Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Wake Up, Employers: Working Moms Are Giving Up

By Courtney E. Martin, AlterNet. Posted December 20, 2006.


The majority of working moms who leave their jobs do so because of inflexible office policy, not Martha Stewart fantasies.
12202006story
12202006Story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Courtney E. Martin

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

New York Times writer Lisa Belkin's controversial October 26, 2003 article about smart, young women leaving the workforce to raise children -- dubbed the "opt out revolution" -- sparked a firestorm of debate centered around one dramatic question:

Is the most well-educated generation of women in history -- the daughters of feminism and Title IX and glass-ceiling smashing pioneers -- really choosing domesticity over career?

Books have been written in response (Get To Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World by Linda R. Hirshman), class curricula have been created (NYU's Stern Business School will offer a course on work/family balance this spring), and studies have been done.

It turns out that Belkin's "opt out revolution" was more like an opt out overreaction. Heather Boushey, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. found that the drop in women's work participation rates between 2001 and 2005 was largely due to a weak labor market, and further, men's labor rates also dropped at this time. Joan Williams, the director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings, recently reported that 86 percent of those women who did leave their jobs did so because of inflexible office policy, not Martha Stewart fantasies.

While old guard feminists have been busy pointing fingers at young, frivolous co-eds, ignorant of the legacy they have inherited, they should be placing the blame where it is most deserved: in the boardrooms where inflexible and sometimes even inhumane work/family policy is established and in the government offices where little legislation is ever written to protect working parents.

The question we should all be asking is not: why aren't more young women enthused about living lives of work rigidity? But, what can we do to change work/family policy in this country so that mothers and fathers, and those who are caring for aging parents, can live their fullest lives?

That's exactly the question that filmmakers Laura Pacheco and John de Graaf explore in their documentary film, The Motherhood Manifesto, a companion project to the book of the same name written by Joan Blades and Kristen Rowe-Finkbeiner. In both, the creators weave personal stories with expert commentary to explore what happens to working mothers and families in a country that doesn't support them.

For example, only 1 in 7 American workers get paid childcare leave -- a policy that has proven to reduce infant mortality, improve children's learning and reduce juvenile delinquency. Selena Allen, a non-profit worker and mother of two in Kent, Washington, is featured in the film and illustrates just how devastating this lack of leave can be. She and her husband both worked full time, but still money was tight.

"We rent a house," Allen explains. "We don't drive fancy new cars. We don't do anything luxurious. We're just trying to make ends meet."

When her second son was born six weeks premature and rushed to intensive care, there was no way that Allen could take time off. Her workplace only offered one month of paid maternity leave, and Allen and her family decided it would be best spent once the baby came home. She gave birth on a Wednesday and went back to work on a Monday. Allen reflects, "I felt like a piece of me got left in that hospital, and I had to pretend like I was okay."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: feminism, workplace, working moms, domesticity, career, belkin

Courtney E. Martin is a writer, teacher and filmmaker living in Brooklyn. She is currently working on a book on her generation's obsession with food and fitness, Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters, which will be published by Free Press in spring of 2007. You can read more about her work at www.courtneyemartin.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Blaming old-line feminists??
Posted by: carcinoid112 on Dec 20, 2006 12:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Exactly who do you think started TRYING to influence the boardrooms, only to be slapped down (sometimes physically) so that YOU and everybody else out there gets the chance to rag on them in print or out loud? Sorry, but when Suzie _Sorority tells me she doesn't 'believe in' feminism, because she KNOWS she can have it all and do it all in her $200,000 a year job that she'll be getting right out of college, with her similarly employed spouse, and her perfect life, hells yes, i'm going to be annoyed at her.

We tried to make it better for you, little sisters. At least we made some progress. It's rare to find an office building today without enough women's restrooms, but 70 years ago, there weren't that many. Why?? Silly female, women didn't WORK!! They were at home, being wivesandmothers. The few 'old maids' and 'unfortunates' that did were accustomed to going far down the hall or the stairs to where the 'ladies washroom' was.

Ah, hell, you didn't blaze the path, you don't understand the journey. Just don't disrespect the people that helped get you out of the pink collar ghetto, where if you were a girl, you could be a nurse, or a schoolteacher or a Mommy!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Torches always get dropped Posted by: RosyFingers
» Okay, I'm baffled Posted by: Beck
» RE: Torches always get dropped Posted by: carcinoid112
» "Kids these days..." Posted by: supercrisp
» RE: "Kids these days..." Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: "Kids these days..." Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: "Kids these days..." Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: "calling it humanism" Posted by: dangerouslysane
» Sticks and stones.... Posted by: supercrisp
» BTW, Crispy... Posted by: carcinoid112
Obama
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 20, 2006 12:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is Barack Obama the only male in high office in the USA who really gets the idea that children, women and men all deserve to live a decent and happy and fulfilling life? If so, what a sad commentary this is on the state of USA governance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Obama Posted by: Phenix
NYU' Stern Business School is misguided
Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale on Dec 20, 2006 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author writes, "NYU's Stern Business School will offer a course on work/family balance this spring."
How misguided. The business schools don't need to be lecturing students on work-life "balance" - the government needs to be mandating work-life balance policies to employers.
In the 1980's there were books galore telling women how they could "have it all"- they could raise several kids while simultaneously be CEOs, get dinner on the table every night, have the housework done and prance around in a teddy.
Well those ideas were completely unrealistic and that's why they died.
It's time to shift the burden back to employers. If they do not voluntarily comply, then mandate it. It's time we got out of the slave-labor industrial-age mentality that runs workplace conditions in the US and come up to the standards set by more enlightened societies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Prance Around in a Teddy! Posted by: bichomau
What's with the "Moms"?
Posted by: colinmeister on Dec 20, 2006 3:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a shame that the writer of the article did not give the women in question the dignity of calling them "Mothers", rather than the greeting-card trashy "Moms".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's with the "Moms"? Posted by: Phenix
» Semantics. Posted by: Gakl
Quite Frankly
Posted by: nobuko on Dec 20, 2006 4:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women should re-think when they want to have children. First of all, I would not want to go back to work after 6 weeks and leave my brand new baby with ANYONE! It's UNTHINKABLE leaving a brand new baby for someone else to care for, not KNOWING if this person is legit or not, and I don't care if its a family member, or close friend. In most cases its when these babies and children are ABUSED!

I would not want to leave my child until they were potty trained and TALKING; anything before that, the woman should stay on birth control until she could meet these simple and SAFE guidelines.

Quite honestly, women who have babies and go back to work after 6 weeks, really didn't want the child, or why would she leave it so early and soon. A BABY NEEDS ITS MOM, there is only so much the dad can do, unless the mother dies in childbirth, and there is no other way.

Sorry, children first, job later and if you can't plan for children TODAY, women should not have them until they can stay home with their children until they are TALKING, PREFERABLY, SCHOOL AGE!

Parents who have out of control children need to take a hard, long good look in the mirror, for they are the ONLY reason their children are out of control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: laoma
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» Women, women, women Posted by: supercrisp
» RE: Women, women, women Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: eggnog2464
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: bluestatehorses
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: Metesh-ah
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: DaBear
» RE: Quite Frankly Posted by: peter1469
good old fashioned sexism
Posted by: xenacat on Dec 20, 2006 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
combined with a U.S economic policy that actively supports corporate greed is why working parents feel so much stress. Personal choice has been used very effectively to mask the real issue - very limited economic choices for the majority of the American populace. With a surfeit of workers, CEO's are quite able to pursue policies that quite literally drain the life blood from employees. As for the right wing nuts really being pro-family- hogwash. They are merely pro-hatred. Women (not just "moms")and minorities are simply the first to feel the discrimination. The wealthy simply don't want anyone else in their small, exclusive club. Sexism is merely one of the tools used to keep the rest of us out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not just working moms that are affected...
Posted by: LizFun on Dec 20, 2006 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've chosen to get my realtor's license because the company I worked for (5 years) wouldn’t hire people full time - instead, they kept us as contract workers. So instead of 2 to 4 weeks of paid vacation each year, we were laid off 2 to 4 weeks a year (longer in slow years and after September 11th). That’s just enough that as soon as I would catch up on my bills I was faced with a period of no income - it often happened during the Christmas holidays. Also, the dress code was strict even though we never came into contact with company clients, and the work hours were very inflexible, even though managers were willing to work flexible hours in order to be there for the workers. I’ve worked jobs (like in restaurants) where it’s important to be at work during certain hours - this was not one of them. Additionally, this employer was located in a suburb where many workers had to commute from the opposite side of the metro area, so flexible hours would have made a huge difference in the workers’ commute time, gas savings, etc. Real estate is tough, but at least I don’t answer to anyone but my clients. I set my own hours and if the money doesn’t come in, it’s all on me - not at the whim of my employer. I couldn’t believe the high number of quality, hard working employees my former company regularly lost because of their inflexibility!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Production, Taxes, Profit are more important
Posted by: zarman on Dec 20, 2006 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi Friends,
Production, Taxes, Profit are more important than creating a loving, healthy, safe, living environment for the future leaders of our planet, our kids!
If our kids had a consistent male, female parental presence in their lives it would be great.
Kids spend more time in front of TV(8 hours a day average) and playing Video games than experiencing authentic time with family and people.
A successful corporate career is the most important achievement in our lives!
Lets devote ourselves to our dysfunctional corporate families other than our own!

Happy Holidays to all(If you like)
Zarchian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ask Yourself Why This Is Happening
Posted by: JCR on Dec 20, 2006 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lamentably, working moms and dads are now being forced to choose between their families and their jobs, which in many instances, only tenuously sustain them to begin with. Seemingly inhumane legislation is first promoted, then enacted at the behest of business large and small, further chipping away at the foundations of the oft heralded iconic, American way of life.

Of course the Halcyon days of America's Ozzie and Harriet set were wholly imagined to begin with, and had it not been for the concerted efforts of an all-encompassing propaganda machine, we would have long since realized that this day was coming. We are now witnessing the death throes of a decrepit, capitalistic ogre who's falling victim to a host of nimbler giants beating us at our own game. China, India, South Korea, Brazil, Indonesia, Taiwan et al have no illusions about what kind of struggle we are locked in. The bottom line is all that matters in the minds of our political and corporate leaders.

It's only a matter of time before the US, Canada, Australia and Europe acknowledge the gravity of the situation. The fact of the matter is, China and India alone have lowered the bar and we all better get used to playing limbo. These two countries have enacted paid maternity leave legislation, but it is likely honored sporadically, and even when it is, 80-100% of full wages for 90 days for the average Indian women is peanuts as is hiring a temporary replacement who is easily hired and fired.

So what's the answer? Force China, India and the rest to play by the rules? As Bernanke and the rest of his "mission for mercy" delgation can tell you, they are both in a position to tell us where to stick it. Shall we lower our own expectations and get used to what will inevitably become our fate as a country of fewer and fewer entitlements? Europeans are going to reach this very same conclusion, perhaps sooner than us.

Greedy corporations are clearly looking for the next best place to exploit and it's no longer the US. They have already sucked the marrow from this country and are moving on to greener pastures, so to speak. They don't care that today's women are breaking the glass ceiling and comprise the "most highly educated" group of women the world has ever known. China and India don't either. Here's a little food for thought. The Chinese, Indians, Koreans, etc. are more disciplined, more driven, equally intelligent and willing to work for far less than you. Good luck boys and girls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» one more thing Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: one more thing Posted by: JCR
» RE: one more thing Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: one more thing Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
Anyone care about kids
Posted by: CB in MN on Dec 20, 2006 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe....just maybe....couples have kids and decide that they are important enough to sacrifice for. Any time I see this discussion, I marvel how the children are never discussed. I thought the whole reason for feminism was to allow women to be whatever they wanted to be....articles like this shame parents into thinking that working at home is somehow less important than working. At the end of the day, the basis of the arguement is" "Is it better for children to be raised by their parents?" Those who believe yes, will believe one way. Those that believe no will believe another.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: nirmalajagannath
» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: abrunvand
» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: Anyone care about kids Posted by: lwbaby
Glad I'm in Canada
Posted by: lianne on Dec 20, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mothers can take up to a year on Employment Insurance (which everyone pays an amount into out of their taxes). Or mom and dad can take time that together adds up to a year.

As well, my sister works for the federal government, and they also offer an option that allows you to extend maternity leave up to five years. You don't get paid during that time (which would be an issue for a single parent), but you are *guaranteed* your job back, or an equivalent job, at the end of that time. That way, you can stay home until the kid goes to school, then go back to the workforce without a long job-hunt.

Now, our system isn't perfect by a long shot, but at least there is a recognition that it would be good for children to have a stay-home parent during their formative years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No kidding... Posted by: MatthewSavage
It's the mindset, stupid!
Posted by: jmooney on Dec 20, 2006 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have a mindset in this country that somehow it is so crucial that children be raised by parents and that childcare is somehow so detrimental that it warrants one parent biting the bullet and staying home with the child, and that's usually the woman.

That's not to say that raising a child isn't a good thing and an noble thing, but I think women are buying into this a little too much, lock, stock and barrel. I submit that it does society more good for smart, educated women to remain viable in the workplace (that means they can't take off several years to raise a child and come stumbling back into the workforce; that's probably the cause of most lost traction by women in workforce, not outright discrimation, although it is all bound up together, I think).

Another key point is that I simply don't believe that fathers are coming home and doing their share of house work. I know a few guys who are married with kids and have working wives and they come home and do very little around the house. Basically, the wife/mother has to work all day and then come home and work all the way until bedtime to make the house work. I am a married man. We don't have kids yet, but we are trying. I struggle to make sure I am doing my share of the housework, but it is a struggle. With me it is not that I don't think a guy should do it, I just get damn lazy. So, if a guy has any inclination that he shouldn't HAVE to do house work, and add laziness to that, then boom, you got a lot of inequity.

I recently read a book called "Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World" by Linda R. Hirshman, and it really opened my eyes and made me think. I had somewhat bought into the idea that women should be free to choose if they stay at home or work when their children are young, and, yes, ultimately, it is their choice, but to suggest it is more important for women to abandon their careers, particularly, though not limited to, highly educated women and raise their children, I just have grave doubts. I know a woman and man where the man is one of those who doesn't like or want to do house work, so the woman, an educated woman, is underemployed in a parttime job and doing the bulk of the housework. What is that telling her young daughter? "Hey, sweetie, you get an education and you can end up like me: doing all the housework, working a puny, unchallenging, part-time job, etc." And what about her young son: "Hey, boy, you don't have do any housework, be like daddy. And when you get married, expect your wife to do all that house stuff and stay at home or abandon her career."

That doesn't seem like a positive thing inside the family nor is it positive for the society. Might we be a better, my humane society if women were fully represented at the highest levels of business and government? Even if that wouldn't make for a more humane world, it would at least make for a more diversified, healthier world.

The Christian right wants women to be barefoot and pregnant. They use arguments about family values, etc., but my values tells me that we won't be the society we can be until women, who constitute more than 50 percent of the population, are fully represented at all levels of societal life. Having highly educated women (or any other women) be basically forced to stay at home, whether because of a lazy husband or some utopian belief that child rearing is her highest calling) is just a brain drain for our society, and it doesn't help men or women, in the long run.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: justwondering
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: justwondering
» Salary is NOT the issue... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: justwondering
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: justwondering
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: justwondering
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: CB in MN
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: It's the mindset, stupid! Posted by: bornxeyed
Still leaves one more problem...
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Dec 20, 2006 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, child leave for the early years would be great public policy! I'm all for it.

But after the kids are school age, there is still the unofficial policy in most offices of sticking the single people with ALL THE OVERTIME, day after day after day, ad infinitum, while the soccer moms and soccer dads take the little soccer monsters to this, that and the other thing. They're always amazed when you point this out, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Still leaves one more problem... Posted by: MatthewSavage
» How about..... Posted by: cerry
» RE: How about..... Posted by: sweetlou
Add divorce and another household to run!@#$%^
Posted by: Landbaron on Dec 20, 2006 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who said life was fair or easy? Pretty soon the majority of the middle class will be the "working poor". The gap keeps widening, gotta keep having babies, babies and more babies!! It's keeps a vibrant economy!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The more women leave, the more burden on the men. Sigh ... :(
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 20, 2006 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The gender divide is not going to solve anything. Corporate America loves gender divides to death but neither the men or women are losing. All these elitists do is create a race to the bottom to see which gender shall lose first. Wake up people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't believe the hype!
Posted by: brad on Dec 20, 2006 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all the hype and reaction over this topic the little fact slipped through the cracks- there are more women going into careers than ever before. All labor and census statistics indicate that the great female flight from the work place is simply not happening. It is a propaganda campaign to construct a myth in the hopes that it will come true. Don't buy it. More women than ever in history are entering the work place and their are no trends otherwise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

O.K.; let me see if I have this straight:
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 20, 2006 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America's government and industry does not support working mothers. It also does not support middle- and lower-class working people in general; it does not support college education, and inadequately supports even K-12 schooling; it does not support affordable health care; it does not support fair income distribution, decent jobs, or any kind of social safety net; it does not support its own infrastructure; and it does not support such quaint ideas for human beings as clean air and potable water.

So, for the vast majority of America's population, the question is: just what DOES America support?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE???
Posted by: WitchyNy on Dec 20, 2006 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are destroying our planet...children are starving to death and dying of AIDS...we have homeless people in the RICHEST counntry in the world...

We are killing our young men (and now young women-some progress)-in an INSANE war...all for more oil to pollute the world...are you are all worried about your CAREERS??? All these maimed and crippled young men coming home...what are they going to do? It will be worse than the Viet-Nam vets.

And this is suppose to be an ALTERNATIVE-PROGRESSIVE site! That really scares me.
Are women really supposed to aspire to being as corrupt as rich white men-and view this as progress?

When we started the women's movement..in the 60's..the idea was to help END THE WAR. To make men be more like women...now it is just the other way around.
Women can fight and kill too...oh yes, there is progress for us all.

Now the goals are not having children, or stuffing them in day care...so we can have jobs and work work work...at what? How to make and sell more useless plastic crap that we don't need and that pollutes the land and air. how to be women lawyers to help the rich better screw the poor and form ever bigger corporations.

I give up. STAY HOME MOTHERS. STAY HOME AND HAVE A GARDEN AND TEACH YOUR KIDS REVOLUTION.
Anything else is a total waste of time and just helping the rich get richer and destory the world.


[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And who pays the bills? Posted by: janvdb
» RE: And who pays the bills? Posted by: WitchyNy
» Can Fathers also stay home? Posted by: Jason Jordan
» TO mjabele Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: TO WitchNy Posted by: mjabele
» RE: TO WitchNy Posted by: WitchyNy
» TO bornxeyed Posted by: WitchyNy
» TO WitchyNy Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: TO WitchyNy Posted by: WitchyNy
minor correction to some of your info
Posted by: tlannin on Dec 20, 2006 11:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding the quote, "Joan Williams, the director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings..."

It's actually the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law. A mouthful and rather confusing, but I wanted to set the record straight since the author implies that Hastings, like Berkeley or Riverside, is a city campus in and of itself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

6 months paid family leave for ALL -- including FATHERS
Posted by: janvdb on Dec 20, 2006 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If all women had 6 months paid family leave mandated (prorated for parttime workers, don't leave them out) women will only be passed over for hires.

To alleviate that, fathers must also get it and it must be MANDATORY for ALL.

This should be funded by the UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE system, not the employer directly. That is, if you are not qualified for unemployment insurance because you haven't worked long enough, you wouldn't get it. So plan your pregnancies accordingly.

If unemployment insurance rates must rise slightly to cover it, fine.

Fathers must be prevented from showing up from work anyway and working for free, also. Else women will be discriminated against.

If the mothers took the first 6 months and the fathers the second, the child would have 12 months of parental care, then into daycare.

It's not that hard. Just make pregnancy an approved reason for leaving work from the point of view of qualifying for the collection of unemployment insurance. If there are types of work on which unemployment insurance payments are not collected, include them in the system. This reduces the cost to the employer and reduces their incentive to discriminate against childbearing-age women.

Same for welfare mothers, too, as far as time allowed out of the work force. 6 months. Then, back to work.

That's as much as the childfree among us are going to sit for but it's a LOT more than we have now.

I think this should become the TOP PRIORITY of all women's rights organizations until we get it.

This guilt-trip of the lazy and the rich-man's-whore-wife against the average working woman -- telling her that she MUST be at home with her kids or the sky will fall -- IS CRAP and must stop.

If daycare were regulated and subsidized to some extent, the quality could be kept high enough that mi