multiples moms, I know plenty of moms who did. You get 2 or 3 2 year olds out in public, and without speaking they will head in two different directions.
Ben and Maggie - 4/10/09
Mia - 6/16/11
Surprise! due 2/23/17
When not pregnant I always make/let/beg him to DD.
@MissMerciBeaucoup YAS. Paid paternity leave. I hate that DH has to either take out FMLA or vacation if he wants to spend time with baby. And we plan on taking one of his vacation weeks because it is paid and fmla is not but it's frustrating because having a baby isn't a vacation at all.
Edited bc I just realized it made no sense to tell Gretchy to "peach" it. Lol
ETA: I want to add/reiterate that I know bonding is important. I'm going to be really sad when it's time to leave my baby and go back to work at 6-8 weeks! I just don't think I'm OWED more than that, that's all.
Though I would totally pay more in taxes to give government workers these same benefits though.
Married to my Soul Mate since 09/06/09
Personally, I take care of my dad full time and get paid peanuts by his insurance. I get zero PTO or mat leave, a set number of "approved hours" per week even though thats exhausted within the first 2-3 days, and while im recovering from birth my dad will have to pay out of pocket for help because the going rate of a caregiver is much higher than I'm actually paid to begin with. Is it the governments responsibility to pay me when I can't do my job? I don't feel it is, as having a child was my choice, and my job was absolutely my choice.
Where would the government's obligation end? Should everyone recieve free childcare, free healthcare, free meals, free college because it's better for families? In a utopia yes, in a microcosm society yes, but realistically those programs would dwarf the financial burden of military spending, foreign aid, and welfare combined. It also takes the onus of responsibility off of families to have the number of children they can afford in the first place. It's a monotonous complaint that the cost of living for families is too high, meanwhile they're making car payments on newer cars than they need, living above their means in a house that requires 2 incomes to maintain, etc etc then looking to government programs to pick up the slack so they can have adequate bonding time with their offspring. It seems backwards to me. My DH and I fully believe in the recovery time and bonding periods for both parents, so we're finding ways to make that work by living well beneath our income and waiting until our mid 30s to start a family so we can make that happen. Not everyone can do that, but I really don't feel it's up to someone else to pick up the slack either way.
That being said, the world isn't black and white. And I'd love to hear some exploration into the gray areas to see if our country can at least make things a little better as far as mat/pat leave go without the automatic response being "I should get a year off fully paid with benefits for each of the children I have!" Because that just isn't realistic in a society the size of the US.
I do believe that everyone should have access to free (or scaled to income) high-quality childcare. I would rather see the government invest in this than free college, because there is substantial research to show that it actually has a larger influence on future outcomes. This investment would lower costs on correctional facilities, healthcare, and welfare. I also would prefer a single-payer healthcare system to what we currently have in place (while I do acknowledge their substantial downsides). Free college is something I have a hard time getting passionate about, largely because I think the current push has come more from a place of whining/student loan regret than sound policy discussion and analysis. What I would really like to see is a system like Germany's where although not everyone goes to a traditional four-year college, those that do not receive substantial high-quality apprenticeship-based job training. Many of these will be UOs and I'm okay with this. I know my taxes would go up.
For maternity leave, I actually think my state has a system in place that would be a great starting point for the rest of the country. Short term disability has always been a state program here. It pays 75% of your salary up to a certain level (around $700 a week before taxes) for 6-8 weeks depending on vaginal vs. c-section. If your regular salary is above this, you'll need to save a bit extra to make it up, but you probably have a greater ability to do that than someone who generally makes $300 a week. In 2014, they added on something called "temporary caregiver insurance" (TCI) which will pay at this rate for four additional weeks for the care of an infant or a sick/disabled member of your immediate family. This can be used for bonding time, and it can be used by men or women. I am in the payroll budgeting loop at my job, and this new program had such a minor impact on our costs that we did not even have to raise our fringe rate, despite being a TINY nonprofit with between 4-5 employees depending on the season. It's not perfect, but it's a lot more than most states have and will probably allow many women more time with their new baby than they would get otherwise.
I am in a job now where I am very fortunate to not have to worry about it. I work from home, and make my own hours. It will be up to me to see how I can handle things, but this is the best scenario I can imagine for me, and I am nothing but sympathetic for anyone struggling with how to make it work.
Ben and Maggie - 4/10/09
Mia - 6/16/11
Surprise! due 2/23/17
I work at a food pantry part-time and am self-employed part-time, I'm leaving the food pantry in December and have reduced my client/project load on the free-lance work through next summer.
It has been around a while and women are still being hired, with or without kids. You will always find a company who dislikes women taking their time off but those people would feel the same no matter what.
I don't think not being able to afford a lot of unpaid time off means not being able to afford kids.
I have more to add but I am on my way out. I will finish laterm.
I'm a libertarian, and tend to be relatively cold when it comes to social nets. I get villianized as wanting people to be abandoned with their struggles, which is not my opinion; I dont think I (or the government) should have a strong right to dictate to someone who they must financially assist. Like you said, there's a gray area. There has to be some support, we'll argue about how much until the country dissolves.
ETA: I do feel fairly warm about paid maternity. If I had a check box on my tax form to dictate where my financial support went, I'd probably choose that for part of it. I just don't support being told where and how much I'll be donating.
Married: 10/10
EDD: 8/27/16 MMC 1/16
Rainbow Boy: 2/04/17
TTC: 4/18 BFP: 1/2/19
EDD: 9/6/19
Edited cause posted before i had finished
I personally think how we spend our money shows the things we value. I wish that were people, not corporations and war. It saddens and angers me that PP said military spending was shifting to prepare for another war- I wish we spent military spending on our current soldiers and veterans, they don't get paid enough and they often don't get the care they need when they come home. Instead, we spend billions on toys we don't need and never use.