In NZ, if you have two men as homosexual parents, they also qualify for government paid parental leave. NZ is more progressive in their welfare state and doesn't discriminate. One MP and his male partner are having a child by a surrogate mother, so he'll be eligible for paid parental leave, as well.
7
Nine of the world's wealthiest people have more wealth than half the world's population combined.
18
Entitled for more! You mean enslaved for more! Do you really want to tie your care being or yourself and child to an inept bureaucracy that has proven over and over again that it can NOT be your friend, can NOT love, has so many byzantine rules that it will twist you ten ways from Sunday! Thinking the state is the best way to get this, is like joining the military to see the world. You might get more than you bargained for.
5
The other problem with Germany's three year parental leave is the damper it puts on all women's professional advancement. A German friend told me that in order to gain some senior positions, it helped if a woman discretely shared a doctor's note that she had been sterilized.
15
This article made me want to cry. Not only are employers unsympathetic (i was told to come back to work after a month of paid leave or else, and no family plan available for the baby’s health insurance), the government offers no help whatsoever.
The hostility towards women and children in this country is palpable and cruel. Why do the older white voters of this nation equate every welfare benefit to socialism when they are or will be the recipients of social security and Medicare. When they did it all with one job and stay at home wives raising 5-6 children the standard of living was ridiculously low.
What are the older voters voting for if not the tomorrow of America. What’s the point of Making America Great Again if there’s no one around to live it. How will America continue if women are outright afraid to have children because of outrageous costs, fear of retribution from employers, and being saddled with debt. We will end up a nation of uber rich white people and the destitute, aging with no support from a shrinking population, surrounded by walls of xenophobia and racism.
If I want to have another child, I will have to quit my job all together because I don’t make enough to pay for a nanny and health insurance for two kids. I will have wasted my education and my career because I wanted another kid.
The Circus of Trump and McConnell have awakened an angry electorate of women and it is time that we vote out the old white male establishment and take back the power.
41
It hits you all over again when your parents are too sick or have dementia and can't take care of themselves. In America, keeping your parents alive, picking them up off the floor because they can't get up themselves, keeping them from wandering into other people's homes, keeping them fed and making sure they take medicine, is not considered working. Try finding a job after taking off several years in your fifties to take care of your very sick parents. Potential employers think you sat around doing nothing for all those years. Unpaid caregiving is not considered work in this country.
123
Another reformer who thinks the U.S. is comparable to Sweden. It isn't. Sweden is a much smaller, much more homoegeous nation with far less inequality. The U.S. has enormous religious, ethnic, regional, class, subcultural diversity. I live in California where the gini coefficient (which measures the degree of inequality) is the same as Honduras. We have substantial populations of homeless people--and no one seems to know how to resolve the issue. We're becoming more like Brazil than Sweden. Get over it.
27
I’d be interested to know where the author talked to women in Germany. I’m living here now and my understanding is that parents (either parent) get a total of 14 months leave (fully or partially paid) and that after that your employer is obligated to hold your job for up to three years, but you don’t continue to get paid during that time. The really great thing about the leave is that you can also use it to fashion part time schedules for BOTH parents. I’ve also found, in total contradiction to the authors experience, here in Berlin, other mothers almost look down on the fact that my daughter is two and not in Kita already - which for us is as much circumstantial than an intentional decision. We are relatively recent arrivals and getting a Kita can be a maze of bureaucracy and waiting lists but once you do get in to one...
Kita or day care and preschool is FREE. I shudder to think how much it would cost if we still lived in NYC - actually between that and the cost of health insurance and taxes, it would have erased my salary altogether and I would have been basically volunteering but also missed my daughters early years.
There are no easy choices when your kids are young, but parents should have choices and too often they don’t at all. It has to be a mix of government mandate/support and private incentive/support. And really fathers need to be supported but also look in the mirror and make some career sacrifices themselves - it shouldn’t only be women.
32
While we can use more support from the state. Better maternity leave options for the mother and father, and better day care facilities, some people need to learn the appropriate time to have children. Hint: It is not when you are single. I'm sick and tired of hearing "I'm a single mother" Don't be a single mother.
21
Yes, but if we provide childcare for our citizens, there won't be room in the budget for Republican tax cuts for the rich.
59
I had one child in the late 1980’s. In order to continue my work as a freelance designer in the film industry I hired another woman to care for him. After a few weeks, the woman I had hired decided to take a position closer to her home. I realized other women needed quality child care and since I had been a teacher for over 10 years before my design work, I decided to do family child care. I took additional courses to be certified in early childhood and left my free lance film design work. Within 2 months Of opening my family child care , I had a waiting list and had hired a wonderful half-time assistant. It provided my only child with interactions with other children and my business enabled other women to continue with their careers.
It was lonely at times and taking care of a total of 5 young children was incredibly demanding- even with my talented assistant. I was fortunate that my skills could translate. When my child began school, I went back to grad school to prepare for my next career. For me, without any help from family it seemed to be a possible way to make a living and provide a service.
14
Government mandated leave is flawed in that it heavily favors large established companies over the small striving companies where much innovation happens. The government needs to fund the mandate too. Still, taking time out of the workforce, even if funded, will certainly impact parent's (and, yes I agree it is mostly mother's) careers.
Fixing our health care system and investing in early childhood care and education would allow new parents to return to the workforce as soon as they wish and manage the responsibilities of a career and a child better once they have gone back. It would also remove a huge burden from our domestic businesses and make them more competitive globally.
11
The United States was founded by white,wealthy, male landowners. Our worship of capitalism and the “Titans of Industry”, our voting and governance systems, our history of severe discrimination against formerly enslaved black people, our lack of social services that would benefit women and minorities, privatized health care, exorbitant college tuition, privatized security and prisons, public funding for sports stadiums, and tax breaks for billionaires and their corporations can all be traced back to our origins. Every facet of our country is designed to give power to white, wealthy, male owners and to suppress all others.
And it’s generally worked, this far. But demographics are changing and the origin model is under strain.
The easy way out of this is through legislation that levels the playing field, starting with Medicare for All, mandatory paid maternity leave, and state-sponsored infant and daycare. But those in power wont go down without a fight I’m afraid. Thiis is going to be a long fight.
37
It's curious that the author never mentions a common solution for child rearing families when the mother's career is the one on the fast track. The men stay home with the kids. Nobody empathizes with the women's conundrum in the American family dilemma more than the men who have put their own careers on pause to take care of the kids.
When I drive to the grocery store or to pick up our child after school activities, here in semi affluent suburbia, as often as women or nannies I see men waiting at the end of the driveways for the kids to get off the bus.
These are freelancer, gig-economy type working men who have likely forsaken higher paying work for themselves. There are millions of us. We relate. We are your allies. Why not enlist us in the political struggle. This is not just a women's issue. It's a family rearing issue and men are a part of it.
296
@Billy
Yes, absolutely it is a family issue. Thank you for pointing this out. Abortion is also a family issue. If a couple feels they can't afford to raise unplanned child, the decision is mutual. Because the embryo is in the woman's body, men stand on the sidelines too often in the abortion wars. Everything about having and raising children is a family issue.
I will suggest that some of the men picking up the kids after school may not have "forsaken higher paying work for themselves" so much as having been pushed out of the job market by robots, downsizing and outsourcing. Millions of jobs are going the way of the dodo as robots take over the job market. Why should corporations pay higher salaries to men when women can do the same work and accept a wage that is 30% lower? Yes, wage equality is also a family issue.
45
Nobody I know can afford for one parent to stay home, let alone the father, who still brings in more money than the mother even for the same job.
54
The idea of state-supported child care is far more complex than providing day care. It's been several generations now that the need for day care - as a direct result of lowered wages and fewer quality jobs, shared between more and more people once EEO opened the doors to more women becoming FT workers - has become a staple. And no, that's not a lament for the "good old days" when men were the breadwinners and women stayed home to watch the kids. That said, what if people were paid a good enough wage like they used to be when a single paycheck provided a decent house, car, vacation, a few luxuries? And by that EITHER spouse could choose to work or stay home and focus on raising the kids.
And what has been the impact of easier abortions, easier divorces, the tacit acceptance of teen sex and pregnancy? Are these just things to be accepted as unchangeable, and therefore we should subsidize these choices? Have any reliable studies been done to examine these questions, and come up with any solutions for these problems? If so, it would be great to see them published and publicized.
Maybe the "genie" can't be put back in the bottle, and we have to simply accept a new version of what a family means, and that it's subservient to individual interests like having unprotected sex, abortions, divorce, and companies not paying workers enough to raise a family, but these choices have costs, even beyond the cost of providing state paid day child care. We need to think about what we want.
3
I live in Sweden, and the Germanic concept of "rabenmutter" doesn't exist here, parents share parental leave equally.
But Sweden, is far from perfect. The Government audits companies to correct salary differences, between male and female colleagues, of similar experience. The pre school childcare system here, is OK, but the schools are full of problems of indiscipline, and not teaching children to do their best work and strive for more. Sweden is also an extremely expensive place to live. The health service here is creaking. It is dark and cold for most of the year. Taxes are not that high, I have paid higher taxes in other parts of Europe. The idea that parenthood should receive no state funding, makes about as much sense as retirement receiving no state funding. Children are the workers of the future, whose taxes will pay our pensions. Many countries in Europe are not like Sweden, the offer little to no parental leave to fathers, and women are expected to shoulder the burden, or make all the sacrifices.
19
Life is about choices. And every choice has its trade-offs. We teach children this lesson. And yet, we tell adults if anything is wrong in your life, it is society's fault.
24
With population racing towards eight billion, and with every new human increasing the rate of climate change and non-human habitat destruction, the last thing this world needs is new mothers. Government should discourage breeding, not make it more convenient.
30
In earlier Empires, unless the mother was a slave (as in the Roman and many Empires) the “work-family conflict” was less of a problem than in America today — simply because earlier Empires had no need, as this current Disguised Global Capitalist Empire has now for every person, husband and wife/mother, to continually work outside the home to support the hierarchical pyraid of wealth of the Emperor, his military generals, and his army — except in cases like the American plantation system.
And today most advanced countries with automation and high productivity levels provide reasonable social safety nets in distributing the profits of their social democracy system — unless, of course, like American an inordinate percentage of the productive wealth goes only to a ver tiny (perhaps < 0.1 %).
8
Trump is already railing against the socialist bent of the Democratic presidential contenders. We have a generation of young people too broke to go to college (even with loans), or too underemployed to pay back student loans. Childbirth rates for women are dropping, and polls of young, fertile women show a large percentage that don't want children.
Why would they? Unless we can find some way to support young people and young mothers in particular, we won't have enough children to keep this country running unless we have scores of immigrants - legal or otherwise. Really, a billionaire who wants to fund flights to Mars? Yeah, that's a really a great use of billions and billions of dollars. If it takes Socialism to fix this, have at it!
24
The Sophia Smith Collection at Smith College has an asundry array of historical depths from many female communications from the unknown and those better known. Some correspondence to Margaret Sanger exists from her Irish Catholic peer cohorts regarding multiple and many times vexing issues of motherhood.
My great fear is that not only would they echo for many now but in fact provide a stereochemistry figure on many mother’s today.
There needs to be a project like this in expandedfirm and the release offemale voices not only to American male government functionaries butalso to all male leaders of every male dominated institution.
Then a White House Command Performance ala Ken Burs “ Civil War” and or Lynn Manuel Miranda’s first conception if “ Hamilton” then on to all firms of media and entertainment world wide.
3
This is nit-picking for an otherwise-excellent article but not all "women on this side of the Atlantic" are in the US. In Canada, which is on "this" side of the Atlantic, women are eligible for a year's parental leave after working for 12 months. I would be surprised if other countries west of Europe and east of the Galápagos Islands do not have some form of equivalent leave. It is just a logical part of quality child care and a caring society.
25
This is an important issue. The most intellectually gifted person I know never had any children because her career just wouldn't allow it. She's too successful to be focusing on anything other than her work. This is literally a crime against nature. We need to find ways to make motherhood easier for successful women without spending too much to do it. Maybe cut some fat out of other already-existing government programs that are of little or no use.
73
@Mark
Listen, guy, you have no idea how much energy and time are spent trying to find ways to provide child care for working mothers, by each municipality and each county in MOST states.
You clearly don't follow child-care services by the state.
11
@Mark
An excellent point.
1
In response to one comment: Look at the statistics. A very high percentage of children are not important to their mothers, in the sense that they are unplanned and just happen. Then these same mothers expect everyone else to assume a large part of the burden of raising them. It is time to get over the assumption that children are a blessing to all, and that mothers are doing everyone a favor by having them. That isn't how many of us see it.
21
Wow, has it even ever crossed your mind that these children were not “wanted” precisely because of the child care situation in America? Yet, women have relationships and I assume you’re old enough to understand that having children happens when you’re in a relationship, whether it’s a conscious decision or not. I have an MBA from an American university but I made the choice a long time ago to not pursue a career in your country, even after 2 years of employment, precisely because of this kind of thought processes. I live in Germany where I have 2 kids now, my wife and I took several years of parental leave (albeit not 6 years), we own our place, our car and are buying a house now, and we never looked back. The way I see it: America somehow got stuck in 19th century views when it comes to this topic (and health care), and that’s very sad. I’ve contributed to a lot of value creation here in Germany through multi-million startup exits, the US clearly missed out on quite a bit of tax dollars in my case simply because of the way people like you keep thinking, year after year, election after election (actually getting worse on that end) and even century after century. I love the US, but it is neither logical nor reasonable for people who are fortunate to know how green the grass is somewhere else to live there. Good luck.
52
In 15-20 years we could have a surplus of people vs. jobs from AI. Do we really need a distinction between people staying home with a child vs. people staying home without a job? If you have multiple job seekers for same job, is it fair, unless the person has very high value to the employer, to keep the job unfilled? These questions could be the ones we ask in a decade or two.
8
As an American abroad in Asia, it’s dispiritng to see no representation from non-Western countries in this study. Nevertheless, while I support political activism in this realm, it’s also important to remember that the state replaced the family and community. Parents here ask their family and neighbors to babysit in a pinch, instead of calling an service center. Families live close together and are happy to pitch in, and there is trust in the neighborhood. When parents can’t pull their weight, they aren’t so readily accused of being too needy or not independent enough; the whole society understands the difficulties of raising children while working.
10
The conclusions coming out of this article should be obvious. Children are important; everyone agrees on this point. Being a parent is important, and spending time with newborns is incredibly important; this point is also universal. So why do some not care that many parents are forced to choose between earning money or caring for their child? Why is that okay in an American society that claims to care about families? In my opinion, the government can and should step in to fix this problem. But let's not make this ideological: where are all the free market solutions to this problem? Oh, there aren't any...
11
NZ has 6 months paid parental government leave for new mums who work; our new PM even took it up. Low and middle income people get government paid child care.
I think the problem with the USA is that you don't have a welfare state so all your pensions and health care plans are tied up to share market prices and a lot of greedy guts funds managers are skimming all the profits that could be put into childcare and paid parental leave if you had a 'real' welfare state and not just a pseudo welfare state.
Our government saves billions by cutting out the middle man in private business and all pensions, childcare etc are state funded and people don't need to take out private insurance policies. Also, if you have a 'real' government funded welfare state you wouldn't need the USA government to bail out all those big irresponsible privately owned companies when the sharemarket crashes as it is just Corporate Welfare. If the USA government had a universal government department run welfare state it would save itself billions in bail outs whenever the sharemarket crashes. So, it would be cheaper overall for government and government debt would go down.
19
The United States collects &3 trillion dollars per year in taxes from its citizens. Basic math shows this is more than enough to support social programs. Then add state taxes, city taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, tolls, transportation fees and you have a huge base of tax dollars. The problem is not an income problem. It is a redistribution problem. The government is simply too large and requires a massive downsizing so that funds can be properly redistributed to the neediest among us.
7
This opinion piece should be repeated as often as a subject of concern for our nation. "Magical thinking" pervades child rearing in the States. I blame the male oriented Medical Practice of the U.S., not the women.
Ms. Collins pointed out that a professional woman who had a Cesarean section when giving birth (this involves incisions and sutures to both the uterus and abdomen of the mother) had to “engineer” her medical leave, as implied, to recover from surgery. To that point, how many men are asked to return to work only after three weeks, after major surgery and a complete body change?
My mother died early in life due to a C-Section and having to return to work in two weeks, (six kids to care for), after having her last child. (in my opinion). It takes months to properly heal from surgery. If a surgical scar improperly heals, the internal scar tissue can break off and float in the body and land on heart tissue, and cause a stroke.
No one focuses on the health of the mother. Mother and child are all about the MOTHER and what she can give to the child. How can a stressed-out mother provide for her children?
We want women to smile 100% of the time, no matter what they are thrown at in life. They must NOT complain, and they must DO THEIR JOB(s) without ANY questions, without ANY help. We model ourselves against the superhero MALE.
Never mind that progressive child care during the child’s younger years is all key to having a normal adulthood.
133
@RR
the woman got six to eight weeks of paid sick leave to recover from her C-section. She did not have to return to work as a ditch digger in two weeks.
Being cared for by one's mother during the child's younger years, and being raised by a mother and a father, are key to having a normal adulthood. There is nothing the government can do to make people behave responsibly.
7
And yet, birth rates in Europe are plummeting with steep population declines in the countries like Germany and Italy mentioned in this article.
It seems to me that American women feel much better about having babies than European women and their nanny state policies.
Why didn't this article address that?
15
Maybe because the writer knew what American women already think about that concept... But I wouldn't speak on behalf of American women. That is already being done by many American men.
7
@Baron95 As people become better off and better educated, birthrates go down.
8
I was shocked by the attitude of my female supervisors when I took maternity leave. I had negotiated three months off full time (using vacation and sick leave) and three months part time (receiving part time pay). Half way through my full time leave my boss told me that I had to come back at the end of three months, there was too much work to do. I protested, but was told I would lose my job. I worked from home, and brought the baby to work as I cobbled together child care. I am a lawyer who was working for the government. The lack of support was astonishing.
145
"It was her — or her and her partner’s — responsibility to figure out"
Yep, that's what pro-choice means as opposed to whatever you choose, society will pay the cost of you maintaining the lifestyle of your choosing.
17
The punishment of America's young reproductive age females AND those who are often a bit older who adopt but do not give birth effectively disenfranchise them from the workforce and the higher realms of society. This has been perpetrated by both Democrats and Republicans in order to deny females their rightful life choices and instead hold them hostage to marriage, a pillar of the patriarchy to give every male free labor, sex and offspring. Welcome to all the ancient religious cults that are the antithesis of progress, freedom and humanity.
Making the lives of girls and women harder robs the nation of half its potential and also makes life harder for the children, half of whom are male. It makes no sense and is hideous, but this is what most theocratic 2nd and 3rd world nations have always done.
19
@Maggie
Girls are better off living in a household with two parents than with one parent. The most effective predictor of poverty in adulthood is having grown up in a single parent household. The same is even more true of boys.
You don't have to be religious or patriarchal to comprehend that two parents who love their children are better than one.
In the land of the free, people have the ability to let their ideology lead them to make poor choices, and the taxpayer will provide some support.
7
Our country since 1980 fell victim to the concerted lie of small government, which was designed to, among other travesties, give power to corporations over their employees, their market practices, their pay practices.....
Long past time to stop the egregious, greedy, self serving train and give governance and government duties back to all citizens and away from the wealthy greedy self servering destroyers.
Mothers and all women are stepping up and I'm here to support them. Thanks for a timely, if overdue, study and article that touches a severe problem at the core of our lives.
94
Women should neither blame themselves nor the state. They should organize politically and then change the state.
14
This article gets to the heart of the dark underside of America's "individualism" on so many fronts: "Having a hard time? It's your own fault. "
This attitude benefits only one group: the wealthy aristocrats who disdain "wage work" & live off their accumulated, hoarded, ever-growing wealth and marvel that that others--say, federal workers--don't have savings or safety nets.
Mothers feeling stressed? It's your fault because you can't juggle well enough.
No savings? Well, you must be undisciplined and stupid. It has nothing to do with your low wages & student loan debt.
Sick? You're a weak loser. Going bankrupt from medical bills? Same thing.
These are the voices of American "leadership" now. These are the voices of Republican lawmakers of whom Trump is merely a symptom. The lack of empathy & general sociopathy of the radical right that has taken over the "grand old party" has been on display for decades.
When Trump's speech writers decide that railing against socialism is a good idea, you get the feeling that public libraries and social (get it?) security would certainly be branded "commie" in their book now. Except their President fawns over an ex-KGB officer who longs for the good old Soviet days. So they are walking a very thin tightrope while Americans suffer.
Mothers required to do all and be all, then blame themselves, are only one of the many groups in America that are belittled for being human.
"Public servant" and "parent" equal "sucker" to our "leaders."
38
This is not new. It’s just so irritating and irresponsible that it goes on and on.
11
We have an overcrowded planet with human-driven climate change, and you choose to have children. But then you want everyone else to pay for your childcare? Especially, those not choosing to have children? What?!
28
@anonymouse "Everyone else" already has to pay taxes that support Medicare and Social Security for a bunch of people born before we were and therefore represent lives that we did not choose to create. Through subsidized health coverage, Medicare can prolong the lives of those inhabiting the overcrowded planet. By your logic, we should get rid of these taxpayer-funded programs to save the earth, too, right?
18
@anonymouse
Progressives have a mixed message. Their core ideology is that zero population growth should be achieved by discouraging the lesser humans from reproducing and therefore providing free contraception, sterilization and abortion is the best idea, so only the elite wealthy ruling class will have children.
This is a hidden agenda, however, and the masses want benefits, so they advocate for policies that destroy families.
3
yes, we all have God given right to happiness and for others to pay for our childcare.
And not to make difficult choices.
And for the right to abort a bad decision up until an hour until the baby, err, fetus, would be born. Got it.
13
@Joe Yoh- your belittling of this very real issue is disheartening. It is precisely bc ppl who think like you are in positions of authority that the problem exists. Since you will never, as a male, be in a position to struggle with “return to work after childbirth” issues, perhaps you could remain silent if you have nothing helpful or productive to suggest.
24
The one group that has it worse than new Moms is the babies themselves.
Why is it everyone realizes you should not separate a baby animal from his mother, lest something go wrong.... but we do this with our own kids?
20
Life is about choices. You can’t have it all ladies and gentlemen.
7.5 billion and counting.
If you want kids you pay. Not the state.
32
53%of white women voted for Trump, a self described misogynist. Per the New York Times, only twice in the last 50 years have more than 50% of white women voted for the Democratic Party. Why doesn’t the USA have the same protections as women in other countries? Answer - white women won’t vote for those protections.
17
Sipa155,
Apparently, the other 50% of ‘white’ women do vote for such policies.
So what is your argument exactly?
That the 50% who vote Democratic should randomly grab a Republican female voter with a similar skin tone and do what?
Mind meld through shared ‘whiteness’? This smacks of ginning up racial bigotry and is nonsensical on top of that.
7
Walls ????? we need walls? ... What kind of a country have we become... and by the way, the folks who come here work for trump's associates... cheap labor...
we need health care.. not just 'concierge care' for all
Could this be a better way to spend billions ?
3
"Everyone should feel entitled to more."
Single mothers just need to find a way to force bachelors to pay for their children and they'll be all set.
10
Birth rates in Sweden and Germany are at historic lows, as is ours n the USA. We ae less prepared to handle fewer babies.
1
Imagine that, you are responsible for your own choices, your own actions, your own life. Adult or child? Are you the parent, the adult, or do you need others to take care of you like a child?
20
"Stop blaming yourselves. Blame the total lack of social supports."
Elsewhere on the NYT: 13 consecutive weekends of "Yellow Vest" protests in France. Thankfully we know that if we want to maintain the status quo all we have to do is unleash "rule of law" folks like UC Davis' Lt. Pike who, you may recall, became a meme after he courageously pepper sprayed peaceful protesters.
If you aren't agitating for change and demanding increased social support through peaceful protest maybe you should start blaming yourself.
1
Does the government have to help you with everything? I thought we were supposed to be independent, self-sufficient.
17
The final sentence of this article should have been its title, and I mean that sarcastically. Guess what? Life has always been hard and, frankly, as compared to history, life now is much less hard, especially for women. So for pete's sake, can we all just engage in some kind of dignified stoicism, stop looking around for others to blame, make our life choices and accept our consequences, and stop feeling entitled to more and more and more of what we cannot directly provide ourselves as a result of our own priorities and efforts?
18
The one paragraph that leaps out of this:
"Women in Stockholm seemed confused or laughed out loud when I used the term “working mother.” “I don’t think that expression exists in Swedish,” an urban planner and mother of two told me. “It’s not like there’s a ‘nonworking mother,’” she said. “I mean, what else would she do?”'
93
Sweden....ahhh, yes, the Scandinavian wonder-state! But, as the writer fails to note, it is settled research that when the state intervenes to suppress gender-differences, they pop out again as...gender differences. Given some degree of freedom, despite the wishes of assistant professors, people tend to revert to patterns that are, well, thousands of years old. Patterns, one might add, that have enabled our species of monkey to flourish rather well.
The tell in this article is the idea that the state owes women both a career and motherhood. But nowhere does it appear that the prof is much concerned with women who want to be...well, full-time mothers. On this, feminism seems strangely silent. State policies that would directly help (with real dollars and tax policies) non-working moms--not in this academic's universe. As Hillary so famously said, "I'm not staying home baking cookies." Would that she had.
Yes, the state could fund an extensive collection of day-care centers (contracted out to politically plugged-in entrepreneurs), and some might even be nice...but that is a hope that a cursory look at other state-institutions might mitigate. Public education: a mess. Prisons: no rehab there! Welfare: hopelessly bureaucratized with ever-shifting rules. Maybe, just maybe, the Army--but you really don't want to go there.
It all comes down to the prof's final, tell-all sentence: "Everyone should feel entitled to more." Sweden, here we come!
9
@richard cheverton
In Germany all mothers, including "Stay at home mothers" get support from the state. You might google the terms "kindergeld" and "elterngeld" to get an idea. If you read the entire article, it will be clear to you that the "prof" is focusing on working women in the lower economic strata who cold not afford to stay at home. Surely you aren't suggesting that our "species of monkey" should suppress the urge to have offspring unless they can afford to have a "stay at home mom"?
3
There are not many places (but there are a few) where it's better or easier to do the mommy. Even though this article is big news it's just a story- reality is where the mommies should focus. The women in the US have gotten pretty much what they have wanted except to control everything. They're still working on that. Now comes the claim that "we just don't get enough societal support to do everything we want, when we want it and how we want it." There are basic realities in the universe and you are doing much better to observe and accept them. Example- be thankful you could even get a C-Section rather than whine about the recovery period. The list goes on ladies.
6
@Dixon Duval
When you want a child, will you be bearing one yourself? If not, then your partner will need and deserve societal support.
7
Timely article showing our neglect in fully supporting our social needs, solidarian with the least among us...and with all women with children to raise. Our priorities are upside-down; otherwise, how do you explain these United States, so rich in resources, remain so poor in spirit, selfish and greedy...instead of the compelling obligation for reciprocity in assuring a healthy society from the bottom up? Can't we see that this capitalistic system, with such a potential to lift all boats, is doomed if it's awful inequality is allowed to 'flourish'? We all must commit to get involved in politics (the art of the possible), and demand our right to a dignified and just society. But any right has it's coin's reverse, the obligation to contribute; that is what makes citizens responsible for each other. Besides, it's the right thing to do. Women are not asking to be placed in a pedesta, they just want equality, and justice, to work for them too.
4
"Everyone should feel entitled to more."
The last line in this article is the problem with humans on Earth.
18
I live in Sweden where we have days of parental leave which are always split between both parents. Flexible working hours when one returns to work, because yes ome returns to work, your job is guaranteed, you dont lose it while on leave. Parental leave when a child is sick, free day care everywhere, and also after school programs. Financial support for parents...
we ALL pay taxes and this is where our money goes...
Its really another planet here
10
I wish people would move to Sweden for a while and see how "perfect" it is ... it's a nice place ... but far from perfect.
It's got lots of problems ....
8
Our nation's cult of work is psychotic. It's very much evident in the experiences of these women. My wife opted to stay home after we had our child and we're happier (if poorer) for it. Frankly, if we could make a no-income household work, we would do so. We are very much a lean-out family.
I'm saddened by how miserable our colleagues and former college friends are, building dual careers they secretly hate just to -- what? Consume more cheap imports? I'd love to live in a country where picking a parent to stay at home was divorced from any gender expectations, and people felt free to do so. Less work, less consumption, and more family time is the way to go IMO.
24
The current trajectory of the United States, in regard to the rights of women, is backwards through the centuries. The wanton Lilith was ostracized from Eden, for misleading poor Adam.
Everything, is a burden alone for the woman. Commencing with the birth of the "useless" daughter. This includes the punishment of unintended pregnancy, that appears to be solely a woman problem (it appears that a man is never involved ?). Than it morphs into workplace, the problem of child care again is a woman's. Men in the workforce are never part of equation nor part of the solution.
9
If CEO's of companies and their top managers resist letting the left side of their brain manage most things they do daily and give the right side of their brain to offer suggestions and act upon many of them, they would do the following.
Instruct all middle and upper managers and supervisors who are responsible for those expectant mothers and mothers of
infant children that those mothers are to receive the best possible treatment and arrangement of their parental leave but upon their returned to work the best possible treatment as valued employers and rearranging their work schedule should be done to reduce as much as possible work place stress.
Sound wild? No because it worked perfectly 35 years ago
with expectant mothers and mothers of young infants. It is also why this great company still today is doing just that.
2
If we men had to take care of the children, the house, the groceries, clean clothes and make sure that supper was on the table when the woman of the house got home from work, late and cranky....
8
@Clint
During the abortion debate in Canada my father, accomplished surgeon and feminist, stated that if men bore the children there would be an abortion clinic on every corner!
17
There are too many people - period. What do you think is causing the destruction of this planet?
Yes, government support for women having ONE child. More than that, payments must go down.
13
Yet we have a higher birth rate than those other countries.
Perhaps it's because we have an underclass (several different underclasses) of women on welfare who don't have jobs, stay at home and gain rather than lose from childbearing because it continues their benefits. Or perhaps it's culture---ours is less anti-natalist than those.
3
the us is behind every economically developed country when it comes to child care, health care, vacation time -- all the quality of life issues that make life better for anyone not a gazillionaire.
socialism, socialism, socialism -- that's all it takes for the right to scare the gullible
7
I am pretty progressive but sorry I have zero support for moms wanting special benefits for having kids for 4 reasons. 1) kids are (or should be by smart people) a choice by the parents. It’s not a disability or some pure accident. 2) whether by choice or accident, parents together must manage this challenge EQUALLY. Meaning if you need to have someone quite work to care for the family. 3) if we must provide a leave benefit, then it must be applied to all...not just breeders. And 4) when people take leave for the kids, it’s a work burden on their colleagues. Do they get extra pay? Nope.
The whole idea of bending over backward for moms is preposterous. They (and their partner) Ned to take personal responsibility for their life, not get special benefits and extra work by coworkers.
And yes I have 4 kids and managed it without any mandated time off.
27
MR,
Are you saying that children are some sort of luxury pet and that human beings must have some specific amount of income to ‘afford’ their children?
That is truly scary.
Only the well-to-do, should breed?
8
The Puritanical religious zealots who founded this country set the tone for human interactions and culture. Women and minorities were regarded as property, the native were obstacles to exploitation and ownership of land, and LAND possession was separated men with rights from those without. Despite noble ideals spouted by Founding Fathers, power in America has always been hierarchical, patrician and feudal. The only way to break this cycle of contemptuous neglect is to amend the constitution - Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment and expand it so protections apply not only to women, but children, parents, workers of all castes. That will require reform of zero sum capitalism, abandonment of Calvinism and realization America is only exceptional in its stoic abject cruelty. European laws make citizens happier, more productive and longer lived. We must stop electing old white men whose genetic memory is slave driver, lord and master, and put middle class women and minorities who have felt this pain into elected office and on corporate boardrooms. Do NOT expect the rich, of any stripe background or ethnicity, to be in touch with the needs of "the help".
12
Why does this travesty persist?
Business and the overall economy need plenty of low cost labor at the bottom of the wage scale to maximize profits. So it is ok to include women, minorities and undocumented immigrants in the workforce. But once you get past those lower rungs, then those groups become competitors for upper level managers, practice partners and CEOs while the trappings of middle class being taken over by the underclasses insults the “values” of the traditional holders of those perks. Lousy parental leave and childcare policies simply reinforce the status quo. So do expensive college degrees and low taxes. Which, to answer all the GOP hand-wringing, is what keeps socialism viable as a counter to unbridled capitalism.
3
The Republican Party has been successful in convincing many Americans that any sort of government assistance is socialism which is a dirty word and detracts from our freedoms. Actually, the opposite is true as shown by the progressive social democracies of the world. People there don't have to worry about child care, health care, education costs or financial assistance for the old folks who no longer draw a paycheck. The supposed richest country in the world should be able to keep up. Maybe someday the crowd that supports such Republican losers as Trump will wise up.
6
I moved from NY to Kentucky. In NY, people couldn't believe I took 7 months off to be with my son. In Kentucky, people can't believe I'm only taking 6 month off to be with my daughter. The expectation here is that you stay home, be submissive to your husband and pop out babies in the name of Jesus. AND SO MANY PEOPLE THINK THIS WAY.
7
Having everyone’s choices that end up a financial burden being paid for by others is a radical desire. Why don’t we have American society change its attitude on families & the “work” that having a family entails —(without payment). Then, maybe we can lobby the government to “pay a wage” to either parent or a caregiver to stay in the home with their children. Women (or men) “at home,” are most likely working at creating a home life. Why have we lost sight of that? Maybe we’re all radicals.
1
If you had abdominal surgery, you would get short-term disability. But if you have a C-section, it does not add time to your maternity leave. This is ridiculous. You end up with the same six weeks (pitiful as it is) as women with an uncomplicated birth and families who adopt. Now I'm not saying that those groups deserve less maternity/family leave. I'm arguing that all leave should be lengthened and extra accommodations should be made depending on the medical complications of the birth.
5
Yep, we're on our own when it comes to raising our children. Then the warmongers claim the right to sacrifice them on behalf of the state.
11
Government help for up to two children. No assistance for any more. Humans should not be encouraged to have more than two in an effort to minimize human overpopulation.
11
Why do you think the US has such open immigration? If you don't have children, they will not be missed. There are plenty more being born and some coming in through DACA.
And then there are those troublesome taxes After you have raised your kids yourself, just how charitable are you going to feel towards others.
There are some cultures where the mother in law helps out. Especially the patriarchal cultures where the paternal mother in law is the elected child care aide. Demand your mother in law get with the program. Make sure to marry someone who's mother was a career housemother or else pick one who's mother is ready to retire and adores grandchildren. If you can enlist some combination of the grandparents then you might have it made.
1
Women in this country face an on going double bind. When my millennial daughter was in pre-school, the country was a bit more liberal (supportive of the public sector). There was a sliding scale for child care likely coming from government support. Schools provided grants based on family income. This administration wants women to be submissive. They see women as property. Getting a girl pregnant is different than taking care of your wife and child. Its the woman's problem. Poor young women often do use men to leave their dysfunctional homes using pregnancy as a ploy. God and the Republicans leave them in a muddle and our country with multitudes of children who grow up on their own. We do know where that can go. Exactly how do the elected officials propose to use these Americans to their own ends when the jobs my generation used to support their families (people who worked in factories) bottom out? The empty faces of the young white underclass are the ones doing the most of mass shootings. Whole communities become engaged in drugs. We have an increasingly crazy underclass governed by a crazy 1%.
6
"..... and they (women, vs men) are still responsible for most housework and child care."
Says who?
I am so utterly tired of (many) women complaining out of one side of their mouths that they 'have to' to everything...that their man/husband will pat himself on the back for so much as picking his socks from the floor, and then when the man tries to do more, he's told that he's not doing it right, or he'll receive a 'oh, never mind.... I'LL DO IT!' It's as if many women like to be martyrs. They want to be able to commiserate with other like-minded women, about how hard it is to care for two small children (and their grown man-child).
These are typically the same types of women who've gone through life stereotyping about men, and saying that men are all this or that...they are all dogs/children/imbeciles. These are also typically the same types of women who had a 'goal' in life.... to find a man, to get married, and to have children. Waiting until they found a man who really fit the bill for them was secondary. Once they found a guy who was 'good enough', they felt they had to hurry up and 'settle down' and start a family.
There are plenty of men who are just as capable, if not more so, than doing all things domestic. But as in many things in life, you typically find that which you expect to find. If you think all or most men are a certain way, that's what you will attract.
6
' “You could have children, but the general expectation was, if you made that choice, you needed to have a plan for someone else to care for them,” the lawyer in Washington told me.'
In the west the US is the only country that doesn't support public investment in the lives of its citizens throughout the lifespan. This non-support is accompanied by screams of socialism every time someone tries to slide the weight on the balance beam even a gram towards such investment. (See AOC for latest examples.)
Meanwhile, billionaires, real estate developers, purchasers of private jets, and giant corporations, sitting on record (record!) piles of cash, paying their executives with inflated valued stocks, and bribing, er, buying, er, speaking with campaign cash, get all the tax cuts their investments in legislation can buy.
We are a sick society.
188
Only those who really really really want children will have them.
In a generation, there will be no expectation that women will have children. Family Planning and birth control will be almost universally applied. The birth rate will go down.
So children will be very precious. I hope then we'll care about them enough to provide generous family leave, great day care, excellent preschool care, and really good primary and secondary education and free college. We'll have to, because we won't have enough people to waste them the way we do today.
6
@memosyne
Gee here in California, people seem to have children rather unconsciously, still.
2
I am so glad to see these types of articles being written. I am so glad to see politicians proposing policies like Medicare for all, The Green New Deal, A 70% MARGINAL tax rate on high income earners.
We are becoming more and more productive year after year. And its not really us alone, but us with the aid of computers, cell phones, robots, Skype and so on.
Before long humans won't be needed at all for many of the things we always considered "jobs". Yet profits rise and investors and executives get richer and richer. Average wages are stagnant or declining in real terms.
Wealthy individual and corporations use these profits and their wealth to influence government policy so they can get even richer at the expense of the rest of society.
There is plenty of money for everyone to have a good education, eat healthy nourishing food, live in a decent home and maybe even pursue art and other lofty goals.
Corporate executives and silicon valley entrepreneurs can still get very wealthy, just not quite THAT wealthy.
4
Here's a novel idea: enact spending cuts sufficient to lower middle class taxes to the point that a family only needs one income, as it did during the prosperous 1950s.
6
@Charles Except that many mothers felt unfulfilled and unhappy--they wanted more, especially as the children got older. That is not a solution at all.
7
@Charles
- the 60s were the prosperous years, the fifties saw a recession and Joe McCarthy.
And the 60s were prosperous because of housing development.
2
The fact that supporters of the ill-named "Pro-Life" movement are not pressuring conservative lawmakers to support parental leave, public day care and preschool programs proves that they are really anti-choice and not truly pro-life.
16
It has only been since the birth control pill was on the market in this country in 1966, that few women had any options regarding even working outside the home, as they were saddled with lots of children, and there wasn't even any day care, so to speak of. America is large, and often all people commuted over an hour or more each day to work, and school, so people really need childcare 10 hours a day. I had two friends, both very kind, yet with enough discipline so their homes didn't descend into chaos, who did child care for two decades. They had people bring children, some as early as 6 in the morning, and some didn't pick up their children until 6 at night. Both of their husbands were tired of those hours, and the woman both wanted to quit, as the pay was minimal, and if they had two children from the same family, they wanted a discount. In other words, this was the era in small town USA, from about 1975 until 2000. Later on, they had a daycare right in the public elementary school, where many people in the town put their children. It was good, the parents liked it. My cousin, who had a degree, and worked there said, there was only room for so many babies. The babies would wake each other up at nap time, and the kids picked up lots of colds, viruses, from each other. Even though Europe, China, Japan, etc. have an ideal type of child care, it probably remains to be seen, if it is the best way to raise very young babies, and children.
3
@MaryKayklassen
On a point of history. Women in the 1960s was an educated generation, generally college.
They wanted to do SOMETHING.
Most women, prior to the pill, were freaked out about the NEXT child. Lots were scheming how to get out of having a sixth child.
The pill helped but most of the women who went to work in the mid sixties faced discrimination about their marital status, not having five kids to feed.
And women were working in the 60s. The 70s was all about equal pay because in the 60s, they weren't paid equally as men. Sometimes a "working mother" was paid one half of what men were paid.
5
I don't think that a government funded child care system would be the best answer. I think that the government should offer every incentive to support and create a system where employees were supported, encouraged and given incentives to offer maternity leave, part-time work for parents when their children are young, job sharing, continuing education while at home as well as working remotely. We need federal grants to the states so that local communities can create various models of flexible and supportive child care systems for families. We need grandparents, retirees and young people to work with children within their communities so we don't end up with institutionalized child care that becomes a warehouse of children waiting for mom and dad to get off work. We need to support the entire system and change the culture of what it means to be a working parent and an adult.
1
I should have specified that the college was a state university--hence pay set at state level. and out of the $12 per hour I had to pay $5 or more for teen baby sitter.
2
This DC lawyer took maternity. Most DC lawyer moms I know take 3-6 months, and most DC lawyer dads I know take 1-2 weeks, which division of labor sets up moms as default parents for the next 18 years. Yes, the lack of parental leave is a SERIOUS problem for lower earning women (and men): they often face no family leave or 2-8 weeks, mostly unpaid, which should be remedied as a matter of public policy. I can get behind that. BUT, the truth is that what works in Sweden or Canada is hardly the answer for the US. In some of these places, parents get 6-12 months family leave. If we institute that here, at least among the professional class, I guarantee you most men will still be taking 1-2 weeks, and we'd only further cement a culture where men take no time as caregivers and women take all the time. What we need is men taking family leave too, not doubling or tripping women's leave. And yes, tell that DC lawyer the expectation is that parents need to send their kids to school or arrange other care. It's normal - we should put our efforts into elevating professional care for all socio-economic classes, not acting like it's the worst thing in the world as a lawyer in DC to put your kid in high quality care.
2
@DCMom
California has a six month maternity leave policy for mothers and fathers. I don't like it if my male boss takes off for a half year. Truly. A newborn's parents take six months off and get UI, unemployment insurance which is based on pay, only.
Really the time the parents need to be full time parents, is when the child is around 9 months, in my opinion. That's when they are more than a two handfuls for one parent alone.
Even for part=tiimers, difficult to be sure of sitters etc. I had a BA iin music and masters degree in composition & was a studio accompanist a few hours a day for dance classes at a college (@ $12 per hour) & was told by another pianist that he had overheard an administrative staff person suggesting: "Why should we pay $12 an hour when we could probably get a local housewife to play for $8an hour?" I complained & was kept on at $12 per hour--with the explanation that artists always get paid less than administrators.
4
Maybe none of this is an accident, byproduct or unintended consequence. Conservative republicans have long reviled independent working women and idealized the single-man-head-of-household-stay-at-home-mom model, despite their fiscal policies making a single earner family nearly impossible these days.
Conservatives don't advocate for paid maternity leave, daycare or closing the gender wage gap because they don't want women coming back after maternity leave, putting their kids in daycare, or really, working at all to begin with. They might be too afraid to say this out- loud in 2019; but action, or inaction, speak louder than words.
18
I would happily pay higher taxes for high quality child care and parental leave. I would love for the marginal tax rate to be 70% on the super wealthy to pay for it. I AM wealthy, though top 5% wealthy (hubby and I are both well-paid professionals). I am also a mother of a grown child so I would not benefit from this at all. I managed to get 11 weeks paid time off when my daughter was born -- my employer at the time had a pretty "generous" policy at that time, which they later rescinded. We paid a HUGH amount of money for child care but it was what we needed to do to keep working. The USA is so far behind the times it frightens me. It is sexist and wrong.
23
“A woman’s place is in the home - or you’re on your own,” seems to be close to official US policy. Many times we see politicians undercut women - and family - options. Far too often, even citizens snarl in comments: “Why should I have to pay for your kids?” Or, they complain about having to take up the workload of women or family oriented colleagues who either stay home with a sick child, or have to leave early....
The complaint of workers is valid, but they have it backwards. It’s not the parent who are impacting their colleagues, but rather companies that operate in a reality free zone - completely divorced from the reality of their employees lives, and society’s needs. How exactly is the nation supposed to grow and prosper without another generation up and coming? How are parents supposed to have a stay at home person, when employees are not paid to be sole family providers, and benefits are terrible?
As always, corporate America causes the problem, then blames someone else for all the collateral damage they cause.
23
What are the taxes families pay in countries with generous maternity leave?
Nothing is free. Most countries with excellent benefits pay way more taxes than we do.
If we want something, we have to pay for it.
3
@Nannygoat I would willingly pay more taxes to have paid parental leave and affordable childcare for my two kids. I can't imagine the taxes I would pay could come to more than it has cost to pay outright to take time off and for daycare. And I would happily pay more taxes to make this country just a little less unforgiving as a place to raise children. Also, here's an idea: How about cut out 1/100th of a percent from defense spending to cover this? I'm sure as a country we can manage to do without one of the many incredibly expensive yet ultimately inefficient pieces of military equipment that account for quite a bit of wasted spending.
12
@Nannygoat
You can't believe that people in Europe don't employ ever trick there is to avoid paying taxes, just as Americans do?
They use Switzerland as their base, so as to avoid their country's taxes.
2
@Nannygoat Of course! But why not focus on the benefits to society?
I had my first and only child 28 years ago. I was a salaried employee and received 6 weeks paid leave. I used 4 weeks vacation in addition, but I could not work up until the delivery, so I went back to work when my child was 6 weeks old. Yes, I had severe "mommy guilt" especially as the first child sitter I employed was not very responsible. My child had diaper rash and even burned her wrist on a curling iron! How does that happen? The next child care giver was so attentive that I employed her for five years even though she said if we listed her on our taxes she would no longer watch our child, and yes, she was an American citizen. My husband wanted a second child; I said no. We divorced. I raised my child as a single working mother, taking a lower paid position to allow me the time off to drop her off and pick her up from school. Having no back up to raising a child is challenging, having no family in the city in which I was living, but my situation was better than most single mothers in America. That is a shame.
16
I think free, publicly funded child care, akin to free public schools, should be a right of every child. If parents want to enroll their new born kids in child care at 2-4 weeks old, good for them. It's good for the kids, good for the parents, and good for society as a whole. I've always thought that our public education policy of starting kids in kindergarten at age 5 was arbitrary. We should at least offer kids, and obviously their parents, the opportunity to start free, publicly funded preschool at age 2-4 weeks. Preschool teachers should be paid a living wage, on par with the attention we expect them to give to our kids.
And while we're at it, we should offer kids the opportunity to have a free public college education. Why do we continue to adhere to an antiquated belief that free public education must end when a kid completes 12 grades?
6
@skinnybonz Indeed, the state should just take all children and raise them. Why have parents at all? It's just the old patriarchy, claiming ownership of another person, lavishing inequitable love and attention and money on a privileged child, being raised as parents want rather than following the better centrally planned, government-run child rearing final solution.
6
@skinnybonz
Hi! I'd love to know what medical/educational research you're referencing when you say a 2-week infant should be apart from their parents and in childcare. Otherwise, like you say, it sounds like an arbitrary number...
On a side note, in my doctoral research in education and background in early childhood development, 2 weeks is widely considered way too soon to separate an infant from her mother or father (although I'm sure they exist, I've never encountered a licensed facility that would accept any infant less than 6 weeks, and even then it's considered SUPER young and problematic). But maybe you have sources I'm unfamiliar with? In which case, please share!
I agree about the need for publicly funded preschool, but the amount of neurological, social, emotional, linguistic, and physical growth that happens during the first year of life requires great amounts of one-on-one interaction and, to use a cliche, a parent's love: infants are super demanding, and while there are amazing early childhood educators out there, sharing a caregiver's attention with 3-5 other infants is not the same as having one mommy or daddy to bond with all to yourself. So while I like the ideas you're proposing, I urge you to familiarize yourself with the research before sharing your opinions/policy ideas with others. Your heart's in the right place! A bit more research will ensure that your good intentions don't sprout bad outcomes. For example, how about 1-year paid parental leave?
3
@skinnybonz
I don't think that you have been around too many infants if you propose that they can go to daycare at 2-4 weeks. Perhaps to be cared for at home by an excellent nanny is what you may be thinking? (which has worked quite well throughout history) But to drag a very fragile infant out of the house each day in all weathers and deposit them in a well lit, generally noisy environment with a busy caretaker who may or may not bond with them , leave them there for 10 hours...? This is something mothers and fathers only do under conditions of desperation and a lack of any better option.
There is a theory in anthropological and human developmental thought that newborns are actually still quite embryonic. They have to be born early because of their head size. But they are really not fully developed. They are, to repeat, very fragile for at least another 3-4 months. They need their heads supported, they should be kept away from germs, and need to be protected from a lot of noise, commotion , drastic temperature fluctuations, and they need tender, willing affection and connection. Many caregivers are very, very good and often truly loving. But to send all babies out the door at 2 weeks? This is madness. And one reads in the paper too often of tragedies -shaken and dropped children , left in hot cars -often in an overwhelmed low fee daycare setting.
7
You get what you pay for, unless you're a middle-income taxpayer. Middle-income Americans have NEVER gotten what our taxes pay for, except our Social Security, Medicare and K-12 public education. We don't get childcare or rent subsidies, no free healthcare, no food stamps, and nothing but college loans with interest. So when we hear somebody propose that we get some of that for the taxes we pay, all we hear is the word "tax." What if middle-income taxpayers actually got something they need for the tax they pay and what if the tax paid was less than what they are now paying for childcare, health insurance and college tuition? If you pay a tax dedicated to a benefit you are entitled to, you DO get what you pay for. America's middle class needs to think about that.
5
@abigail49 This is a crucial issue. I was on welfare with 3 kids after escaping from a vicious, dangerous husband. Welfare helped me finish college by subsidizing daycare. I paid $2 a day for 2 kids, and one was in 3rd grade and stayed at after school care. As soon as I got my degree and a job. My social worker sat with me to show me a comparison of what my budget was and what it would be. I immediately lost the daycare subsidy, food stamps and medical care. What I earned as a beginning teacher put me at a lower "take home" level after all my new expenses than what I got on welfare. She suggested that I refrain from getting a job until my youngest was old enough for school. I just sat and cried. I had worked so hard for so long. I didn't take her advice. I worked two jobs until I could get by with one. My children suffered for it. I feel that I missed so much of their childhood, and I know they felt the loss.
7
@abigail49 You also get the military defense (and all other police and fire and coast guard, etc.), military jobs, government jobs, roads, parks, etc.
What's sad is the constant requirement that other pay for your personal life's needs.
6
What most women of today don’t know: during World War Two, the federal government operated day care centers so that women could support the war effort and work out of home.
I would ask: why not now? If we could afford it then as a country, surely we can afford it now.
22
@Pat
Very true . Today it’s all about money and how much one can make off of the backs of the working and middle class.
Enough money for rich elites tax breaks and nothing for health care. The constant drum beat for the unborn but nothing for the family when the baby arrives. Marketing will not make anything right because Americans have been fed a lie for decades and now we are finally at the end.
So new ideas are going to be forced into view and the old days of old men telling the rest of how to live are crashing down around us.
7
I have been talking about this issue for years. Thanks for bringing attention to it. This issue extends to lack of supports for young children - quality day care, well paid child providers, quality preschools, headstart - that are really a lack of support for their mothers. We hear about the terrible realities of institutionalized racism. Now let's add the terrible realities of institutionalized misogyny to the conversation. The intersection of the two is way overdue for a national conversation.
14
It is pitiful. It is even worse for parents of any child ( or adult) who is mentally disabled. Provider care is set from 8:30 until 2:30pm. Essentially it follows a "school day." The expectation is that "family" can care for this person ( needing 24/7 supervision). IDD people cannot simply go to "day care" either. They need t be supervised by someone who is licensed to do so. Guardians who do not comply can be held liable by a Probate Court. The only option ( assuming the person is designated) is to "institutionalize" he or she.
Can't believe it? It happens every day in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
16
@Mark Because others should be responsible for raising the additional humans you add to the planet? And why should they be so obligated to cover your expenses and choices?
3
@Mark
mentally disabled,
emotionally challenged,
autistic disorder
or any other medical condition requiring some accommodation will drive the costs of child care through the roof, and then sometimes, it isn't even there.
1
@Mark
Mark: Thank you for bringing this up. My parents had a severely intellectually disabled daughter who was also physically compromised in severe ways. She lived to be 52 and was "institutionalized " for the last 15 years of her life when my parents both became too ill and then died. The group home where she lived out her life was excellent with good conditions and kind caretakers.
But what do people do until that child is 18 and qualifies for disability benefits, and Medicare ?
It is very expensive and exhausting to care for a person who will never be able to care for herself; who cannot be left alone for an instant, who may roam the house in the night endangering herself and others. Someone generally does end up staying home and making a lot of sacrifices. People in this country are very much on their own. Raising a child who is gifted with a good mind and good health is already complicated as the article outlines. Add health issues or developmental or mental issues and there is a limited amount of sympathy and accommodation in many work places. You hear it a lot : " They chose to have kids. Let them figure it out ."
Maybe this makes economic sense in a Hobbesian war of all against all. That seems to where we are heading. A society that disregards the needs of children is not a healthy one.
3
The woman are leaving work to raise a child, a human being, a future productive citizen of our country. We need mothers to feel comfortable, confindent, knowing that they are leaving work and doing something better for the future of our country.
11
@Jacob Paniagua We need to support them to do both.
2
@Jacob Paniagua Are we running out of humans? Many current social problems suggest a need for fewer ecological pressures, thus incentivizing the creation of added pressure at the expense of others is foolish.
4
This got me thinking. I went to a so-called elite college and have a professional degree. Even among that peer group I do not know a single woman who had paid maternity leave (vs using sick or disability leave). Are there actually workplaces in the US that offer this, or are the stories of such a thing wildly exaggerated?
14
@SCD
Yes there are some more enlightened employers that offer this. look up the benefits of big corporations. Also in some more enlightened states, it is mandated by state law.
BTW, I am female and went to an elite university. The point of this article is not really the economically well-off - we figure out ways to get by, but the less well-off, who cannot afford not to work. They need state-regulated support.
I would broaden the situation, not just for child care, but for medical leaves for employee or their immediate family member, and time off to care for elderly parents. Millions of middle aged people have elderly and disabled parents who need the assistance of those children and that also takes time away from work.
In addition to parental leave and expanded child care, the US should have expanded family leave so employees won't have to decide between their families and their careers.
13
@DBman
This is a really good point. Two years ago, when my mother was showing early signs of dementia, neither of my brothers, who live in the US, were able to take that time needed to assess her situation.
Ironically, it was me, living in New Zealand, who was able to take three months off (a mixture of leave, sick leave and a bit of leave without pay) to look after her.
Oh, and NZ has 14 weeks paid leave with the option of extending that with unpaid leave. Employers must hold the position open for up to 52 weeks.
7
"being able to work and raise the next generation of taxpayers and employees should never be deemed a matter of mere “luck.”"
Perhaps the real problem in the US is encapsulated within this phrase. Children are merely (or perhaps, to be charitable, 'most importantly') future taxpayers and employees. 'Serious' economic thinkers here must assign individuals on the statistical level to 'consumer', 'future taxpayer', 'future employee'. Families are the basis of human society and culture. The economic system is at least secondary to that primary dimension of basic humanity. Our expert Economists, and the politicians who listen to them, apparently don't get that. They are paid well not to 'get that'.
Let's get real; apparently at least the Swedes have done so.
10
@John There's no history of society paying for your children. We clearly are not in a human shortage. And most social/ecological problems suggest more isn't better.
3
We were talking about this problem in the women's movement 50 years ago. It hasn't changed--in fact, it's gotten worse as the real income of wage earners has stagnated or declined, and the costs of housing, education, and health care (even with the ACA) have skyrocketed.
16
@Martha Shelley
So do something about it. Vote in the right politicians who represent women. Vote put who don’t go to town hall meetings write a blog Boycott companies that don’t support women’s needs. Vote with your wallet. We will make change. No one else will,
2
Wow, many of these comments show that people have really drunk the Kool-Aid and believe the male patriarchal work structure is fine and that women's traditional work should be their personal problem.
The U.S. Workforce considers almost all work directly caring for people as low paid women's work: day care, teaching, nursing, men's jobs: CEO, managers, finance, etc pay much more. Yet which jobs are really more important in creating educated, hard working, healthy citizens who will contribute to society?
The real problem is that even though the US is based on individualism, we don't value individual people or the common good. That is why as a first world nation we are lowest in education, mortality, health care, and happiness while highest in incarceration, crime, and poverty.
32
@Autumn Flower We're not lowest in those measures. And can you explain when/where you see that the best way to raise a child is to have the government do it for you?
1
@Autumn Flower
If I were you, I'd check those stats to make sure you're comparing apples to apples. But let me save you some time: there are lots of oranges in the mix.
I would argue a revision of government policy for modern life should support any adult needing increased flexibility - to care for an aging parent for example. As a DINK (Dual Income, No Kids) there are scant incentives for both partners to continue working given the astronomical taxes paid on earnings. It’s as though our tax system only rewards those who procreate in the form of tax credits and head of household status. Why not incentivize NOT having children in the form of lower taxes?
11
@Heidi don't forget, when you get old or disabled you need nursing and other care. Where would that help come from if not from other people's children who must struggle to raise them when they are young. Dual income needed to raise and educate the children. No Kids is a luxury society can't afford either.
10
@R. Littlejohn No kids is not a luxury, it' a choice, in many occasions driven by the unavailability to support any children you might have.
Perhaps, if raising kids didn't cut the career and financial development of the mothers as much as it did, the birth rate in the US would be higher.
9
@Heidi
I completely agree about the difficulty of caring for aging parents, and for ecological reasons I want to encourage personal choices that limit family size and below-replacement rates of procreation.
But if it you makes you feel any better, the tax benefits for dependent children are a drop in the bucket of what it costs to rear children. Believe me, compared to a working couple with even one child earning the same as you and your husband, you already have a proportionally vast economic advantage. It's unkind and unwise to want to exacerbate that gap and leave parents with less money to ensure that their children are educated responsibly.
The people in your general age demographic who rear children are subsidizing your own old age—it's their children who will be providing the services and labor needed to sustain your life and the society around you when you either retire or become unable to work in your last years. It's a question of what kind of middle-aged people you would like to be supported by (or at the mercy of) when you are 87: do you want a next generation that grew up in poverty and ignorance, feeling uncared for by society? Or do you want a generation that grew up feeling that in our society, we support each other at all ages and in all walks of life?
If either you or your husband don't have a financial incentive to work and think you would be more or less as well off without one of your jobs, quit your job and do something more fulfilling.
8
There is a difference between having a career and having a job. Sitting at the table for a board meeting is not like cleaning the bathrooms at a Walmart or imputing data into a computer. Most women don't have fulfilling careers, but go to jobs each day that leave them tired, depressed and uninspired. They have bosses that tell them what to do and judge them in reports and assessments. Many of these women would much rather be at home with their kids. At home they are the boss, can feel in control and even powerful and inspired. So, when a policy comes along that would seem to offer benefits to women and family in childcare, many women turn the other way. They romanticize the time when women stayed at home, and found powerful positions in their local PTA and Church. Until more women find jobs that bring them satisfaction they will continue to look back towards the home and a time when being home was possible.
16
" In the lawyer’s case, this meant, among other things, joining a less-prestigious firm that demanded fewer hours and finding the right hands-free breast pump to multitask in her cubicle. "
Neither of these seem particularly unreasonable to me. The most demanding jobs are never going to be kid-friendly no matter what you do. You can't really expect that having kids isn't going to have a big impact on your work life. It always will. For both men and women. Something with as huge an impact as having kids is always going to impact every facet of your life in dramatic ways.
What we ought to be working towards is not a world where having kids has no impact on your work life but where policies exist that allow people to have kids without seriously compromising their mental and economic well-being. That may well mean making some "sacrifices" like taking a job with more reasonable hours at a "less prestigious firm"...but it shouldn't mean the struggle a lot of people have to go through in this country.
Why did the author choose to use a lawyer as her vignette when a lot of what she talks about - by her own admission - is so much worse for people who aren't in such high-powered jobs? Seems an odd choice.
8
@A The point of this article is to highlight the egregiousness of how human reproduction - a very necessary process to ensure the perpetuation of our society - is marginalized in the world of work and how that marginalization more egregiously marginalizes women.
I think the choice to use the experience of a woman who is struggling with this problem, despite holding an advanced academic degree and professional license and who was able to secure employment with a prestigious law firm, is a deliberate attempt to illustrate that the problem is systemic, rather than due to a lack of initiative, persistence, or desire for self-sufficiency.
I'm perplexed by the idea that human beings have to adjust and compromise in order to fit into the world of work. The world of work is created by human beings and so should more reasonably accommodate the needs of human beings. If that were the case, our economy could operate with exacting such physical, mental and emotional tolls on our workers.
12
As an educated woman and mother of 4 who has struggled to find any kind of a balance between work and parenting I can tell you this issue is holding our whole society and economy back. Why would we not want all parents who want to work be able to by providing safe and affordable childcare? Full employment should mean full employment. The boost to our economy that happened in the 80s happened in large part because of the influx of women into the workforce. We contribute so much and get so little in return. We all know we don't earn the same and the social supports are indeed absent. When kids get sick it can cause us mothers to panic for a wide variety of reasons including angering our bosses, losing our jobs, and finding reliable childcare. This should not be.
34
Every child has a father (by definition) who has equal responsibility over the long term, and it can certainly be argued has equal responsibility for maintaining 'family balance' during the adjustments needed after childbirth.
Rather than casting women as entities in need of state support, why not simply value the family in total? Parental leave - for both parents post-birth - properly recognizes parental responsibilities.
ps - I realize there are loving and valid non-traditional family structures not addressed by my comment, but this is not an article addressing the additional problems those families face. If we value the future in our children, we must value all elements of the supportive family units they occupy. Period.
15
The problem is that we have accepted the employer view that employees with personal lives that even occasionally require attention are an unacceptable drag on productivity. I agree wholeheartedly that parenting children requires time. So does caring for elderly parents, spouses, other family members and, occasionally, oneself. I would love to see the US tackle this issue in a more generalized way allowing for men and women to take family leave when necessary. This affects all Americans.
26
It's not just the mothers who are stressed by our lousy attitudes and policies. When a woman is out on leave, additional staff aren't hired. Where does the work go? On the aching backs of those in the office, that's where. I once did two jobs for 6 months with no increase in compensation.
26
The difference is the political culture. In the U.S., it is rapacious capitalism, extreme individualism, low taxes for the rich, government is the "problem" not the solution, money is more important than people, repressive religions and mean-spirited gender wars.
A favorite model in Europe conceives of society as comprised of 3 sectors: the market sector (economics), the government sector (political), and civil society (people), with the goal of balancing the relationships among the 3.
The U.S. is way too tilted to the market sector. Government kowtows to business interests & the military; and civil society (families, volunteer organizations, children, older people, etc.) are on their own.
Conservatives in Europe and the U.S. reflect Thatcher's statement: "There is no such thing as society" (to keep taxes on business and the wealthy low). Ergo, it is not government's responsibility to do anything much for people. Luckily for Europeans families, this view goes against enlightenment values and a tradition of noblesse oblige in Europe, which nowadays is very weak/nonexistent in the U.S.
To be blunt: American conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans do not care a whit about other people's children, stressed out poorly paid workers, and most especially the well being of women (who have not business competing with men in the workplace, which is well supported by conservative religions).
For us, the issue is business & government's responsibility to people & families
27
@PB To be blunt: It's not about "noblesse oblige" or "enlightenment values" that makes European political culture different than America's; it's about 150 years of class struggle that was successful in forcing the European ruling classes to grant the kind of social democratic concessions US workers could never get from their own rulers. The alternative was revolution, and European capitalists only had to look east to stoke their instinct for class compromise. Our own capitalist class had no threats of revolution on its borders to prompt it to concede systematic structural reforms at home, and so has been far more ruthless and vicious in its violence against American workers attempts to organize unions and political parties to serve their interests. Our rulers also had another advantage over their European counterparts: a social order purposely divided by white supremacy, and a population composed of many different ethnic and racial groups that could be pitted against each other to weaken working class consciousness and solidarity. Thus the balance of class power in Europe is still far more favorable to workers than it is here.
15
@john riehle
But couldn't you just say, America is anti pro labor. It isn't exactly anti labor, just anti pro labor and employment. Our employment and labor laws reflect that - "At will employment"?
1
Our own state (Washington) recently passed paid family leave laws that are good by American standards. We had our children before that legislation was passed. Sometimes when I look back to that time, I can call up no happy memories at all. I see only a many-year blur of unimaginable exhaustion and ceaseless stress, the unavoidable consequence of two jobs, several children and essentially zero time off. I'm sure there were many happy moments during those years for all of us. But where in the world did they go?
Thank you, Dr. Collins, for your contribution. This is, indeed, a an attack on women, mothers, and happy families. It is a skirmish in a larger war--the Republican, conservative Christian, anti-government, pro-rich, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-brown American, anti-education war.
47
I wrote the comment below for the article on day care appearing today. I think that it might be even more relevant to this one.
In the 50's and 60's I attended "child care" not day care provided by the San Francisco public school system. It consisted of day long preschool at my local elementary school that shifted to after school care once I started at the elementary school K-6. The staff was part career and part student teachers in a final phase of their instruction prior to becoming teachers.
This simple, logical, effective and efficient system enabled my single hard working mother to raise me with dignity and "normalcy" (illegitimacy being much, much, less acceptable in those days). She sent me off to my choice of Ivy League schools and went to her grave unable to grasp that "that's how much money I make in a week Mom, not a month".
Day care is not complicated as has been demonstrated in the past. It has been taken away from women, children, and yes men too, for the same deep dark reasons that fuel the resistance to full independent-agent citizenship for women in this country. A child is much more than the red badge of immorality that must be worn in shame. Every child is part of our own future and needs to be treated as nothing less.
38
Let’s see how many women would support mandatory paid family leave if that entailed significantly higher taxes and significantly lower pay. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch (unless of course you believe the government should be paying for that too).
10
@Jay Orchard
The last part of your comment, a stab at the free lunch program, is truly offensive. I teach at a very low income middle school. I have seen children cry when they are sent home sick. It turns out a parent had just lost the minimum wage job they had been working and they only got to eat at school. Are you in favor of a policy that would starve children?
Regarding the rest of this, I bet we could make a great down payment on family support if we simply repealed the recent tax cut given mostly to the rich and corporations.
62
@Jay Orchard: Agreed. I would pay more taxes for that if it were a benefit to society to have more children. Alas, it is not. We are in a terrible situation with the planet right now, and the LAST thing I want the tax system to encourage is a further burden on our ecosystems.
9
@Jay Orchard It should be obvious to those who do the math that it's really only the rich who benefit from lower taxes. For the majority of us who are not rich, cuts in income taxes (especially for the very rich) end up costing us much more: increased costs for schooling, healthcare, public transportation, etc. And yes, it would be wonderful for family leave and child care to be subsidized by the government and to have national healthcare.
11
Maybe if we could change the term “socialism” which so many Americans seem to run screaming from in terror, to a term like “the common good” it might be easier to enact a few more progressive “people friendly policies.” Then again, judging from some of the comments in this newspaper, there are plenty of citizens unwilling to pay one more dime of their taxes for anything that might not in the short term directly benefit them, even if necessary for a more just and livable society as a whole. That is a very, very, sad statement about our values.
34
@Susan
I would love to believe in "common good," but in a country as vast and diverse as ours, there is no such thing. Someone always loses.
One privilege available to citizens of the EU is choice of the country under whose laws [e.g., Italy or Sweden] one chooses to live. A parallel privilege available to citizens of the USA is choice of the state [e.g., Alabama or Washington].
6
The State of Washington has on its books, the Family Care Act and the Pregnancy Act, both of which are unpaid leaves of 6 or more weeks. These laws apply to all employers of 8 or more employees. In 2017, the state enacted the Paid Medical Leave Act for all employees, no matter the size of company. In 2020, the new Paid Family Medical Leave Act will be enacted for all employees, regardless the size of the company.
In other words, right here in the United States we have existing and effective models being implemented to address these issues. The only thing which prevents us from implementing this nationally is an ideology that does not adhere to the role of the government in protecting its most important assets; its citizens. It is time to hold the government, and the conservative ideology to a new set of standards of how we treat our citizens.
26
Interesting decision to focus on European and Nordic comparisons - quite different cultures and geographical realities to the US - and not a much more similar, and closer neighbour to the north, Canada.
Not perfect here; there are still career-advancement and compensation-impact realities to balancing parenting with a high-pressure role.
i am close to the C-suite; very few people, men or women, are willing to make the sacrifices those levels require, and talent-pool is already small.
Truth is, you can't have it all, at least not all at once.
Also true that our different choices prompt different opportunities and consequences.
Luck helps. Resilience is crucial .
We only get one trip around the racetrack...
16
Let's repeat and develop the mantra.
Progressive taxation of the fifties built the Great American Middle Class that was the envy of the world.
Tax-cutting Ronald Reaganomics changed all that. Now every state in the Union as well as our Federal Government has a regressive tax - favoring the wealthy.
Consequently America has fallen behind other advanced countries who have strong social programs that support people. Instead we, in the U.S. have created billionaires and homeless Americans. America has become one of the most unequal of countries.
138
@Tracy Economic conditions changed. At the end of WWII the world was in shambles. Everyone had to buy what we made because there was no one else out there. We got lazy and our quality began to decline, other countries got their economies going so that people didn't just need to buy from us. We have a very progressive taxation system, the top half pay more in taxes then the bottom. You can disagree with Reagan's policies, but you should get your facts straight first.
3
"The United States has the least generous benefits, the lowest public commitment to caregiving, one of the highest wage gaps between employed men and women, and among the highest maternal and child poverty rates of any Western industrialized nation."
Women are expected to manage all this and be be good mothers. To see a world that puts less value on them at work and at home and quietly surrender to it because there is no energy left to fight, only to survive and take care of her child.
Men can step away at any point and often do. What if a woman should decide this isn't a life that she can support or provide for? What if she makes a very hard choice for herself? Her career? Her future? Suddenly she isn't a woman anymore she is a murderer, vilified by a society that would rather stand for the unborn, the non viable life over the mothers life and the life that her child would have to grow with, which only she can understand.
In the US we do our best to show our support for the unborn fetus versus the mother and child. It's more about telling a woman what she can do, it's not about equality and caring for those that need help.
29
These are just another set of benefits that in our current system of corporate welfare, 1%er tax cheats, blank checks for military contractors, and huge deficits, we can't swallow until some of the previous issues get addressed first. I would suspect that if the thieves that are picking our pockets are reined in and have less in their wallets, there would be all kinds of money available for Health Care and societal social issues, including the parental concerns described in the article. Unfortunately the way this country works lately, some Representative in Congress would quickly be introducing legislation to mitigate the loss of jobs in the second home and yacht building industries.
17
re: Mothers are "still responsible for most housework and child care."
This is the root of the problem and reflects a dysfunction between a woman and her domestic partner, not between a woman and her employer or a women and the government.
I strongly believe that a person who give birth is entitled to some "sick time" to recover; and that women who choose to breast feed should be given time and space to do so at their place of employment.
But beyond that, the decision on how to split up household/parental responsibilities is up to the 2 partners, (and should be 50-50 in my opinion). If both parents work full time and the mother ALSO finds herself doing all of the housework and always having to skip work to bring child to the doctor, it means her spouse (not her employer and not the government) is dropping the ball.
12
It's interesting that the author points to the state as the solution for the problem. I personally, do not want my young babies or children in a state-sponsored day care- I'm sure the standards would be very low and there would be neglect, cutting corners, poorly trained employees, etc.
It is only natural that families want to 'stitch together' childcare themselves. Only a family member is as careful about a child as the parents are. In many countries, it is the grandmas who provide childcare. Retirees on a pension. That is the piece that is missing from this article.
The ideal people are the extended family. But American culture has been so 'me-first' that young adults are quick to fly the coop, avoid family relationships, and find jobs far away. I am not sure what to blame this on. But it is the lack of extended family, nearby, that is the problem. It's not the state.
8
@Alyce Were we to emulate the "state sponsored day care" of the Nordic countries, it would be very high-quality (as are their schools). You get what you pay for. And you are assuming that everyone does have extended families, near or far. And when people need jobs, aren't they told to "just move"? So many things against us.
24
@lee4713 Yes, the TSA is great, wonderful quality.
I went through all the things you mention in this article when I had my daughter, now 43. I didn't have a second child, partly because I didn't think I could keep my job and breastfeed another child if I had to go back to work after only 6 weeks off. (I didn't have the job yet when my daughter was born, so it didn't matter.) My daughter would have gone through the same stresses with her children, but I was there to babysit, and we had a good preschool.
I never dreamed of taking off any time to care for my daughter, but ironically, one of my male bosses got divorced and had to leave early twice a week to get his daughter. Everyone sympathized with his "difficult plight". For a man to have to worry about childcare is a huge burden, but when do it, they're placed in the mommy track.
33
Perhaps one way to rethink the issues is to pretend that we are dealing with single parent families in which the father is the single parent. What supports could be put in place to help that man raise a child from infancy to adulthood and attend to his work responsibilities - short of marriage.
26
I have friends who moved to Denmark and they have extended paid family leave which can be split between partners. It is so generous that at her daughter's age of three, she still had some paid maternity leave left, which she will use in a job change transition. This coupled with excellent childcare, which is not free, but a third the cost of what parents pay in the U.S. and of course, great healthcare for all. Parents needn't worry about affording healthcare and coincidentally, they don't "overuse" it either. And finally, they enjoy humane work hours and 5 weeks of annual vacation. Denmark has a highly productive and educated workforce too, thanks to government policies which invest in their people. Parents deserve the same in the U.S.
99
@Roberta But it is Socialism, we can't have that because it is called socialism, not because it is bad, no, because it is better.
12
A mother’s career should not depend on the reasonableness of her supervisor, but it does. With my first child, I took 7 unpaid weeks, three of which were spent in the newborn ICU. The female private school director said, “You’re lucky we held your job at all.” I left that job for a unionized school as soon as possible. At my new teaching job, my administrators supported me through my son’s rocky first year. With my second child, I took 5 months off.
Although my administrators in those years were amazing, I’ve since seen too many women get “not invited back” for their second or third year of teaching because the principal didn’t want to deal with maternity leaves, fertility treatment, newborn child care problems, etc.
It may be technically illegal to fire someone for having a family, but it’s not illegal to fire a pregnant woman and say simply, “Sorry, but we are going in a different direction.”
29
Yes we all want these benefits but are we ready for the big tax increases to pay for them?
Also will the child care provided be good enough?
My mom broke her hip. When she was discharged from rehab, she was able to get in and out of a car and walk far enough to get from her bed to the bathroom. Before she could walk a mile. BTW, she has Medicare.
See the care rationing? Day care for all is a good thought on paper. How will it work in reality? What will the caregiver/child ratio be?
5
It seems to work well in other first world nations.
1
Fast forward 40 years and the daughters of these women will be facing the same problems of juggling work with caring for their aging parents. The US is so broken.
25
@ELS And what about the sons of these women? Won't they too be busy caring for aging parents? Or again, are folks Stereotyping that men simply don't want to do their domestic share? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do many men not do their fair share because the women around them made it patently clear that they didn't want their help...that the women in question like to be 'martyrs'.... that the women think only they can do such things properly and that the men therefore shouldn't even bother?
It's interesting how some women have no problems finding men in their lives who do more than their fair share. And yet, there are other women, who time and again, seem to find themselves with men who do not. Some things become self-fulfilling.
1
Europeans came to their generous policies due to low birth rates. Fertility rates have plummeted since the financial crisis due to the expense of raising kids and the US is more likely to act out of economic interest than anything else.
8
@Chris
I lived in Norway from 97-99, BEFORE the financial crisis. These policies were already in place in that wonderful, socialist country. Couples get 3 years off to have or adopt a child, split between parents, 5-6 weeks yearly vacation, health care paid through their taxes, guaranteed retirement and higher education benefits. I would happily! pay more taxes to have the money used so wisely for the benefit of ALL. The government even provided dairy and beef cattle farmers with rotating crews of laborers to make sure that they were able to take their vacations. If a woman wanted to spend more time with her children after the three years, the government would give her a stipend to offset lost wages. I am not sure how these policies might have changed or even been enhanced over time, but the Scandinavian countries are exemplars in treating their citizens with care and respect.
Every time I hear the Republicans or Conservatives use the phrase, "family values", I want to vomit.
58
@Pam The nordic countries are no model for us. They are way, way too small and too homogenous. A better model would be Germany or France. More in common with us, large populations, etc. Think of one of the 5 boroughs filled with all white lutherans (for the most part) and that's a nordic country.
4
@Pam Europeans having low birth rates pre-dates the financial crisis. The US was still above its replacement level (without immigration) until after the financial crisis.
First people need to understand that programs such as parental leave, excellent day-care and education benefit all of society, not just the people directly involved. Parental leave is not just for the parent but also for providing the child with a secure start life. That is invaluable for the development of good members of society.
49
Paid maternity/paternity leave (both are available in many European countries) are important, but so is subsidized daycare so that mothers can return to work and continue careers.
In Germany, where I lived for six years and my son was born, high-quality daycare ("Kita") is available essentially for free beginning at 6 months. Parents have a great deal of choice about providers (neighborhood, philosophy, language immersion, etc.).
Contrast this with the US (to which we've returned), where all-day childcare can cost as much as college tuition, and where even dual-earning professionals can struggle to cope financially (particularly with multiple kids). How on earth do we expect lower-income or single parents to improve their own and their kids' lives? When childcare can cost more than mothers can earn, what choice do women have? How can we as a society possibly claim to support gender equality?
It really is very simple: we're "socialist" about education as soon as kids hit school age, so why not earlier?
35
@David I lived in Germany too. How many German mothers did you know that used daycare? I knew quite a few and none of them would do so. They would have been called 'raven's mutters', a powerful insult. Daycare was viewed as something for the poor and immigrants. The middle class wouldn't go near it.
1
@DavidLower income and single people can improve their lives by NOT having kids they can't afford. Simple.
1
@Moira
I lived in Berlin, and there was no stigma attached to sending kids to daycare. Then again, Berlin is a lot more progressive than other parts of the country.
@Hat Trick
Ah, eugenics...
5
The last line exposes this for what it is. I am sorry to disagree. Not everyone should feel entitled to more.
12
@etchory: Especially not rich people and multinational corporations and military contractors. If they would stop feeling so entitled, the rest of us would have some breathing room to live decent lives. (Why am I paying more taxes than Netflix, for instance?)
11
@etchory
Then don't complain about birth rates and how much social welfare it takes to offset what ought be sane, humane policies just because they apply to women who give birth.
@etchory I guess it is inexorable that we will continue to drift from a society of rights that are ideals - i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - to rights that are things - i.e. someone should pay to subsidize my decisions.
2
Always baffles me that those who want little or no immigration also oppose any (or paltry) assistance to women and families. It's all lip service and word play when politicians promise to address the real challenges facing parents and their children.
Why the plunging domestic birth rates? Duhh!
For what it's worth - you don't have to go to Europe to explore government responses to the work-family conflict. While not perfect, Canada has the "Canada Labour Code" for working families which provides for maternity-related reassignment and leave, maternity leave, and parental leave.
https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/labour-standards/reports/maternity-leave.html#h2.4
Let's hope that having more women (and progressive men) in Congress translates into better policies in the US and more support for women and families.
21
@Lily
I remember many years ago taking a train trip to Vancouver, British Columbia. On this trip my friend and I met a woman who told us her sole job was to fill in for women in the workforce who were given 6 month maternity leaves. I was amazed at the generous maternity leave and at the solution for keeping the job.
10
@Lily - define "progressive." True progressives would honestly acknowledge American over-consumption and its disproportional environmental impacts that are destroying habitability of this planet for all species. You don't have to have children and it would be better if you didn't.
3
@Lily: We don't need to increase our population - period.
2
So interesting. Many people who feel they are essential to the functioning of society esp. in the upper echelons and even in the lower may wake up one day to find they are not necessary at all! That said, only women can bear live human babies-- men may not be at all necessary given the possibility of yes cloning. Frankly, pregnant women should be cherished and mothers (and fathers). However, we really do need to think about lowering the population -- what do you think contributes to global warming??
it's quite complicated.. Of course, women should have a paid maternal leave for a minimum of six months, preferably a year-- next read the to the Daycare funding piece.
Given that it is desirable for AI and robots/specialized machines to take on many a task, jobs/products eliminated by the WEB.. it is a brave new world. (Wonder if Warren knows enough really smart people!).
The silliness that is current US policy and belief in so many areas is antiquated. Assuming we are willing workers, a level of support needs to be guaranteed... and please, let's give peace a chance.
7
The problem with this is that when men read it, they will assume that a woman with such problems and responsibilities won't be able to do a good job at work, and that this is reason women are underrepresented in management (as opposed to structural bias against women). Differences in pay mean that women may end up poor in their old age. My recommendation would be for the woman to focus on getting her husband to do 50%, to stop caring if the house looks bad and the kid's clothes are dirty and to not expect to be treated like a fragile, delicate flower after childbirth. Having a baby is made exhausting by the endless societal pressure to consume, display, look perfect.
I do think there should be better, subsidized childcare facilities located in or near the workplace, but I would be afraid that if women are given a year off or even six months with pay, no one will want to hire them and this will contribute to future income inequality. My great grandmother had twelve kids, and ran a farm--she certainly did not get a year off for every child.
5
@Anne and then there were all the women and children who suffered and died. Your great grandmother was one of the lucky ones, and still probably miserable.
1
@Anne, sure she didn't get a year off, but she was at home with them even while running the farm...
Caitlyn Collins skillfully told the story of many women who experience blame and stress by working outside of the home without social support. I felt sad reading her opinion piece because she addressed all the issues that I experienced working and raising two sons who are now 40 and 42. I was lucky because I was a professional and able to afford childcare. Too many of my working contemporaries could not pay for childcare. Today, as in the past, too many women, who work outside of their homes, must work and cannot provide adequate care. Part-time childcare in 1983 was $5000. How many families can afford its equivalent, $12,610.10, in 2019?
13
@Michelle Johnston
My female colleague and I sat down and did the math in 1978. We held Masters degrees and made lass then $13,000 a year. Without a partner, each of us, would be on welfare within 6 months. Daycare was expensive and a limited commodity. She opted to become a pediatrician and married to have 2 children. I never had a child. Affording a child and assuring them a secure life wasn’t a viable option. Things today are hardly much better for two person households given inflation.
2
If we had a single-payer health insurance system, employers could replace the employee health benefit they now provide with a childcare benefit as one of a smorgasbord of employee benefits to choose from (so older and childless employees would not be discriminated against.) Single-payer, universal health coverage is the linchpin of 21st century society in a mobile, two-paycheck economy. We will get it when we start voting for it.
11
@abigail49--Interesting you mention older and childless employees. These folks are usually overlooked in any discussion of leave for new mothers. I know from experience the hard feelings that are created in a workplace when a worker goes on maternity leave. Even though the new mothers feel it is not vacation time, many of the employees left behind in the office view it that way. "When do I get my 6 weeks off?" is a common rhetorical question around the office. Filling in for an employee on leave is a sacrifice of time and effort that creates resentment. Many employers don't hire temporary workers to replace the one on leave, and other workers are just expected to fill in. It would all go down much easier if some arrangement was made to provide a benefit to all workers, not just new mothers.
17
@Ms. Pea
"Many employers don't hire temporary workers to replace the one on leave, and other workers are just expected to fill in."
So, to be clear, your complaint is not with the people taking maternity leave, but with the organizations' policies governing how that leave is managed.
17
@abigail49: "Single-payer, universal health coverage is the linchpin of 21st century society in a mobile, two-paycheck economy. "
The question is how do we transition to that vision of paradise?
Whatever tax payer paid universal healthcare plan you dream up there will be those who will take a haircut on their current benefits and/or their costs.
Forget the "we'll all come out ahead" business. That might be the case several generations from now. As with Obamacare, some folks were hurt financially. I guess the progressive way to consider those folks as just so much collateral damage. Perhaps just enough to turn the electoral college vote.
And please don't point to the treatment provided in European hospitals. I don't want the Greek healthcare system.
And remember, it's supposed to be a "win-win" so no one should have to pay more for the benefits they currently receive.
When you figure out the answer do write back.
2
Ironically, Donald Trump railed against socialism in his SOTU speech this past week while announcing that he would be pushing a paid family leave bill. Sheesh.
Democrats have been pushing for paid family leave long before Republicans caught onto the fact that Americans desperately want and need it. Now Republicans are talking about it - BUT they don't want to impose new taxes to pay for it. So we have things like Marco Rubio's idea of borrowing from your retirement (Social Security) fund to pay for the family leave you need now. Trump's method of financing paid family leave is to require states to dip into their unemployment insurance reserves.
It's HIGH time for paid family leave supported by a fair and sustainable funding method. We'll need to look to Democrats - in particular those miraculous Ladies in White! - for the answers.
20
And it doesn’t end in infancy. Our school systems still act as if we are a nation of two parent families with a single breadwinner and a home based caregiver.
(And at work, simply becoming a mother too often means you are then defined as someone who is on a “mommy track” meaning not committed to your job. This is despite the evidence that most working women go to extraordinary lengths to work harder to counteract this assumption.)
11
@Susan
Exactly about the issue not ending when kids reach school age. Every federal or state holiday when kids have the day off is a day of lost wages for me or a struggle to find child care, as I am not a salaried worker or a federal employee who gets paid holidays.
4
Many people seem to believe that it is in society's interest for government to provide for the care of future citizens. So, it's only right that if the government is going to take over caring for children, then we should also expect more governmental oversight of how those children are being raised. Home visits by government workers should be required to ascertain what the home environment is like, and children should be removed from substandard homes. Taxpayers have the right to expect that their money is being spent in the best interests of the child.
6
Isn't it what the Government doing now, but without helping parents?
1
@Ms. Pea
And first: the best interests of the mother. That's the point insuring a good outcome for all.
1
It should be need based.
Providing money to fund a dual income upper middle class couple to stay home from work probably is not best use of tax dollars.
Also people should realize, having a kid means your time, money and resources are split. Things don’t stay the same. Sacrifices are going to happen.
I find the best thing to do is plan for a break. It goes by super fast anyway. If you don’t need to work, don’t. If you do need to work, figure out ways to dial things back.
6
@Jane
"Providing money to fund a dual income upper middle class couple to stay home from work probably is not best use of tax dollars. "
This implies that you would support such funding for middle or lower class couples using a sort of means test process.
3
@Jane. You are assuming an ideal world. With a large number of families stressed to cope with a $400 unexpected expense, they do not have the wherewithal to “take a break.” It now takes two breadwinners to support a middle class lifestyle.....and this provides no concessions for child rearing or care taking.
1
Thank you for an interesting, if heartbreaking, article Ms. Collins.
You say, "In the course of my interviews, I discovered that American working mothers generally blame themselves for how hard their lives are."
Yes the male model power-over corporate model - like every social system we live under - was designed by men for men and it's as if they think it's a "privilege" for women to work outside the home. That model tries to make it as hard as possible for women to succeed.
However, there IS hope. We saw it in all the women dressed in white in OUR U.S. Congress during the sham state of the union address last Tuesday. All those fabulous Socially Conscious Women we hired/elected to share in making OUR laws. THAT is how things will change.
Thanks to all the Socially Conscious Women who are stepping up to take one-half the power and start OUR story of inclusion and balance. You may just save OUR world from the death and destruction we experienced during WWII.
8
When future generations look back on the U.S. of the 20th & 21st centuries, they will likely conclude that the whole society suffered from the Stockholm Syndrome en masse. They will note that Capitalism, the religion of the time, dictated that all humans were beholden to their boss-masters. There was no virtue greater than sacrificing everything for the sake of the shareholders/owners. Because Americans felt that socialism was "the great evil," they obsequiously bowed to every demand of the businesses and corporations and accepted their fate.
50
WE THE PEOPLE have the power to change it, mrfreeze6, and that is exactly what Socially Conscious Women and men will do.
I believe future generations will celebrate and honor OUR ability to make democracy- as messy as it is - work. I believe WE will be the greatest generation because WE PREVENTED WW3.
7
@njglea, I share your passion for the fight in achieving more family support; however, I'm afraid that no matter how hard regular, working Americans push against the current (non) system , the oligarchs, wealthy elites and corporations simply have won the "hearts and minds" war. Just this last week, Donald Trump managed to associate evil with "socialism." Make no mistake, Americans are their own worst enemies when it comes to their so called "family values." If they believe their employers don't want things to change, they aren't going to risk getting fired.
7
When Donald Trump was elected president, reason & common sense were tossed out the window. We speak of morality and justice, but our ballots suggest our most important value is greed and condescension. When Trump waves his arms and states: "I am really rich", crowds roar with approval while he strips their families of health care.
Trump demonstrated how easily people can be fooled & two years later too many Americans remain "in the dark". He is accused of treason but no amount of proof seems to satisfy his supporters.
In a functional democracy, we would select representatives alike most corporations select employees. We would demand that job candidates were degreed in governance, pass criminal background checks, and have actual experience in the job they seek. A functional democracy would have the ability to recall those who falter and suspend those in need of a timeout.
But we have none of the above. We have morphed into sociopathic morass where the representatives establish rules to perpetuate their personal position, where the president can unilaterally decide what laws go into effect and which laws he will observe.
The parallels to the end of the Roman Empire are chilling.
15
@Susan Thomas - I raised my children over 20 years ago, and childcare was and had been a huge problem. Donald Trump is disgusting, but this particular issue has nothing to do with him.
1
Our daughter lives and works in Chile. She is a college graduate of a respectable U.S. university. She is employed in Chile in a Chilean owned business where she is involved in the international financial markets. She had her first child several years ago. Her husband is a Chilean citizen, and she is not. Chilean law provided her with six months of maternity leave. She went back to work with no problems with her employer a sophisticated Chilean business. She is now pregnant with her second child, and she will have six months maternity leave with the second child. The Chilean system is very supportive of new mothers. The law works well for Chilean society. Chile is a sophisticated, safe, prosperous, and a well educated country.
27
Canada (this side of the Atlantic) provides a reasonable paid parental leave program of 12 to 18 months through our employment insurance program. All employees pay employment insurance premiums and are in turn entitled to paid parental leave. The birth rate is so low in North America that there is a concern that a shortage of workers will be the result as the baby boomers retire. It makes sense that young families are provided with this much needed support.
27
"It takes a village to raise a child" was the favorite phrase of Hillary Clinton for awhile, and it's largely true. In the urban age we still need the village, and many parents feel very uneasy about giving their toddler children to strangers.
Churches fill one part of the gap with early care programs and familiarity with the congregation members who participate in their children's care, but they do so at their own cost and largely without government support.
But not every church has a program, and not everyone wants to join a church.
The solution may be to allow any group to form small neighborhood care associations, and apply for a license and government aid for not only early childhood care, parental leave and general care and support, but also to provide for elder care; early childhood care and elder care issues are not mutually exclusive.
Could churches be supported in this endeavor? Yes, but under the same rules that apply to education to avoid disproportion care support.
Care programs would allow a mother or father to stay with their children at the neighborhood association, it need not and shouldn't be a treated as a drop off service for new borns and toddlers. Post partum issues for young mothers would be helped, and transition to young motherhood would be helped with other mothers and children physically accessible.
Perfect solution? No. But this article highlights the need for solutions to be put forth to care for our youngest families.
6
Ms. Collins gets only the middle sentence correct in this paragraph:
"The stress that American parents feel is an urgent political issue, so the solution must be political as well. We have a social responsibility to solve work-family conflict. Let’s start with paid parental leave and high-quality, affordable child care as national priorities.
It is a social issue. There are multiple ways to solve it that don't necessarily mean making it a political issue or a national issue. For one, states could come up with "workman's comp" type of insurance policies that provide for salary to the new mother (in most cases) and perhaps even compensation for the business hiring a temp replacement. (Political but non-federal.) Sustainable food issues are getting the atteniont of corporations without federal mandates, mainly because of concentrated consumer interest in this issue. Similar reward/shaming compaigns can be employed to recognize workplaces that provide leave and/or flexibility for families of children. (Non-political, both local and national.) And there could be some discrimination lawsuits filed against companies that provide one level of flexibility for senior execs versus hourly wage workers.
Everyone rails against how slow it is to get Congress to do things, and then wants to take all their problems to Congress to fix! There is a bit of disconnect in this approach.
2
A major reason why these policies are not in place in the US is because of immigration. Immigrants add on to the workforce and contribute tax dollars that benefit other programs like social security. Average americans however, are not reproducing enough to create the workers needed for social programs. If you cut out immigration, all these policies will flop. This will then incentivize the US to make social programs that make parenthood easier. An alternative is voting for the right people who embrace social programs such as these.
4
So immigrants are the cause of America’s low fertility rate? Perhaps so. The example of attitudes that make immigrants so unwelcome may be affecting American mothers: who would want to bring children into a culture like this?
The optimum solution is to allow the resident birth rate to fall into negative territory and make up any needs with targeted immigration.
2
I am unpersuaded that comparing aspects of the US to other countries is very useful. Certainly, on some issues, and the one featured her, some Americans might look to the cited European countries with envy.
What if in every society, there is a set of variables, and when added together, the sum is the same for all societies? Let us say that the variable for providing government daycare increases, then it is conceivable that families could opt for more children, and the variable that measures home dynamics could drop, because there would be children sharing rooms, which could be a negative.
And we know for sure, that in some of the cited countries with government-provided daycare, some citizens look with envy at some of the features that define America.
1
I am not exactly understand the problem. If citizens of other countries envy some aspects of the American life, they could always work on the introduction of these aspects in their life. Yes, comparison goes both way, as it should.
@Steve Brown
When you look at any work/family issue the US compares unfavorably with other nations. We are a nation that says we value family, but enact social programs that do not support this. Healthcare: a woman is 2-3 Times more likely to die in childbirth here than in any other first world country....and our mortality rates are rising unlike other countries. And we give little support to other caregiving functions...while barely paying minimum wages to those so employed.
(But we DO give the highest monies to the heads of corporations...on the disproven idea of “trickle-down”. When even gardeners know the best way to nourish growing systems is at the root level.)
5
@Susan
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I have not said people should not advocate for those things the people believe would improve their lives. My point is that improvement in one area of society might result in a degradation of another, and the result will not be an improvement or degradation of the total society's well being, a quantity I am hypothesizing is the same for all societies.
Why do I believe this? Because the world is made up of thousands of societies, and everyone of them is existing. And sure, we can pick any one society variable that is positively high in one society, but very low in another. But in the low society, there could be a variable that is very high positively, but low in the other society.
We can argue the point from the nature of a just God. Such a God could never create a world such that one society is superior to another, just like such a God would never keep out of Heaven, those who have never behaved as the Bible dictates, if those people have never heard of the Bible. Here, one can replace Bible with the texts that guide the various religions.
Here's what is vexing about the paid parental leave situation:
By many indications, the era of 'employment' is giving away to the so-called 'gig economy'—which is work on a contractual basis. More work will be consulting and not full-blown employment, for a variety of reasons. Consultants know that the relationship they have with their clients is legally minimized on a contract basis.
When there are only contracts, paid parental leave is a moot point. As any contractor knows, you only make money when you're pushing a mouse, swinging a hammer or doing whatever it is you do. There's always the pressure of looking for the next contract, keeping the pipeline stuffed, and not resting for too long to keep the competition at bay.
Anyone who runs a small business, like a cafe or a shop, understands that the money stops when you close the door. Very few small business owners have the luxury of closing their business for several months when they have a baby.
If the economy is expanding mainly for entrepreneurs who are both employee and employer in one, paid parental leave is pretty much off the table.
The solution might be some kind of government-funded insurance for parental leave—but it doesn't totally solve the problem of losing momentum to competition and clients who have no obligation to wait while you have a baby.
21
I recently read "The Nordic Theory of Everything" by Anu Partanen and all the anguish and anxiety of working with a young family at home came flooding back. I used accumulated sick leave for my "paid" maternity leave the first time and quit shortly before giving birth to my second child. I forfeited the sick leave I had built up again by then. I was too exhausted to care about it at the time, but it would have been at least four weeks of pay.
Mothers must organize and demand better treatment. Electing more women to Congress will surely help.
15
This was horribly painful to read. When our first son was born, my wife's company was very supportive. But with Wall Street consolidations and acquisitions, and a change in the C-level, she found herself out of a job 5 years later. But she landed on her feet and went back to work. However, when we adopted our 2nd son, her new boss, who was pretty good with women getting pregnant and taking maternity leave, took the attitude that her taking family leave to care for a new infant was, somehow, not "legitimate".
Why? A new addition to the family is a new addition. It was a baby, not a puppy or a kitten. That was 14 years ago and it seems things have only gotten worse.
Again, Why? The answer is simple: Republicans.
In those 14 years there has only been unified Democratic government for 2 years, and Republicans fought the mild Progressive advances, including their own ACA plan, tooth and nail, calling it "SOCIALISM!"
When they took back the House and enough senators to filibuster, they blocked everything Democrats proposed, even plans they originally supported once President Obama (a REAL President) endorsed them! Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct was the plan and they told us so, too.
They had their 2 years of unified government and what did they achieve? A GIANT deficit and tax cuts for billionaires, and 2 anti-women, anti-family Supreme Court justices.
No, the problems and the tears will continue until Democrats control government again.
95
Why is an employer financially responsible fir your choices that they did not have any say in? My employer has made it quite clear that he isn’t responsible to fund anything but the hours of labor we provide him. And often, he expects that at a substantial discount (40 hours paid for unlimited hours worked). The fact is that he shouldn’t be responsible for my vacations, retirement, housing choices, meals, healthcare or education. Those are my responsibility and if the value of my labor doesn’t cover them, I have no right to expect much less demand them.
6
@From Where I Sit, why do you seem to think it is fine for your employer to pay for 40 hours but basically get 24/7?
9
@From Where I Sit
How lucky your employer is that you happily endorse his choices to get free labor from you and not be responsible for vacations, childcare or retirement. I think that is a big part of the problem . So many employees in this country accept this treatment and happily, apparently, work many hours for free and pay for their own health care and childcare from their salaries. How nice for the employers, all profit goes to them and they can fire at will with no reason given. God bless America .
10
Its the same old same old. Like with health care pit employees against other workers seeing some virtue in their own giving up of ambition, creativity, volition for health care as opposed to the other who chooses irresponsibly to work independently. US capitalism is at its unfettered end as its people/its cannon fodder are dying and suffering. Its just a ridiculous unliveable society. I have been amazed for years that people are not out on the streets. Its Stockholm Syndrome on a nation state level. And yes its better elsewhere, does not even merit a moment´s thought. I´ve been out since 2004, my brother since 2008, yes we are the "brain drain" but we are not willing to buy in to the insanity, yes we are both citizens legally working elsewhere and trying to talk to the aliens at home when they listen.
10
I have read many times of men who leave their jobs to go for military service, and the employer holds the job for their return. It's from a recognition that the soldier is leaving for a while in order to take care of a national need.
Why is it hard to understand that a woman caring for her newborn is leaving for a while to take care of a national need? Don't we need good care for infants so they grow up strong and well, don't we need good care for their mothers so they hold their lives together and continue a stable path to the productivity we say we want?
"He/she grew up to become a productive member of society" and all that.
I'm a man, and I can see it.
173
The time away from their jobs that employers are required to provide to military members is a huge burden to business. Everyone else must pick up the slack while the reservists make extra money and earn points toward retirement. I have a Marine reservist and an Air National Guardsman under my supervision. When they have weekend and summer drill, I have to work their hours in addition to my own but with no additional compensation because I’m a fixed rate 1099 contractor. Meanwhile, they’re earning a pension, albeit modest, payable when they’re 65 yet after more than 40 years here, I’ll get SS of just over $900/month.
11
@From Where I Sit: If you’re a supervisor and employed long term, your employer should NOT be treating you as a contractor.
Your treatment as a contractor would be substandard even if those other two didn’t take military leave.
Find yourself an attorney with a specialty in employment law.
5
@From Where I Sit
That is such a sad story on your part. That reservist and guardsman are being trained to protect your country in which you live and where you run your business freely. Maybe you, too, should join the service? Then you can get your, what did you call it? Your additional compensation? Your albeit modest pension? I can't imagine you'd even employ a woman much less one expecting a baby, given your grumbling. Such burdens to be a business owner! Just go work for someone else and be done with it!
4
Yes--and try adding to that pile of stress with a child who has special needs. Contrary to popular belief, programs to help either do not exist or have extremely specific definitions for what they will address.
Most mothers I know with special needs kids end up feeling lucky simply to get to make it through one more day. It's a life of triage.
20
The Swedish woman who asks, "What else would they do?" in response to the authors questions about working mothers, is exactly the right question. If high quality, affordable daycare were available, women would not beat themselves up about the decision to stay home with the children or continue working. And it is when women substitute staying at home for working that the competitive parenting begins, because smart, educated, formerly professional women begin to invest all of their ambition, drive and energy into child-rearing. And the quality of the child-rearing, a job that requires time, love, energy,etc. but also the understanding of when to do little or NOTHING, suffers as a result, as do the women involved. Just imagine a world in which we all went back to work, could trust in our affordable, local daycare, enjoy the evenings, weekends, and vacations with our families, and not lapse into the weird helicopter/snowplow parenting that comes of having little to focus on outside the children and their success. It is a completely different and better model than our current one, but has proven impossible to implement here.
11
@REAnd how many of these kids would benefit from spending the days of their formative years with a parent instead of in some daycare facility?
1
This is one reason why the fertility rate in the US has been in decline for the last 30 years. Without immigration, the US population would be shrinking.
Suggesting that government policies subsidize working families with the goal of encouraging child rearing will inevitably be decried as "socialism". Meanwhile the vast wealth produced by new technologies bypasses the middle class, whose real wages continue to decline relative to the ever increasing costs of living.
America is trapped in a downward spiral of declining fertility, wage stagnation, and worker obsolescence. Without a plan to reduce economic inequality and improve the quality of life for middle and lower income earners, America is on a path of diminishing diversity and dynamism, an aging, has-been, nation. Our politicians should be planning for the next thirty years, instead of the next election.
122
@Reed Erskine
Russia, too, is in the same decline in terms of low birthrate and an aging population. Soon, the plutocrats in both countries will be able to turn off the lights as the last of their "less than" classes die out. Who then will take care of them?
2
@Reed ErskineThe United States could certainly do with a lot less people in it and we are being overrun with "anchor babies" that we are all getting stuck paying for. You have a kid, YOU deal with it and don't force me to support it and you. No one seems to mention anything about the environmental damage so many people do to our country/world.
2
Keep these articles coming---my husband and I struggled with this same problem in our careers and now watch our children struggle with the same issue with their children. If we were truly a country of family values, we would enact laws and develop systems that allowed those values to flourish.
56
Paid leave almost has to be paid by the employer. What system of government payments would make the citizenry happy? Three months of paid family leave? Sounds fair, but when the government starts cutting $200,000 checks for executive women, along-side $4000 checks for women making minimum wage, I think that sense of fairness will evaporate very quickly. Send everyone a $5000 check? Won't impress or be all that much help to the professional woman, who would normally make $25-50K had she returned to work immediately.
Subsidized daycare doesn't encounter these fairness issues, but subsidized for how long? Daycare is very expensive, especially for pre-toddlers. Four years of subsidized daycare, until part- or full-day Pre-K/Kindergarden kicks in.
As with so many things, there is a 1-2% of GDP that the U.S. government spends on defense/shoring up allies around the world, which exceeds what these European nations spend. Once we eliminate this spending and become just one of many nations doing our part to defend the West, then we can decide which entitlements/infra-structure to spend it on. For now, our government is spending far more than the citizens are willing to kick in by way of taxes paid. Today's adults should be extremely happy with what their tax $ buys, a big part of what the government spends is borrowed money, which the next generations will be saddled with.
Our government has been captured by corporate interests, such that we pay twice what Europe does for drugs.
11
@allentown We have another enormous source of funding available for policies like paid parental leave.
If our healthcare cost the same as France as a % of GDP, our economy would save $1 Trillion annually, which is still a lot of money. We would cover everyone and experience better outcomes as well.
16
@Nancy You would also have to accept what the French do and don't treat. And, things are not working so well in France either. Why do we keep looking elsewhere for solutions rather than craft new solutions - and not one size fits all answers.
2
I don't see France is discussing to switch their healthcare to American system. And new solutions are fine, if they work. So, far the new solutions look like old ones that were tried and didn't work, while we had to accept that some people in this country don't have access to quality healthcare.
3
Farmers get government price supports, government crop insurance, and farm subsidies. Why? Because it's hard work, essential work. We'd all go hungry if they failed. Moms don't get this kind of public support? Why? Is it because it isn't hard work? Is it because being a mom isn't essential work? What would happen to society if all the moms failed? I guess the kids could raise themselves in the streets.
Oh, but it gets worse. Ask a farmer if that that level of government support is socialism and he will say no way! I work for my money. But ask a conservative if providing daycare for a black woman in Detroit so she can hold down a job is socialism, and he will say, you bet, that's welfare. Stop taking my money and let her raise her own kid.
Government support for big business is not welfare but daycare is. Many of the moms in my neighborhood stay home. They tell me that daycare is on the order of $15,000 per child. They couldn't work in a job if they wanted to. With two kids, by the time they pay for all the expenses and transportation, they are money ahead to just stay home.
Lack of daycare is the great impoverisher of our society. It keeps poor people poor and it prevents the middle class from getting out of the middle. It burdens the professional class from participating at their maximum potential and it wears everyone out.
Daycare isn't the evil arm of socialism or a welfare giveaway. It is an essential component of a modern industrialized society.
370
@Bruce Rozenblit Farmers get subsidies because farm states have lots of Senators. We would not go hungry without them: farmers would still grow food because we'd pay to buy it. Just as we do now, and probably pay less without government programs to restrict production and inflate prices.
26
@Jonathan Katz
You write that farm states have "lots of" senators. A farm state has two senators same as any other state, and depending on your definition of "farm state," a minority of states are farm states.
However, ALL states are motherhood states. Each and every state has more mothers than farmers. So all one hundred senators come from the motherhood states.
Our public policy on families is based on backwardness about gender roles and on the general Republican desire to enhance inequality through irrational and vague fears of "socialism"—a term they never define but have thrown around like a vile epithet until their unthinking vassals internalized it as such.
For me, the main reason to support high-quality daycare and early childhood education is to ensure that our children develop their full intellectual capabilities, independence, and good social skills. It's almost a bonus (a very big and important one!) that this helps parents flourish.
I draw a direct line between the excellent daycare-preschool I was lucky enough to get my daughter into and her current success: she graduates from college this May and already has been hired for an exciting job (which she acquired through her own hard work and merit—we have zero connections) that has a starting salary more than either my husband or I have ever earned in a year.
I will always proclaim that her preschool's ethic of self-respect, caring cooperation, problem-solving, and responsibility was essential to her success.
31
@Bruce RozenblitFriends and family can supply daycare. Or parents can band together and create their own little "daycare village". You don't need to extort more taxes out of me to pay for your life choice. I'm already paying massive taxes for regular schools. Demanding more concessions for your personal choice and making me responsible is unconscionable. But, hey, everyone is getting pretty comfortable with demanding more "welfare state" benefits these days.
2
I chose not to have children not because I don't love them but because it's really really hard and expensive. Now I have to listen to people complaining about how hard and expensive it is, while holding their hand out to me expecting me to pay for their kids?
Sheesh.
On the other hand, I feel morally compelled to provide the children of these entitled parents with an equal opportunity at education and success. That conflict is morally difficult, because helping these kids almost definitionally rewards irresponsible and unprepared parents.
I think we need to start with the basics: no more locally funded public schools. All public schools should be *federally and equally funded*. If you want to pay more for private school, go for it, but you are still going to pay (A LOT) to fund equal education for all children.
The dopy parents can take a flying leap.
13
@J c
They are All Our Children. As just one deplorable example of why we need to support all children: the election of Donald Trump—the triumph of the failure of US public education system to teach critical reasoning (or civics for that matter) to entire generations. (Why do you think Republicans want to kill public education? Witness Betsy DeVos in all her horrifying glory.)
Every child's health (emotional and physical) is all our concern; every child's safety is all our concern; every child's opportunity to succeed in life and contribute to society is all our concern.
(And, for what it's worth, I do not have children.)
1
@J c, when you are old and perhaps in need of some Medicaid and even nursing home benefits, you can thank those hardworking children who you did not want to support because your subsidies will be on their backs. Also unsure what public and private schools has to do with paid parental leave and flexible work benefits. Is that ax ground down yet?
1
@J c
Perhaps you should check your assumptions and resentments. You chose not to have children because you cannot afford them. If society valued children and families as we like to claim, there would be financial assistance in raising them that would also be available for you. So, helping to advocate for such support would not only be providing your "tax dollars" to help others, it would also free you to decide whether your decision not to have children is really a matter of economics.
In the end, if we all adopted your values and attitude, there would be no children, therefore, no future generations to care for you when you no longer are able to care for yourself. Despite what you think now, that day will come unless you die early.
3
This is a huge issue. I became a faculty member in the sciences in 1981. Over the course of the next 20 years, my husband and I had 4 biological children and adopted 3 special needs kids. I worked full time throughout. We were unusual. Most of my female colleagues in the sciences had 1 or no children by choice. Even at the university which was comparatively advanced in its offering of parental leave to both parents, to many of us, it was a benefit that had little meaning. Twice I graded final exams from my hospital bed after giving birth hours before. And, although both parents were entitled to leave, lots of women won't take it. In the department of chemistry, for instance, during a three year period, 13 men opted to take parental leave. No women did because they were afraid of not appearing serious about their careers. It was not an unwarranted concern. After having my second child, my program officer at the research foundation stopped sending me announcements about prospective grants because he decided I was no longer serious. My actual record showed a significant uptick in grant acquisition despite my heavy domestic load.
I take solace from the fact that a lot more men are contributing significantly to the rearing of their children. Mine absolutely did and does. We have a long way to go but I hope that the momentum towards recognizing the contributions of working parents will be increasingly recognized as value from which we all profit.
39
"Everyone should feel entitled to more" - that's the problem. Entitled. This is America. We do not want the government providing everything for us. There are numerous daycare solutions that people can choose from. It is very competitive and our school I work for is constantly trying to take on more children. But there is a lot of competiiton and pricing is also tight. Your problem is that you think our country owes you something. It does not. People solve problems, we do not want the government intervening in everything.
11
@Pls
Your sentiment is a common one in the U.S. We have been taught that government is our enemy. As you say - twice - we do not want the government providing/intervening in everything.
But everything is a lot to be worried about. No one really thinks the government should do everything. The question is where the line should be drawn. When a social problem is as pervasive and harmful as this one, perhaps it's worth at least thinking about how the state might ameliorate it.
I don't wish to put words in your mouth, but since no one is ever forced to take advantage of government mandates, your argument often boils down to "I don't want to pay for perks for other people that I don't want".
But we pay for lots of perks -- tax reductions for the very wealthy, an enormous military budget riddled with waste, subsidies for industrial agriculture and the extractive industries ... Why don't I hear those things being singled out as examples of the government "intervening in everything"?
The U.S. has made some unusual choices; maybe it is time to rethink them.
111
@Pls
Your logic is very interesting. It pits you against your employer, which unless your employer is very considerate, is a losing proposition.
Employers generally want you there, you know, to work and be employed. Taking off to recover from childbirth or raise children means no work is getting done and they are losing money.
My children are all professionals, comfortable but not rich, and day care is very expensive. Plus you pay whether you are there or not, pay to keep your space open. They are also a business.
Raising children well is something that benefits all of society and should not be viewed through the selfish lens of I don’t need it. Contrary to what Reagan said, government is not usually the problem, unless you want to view it that way.
7
@Brian StewartWe also are forced to pay for lots of welfare and social services for people who have no business reproducing, but do nonetheless. People, if you're going to have a kid, don't do it until you can pay for it yourself and that means you should take time off work to care for it until it's old enough to go to school (mom or dad). If childcare is so expensive, it's a win-win for the kid who gets quality time growing up with their parent and the rest of us don't get soaked to pay for your child's care, which should be your responsibility.
1
Thanks for this. Living in Europe has demonstrated to me that although sexism and harassment remain, chances to build careers and support children economically are much better when the state helps far more with childcare than it does in the US. Almost no one misses East Germany, but the men I know who were raised there by independent women remain some of the most equality-minded I have ever met, and France continues to offer supports that promote social equality.
19
The American culture of individualism and where the refusal and reluctance to accept that it is a village's responsibility to raise a child emanates from needs to be discussed in an on going national conversation before the village wil accept responsibility. That responsibility should come from the government which can set policy and standards for various family friendly programs. Employers of 50 employees could be mandated to provide various services which would be underwritten by the government. Small employers could join together in providing services with the same government benefits. This kind of thinking is not rocket science, but it is a change in thinking which is more difficult than rocket science. Bernie Sanders was ahead of the curve and what he proposed and was laughed at for is now not so funny. There are so many political breast beaters extolling the greatness of this country while Rome burns (to mix metaphors). It is time get honest with ourselves whether it is about our rotting medical system or punishing family policies. If we are looking to create "medicare for all" why not look at "family care for all" as well. Until we do so, women will continue to pump breast milk in a bathroom stall and cobble together a makeshift family care plan herself.
16
Let me get this straight. Capital offshores and automates jobs so that few of us can afford to keep one spouse home to care for our children; in other words, it does what it does best—privatize profits and socialize costs. So why should the state (i.e. taxpayers in general) pay for fixing a problem that the capitalist class created? By all means, let’s have more generous and effective family and maternal leave. But let’s make sure the tax burden falls on those primarily responsible.
33
The family policy in the US is "You made your bed; you lie on it." We are solidly libertarian when it comes to supporting other people's needs from healthcare to education to childcare.
Like college and healthcare, childcare is outrageously expensive if unsubsidized. In many urban centers, care for a single child consumes entirely the net wages of a minimum wage job. If you aren't getting benefits like healthcare, it is better to stay home.
But of course, we penalize families of people who don't work - we are trying to tie most social services to work in more conservative states. And women who leave the job market for any extended period of time find themselves starting over in a few years. The loss of wage growth or wage decline is a real risk.
And we haven't even mentioned additional burdens like high housing costs, high transportation costs or college loans.
For a nation that likes to think of itself as a family values place, we don't value families much at all, except in the contraception and abortion arguments.
101
An elective in my doctoral program, Sociology of Women, woke me up to the difference in focus between European and American feminists of the second wave. In the US, the focus was on "if it's good for men, it's good for women." Thus the power suit with obligatory bow tie but no consideration of family policies. In Europe, there was acknowledgement of family responsibilities and thus a move toward family leave policies that we Americans can only dream of.
We are an exceptional country, indeed.
15
Great article--we all need to share it widely with our young friends both male and female. Both genders, not to mention the kids, benefit when society makes a commitment to families. I highly recommend the Finnish author Anu Partenen's extremely well-researched book "The Nordic Theory of Everything" which compares the social policies of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland regarding societal support for families based on a deep commitment to equity for all children/citizens from birth on. I gave a copy to all of my children as well as my nieces and nephews (most in their 20's) this holiday telling them that this was the world I hoped they could have. Our family was lucky enough to live in Finland for a year with our three kids (ages 4, 6 and 12) at the time and I was amazed at what I learned. I came home saying that if American women knew what the Finns were were taking for granted, we would riot in the streets. After reading Partenen's book, I still feel that way over 20 years later....time for us to demand that America put people first!
31
@spdfish
Finally made it to two cities in Finland last summer. They were beautiful, clean, great public transportation and very pleasant people. Also back to Sweden and Denmark for the first time in years. Still very appealing and special places to be.
2
Spot on. I had six weeks paid maternity leave, tacked on some vacation time and went unpaid for a few more weeks. No option to come back part time, even for a little while. And I counted myself fortunate. Pumped in the office: had a door that closed and locked, so again felt fortunate. Took work home for when the kid slept. In NYC, public school placement is a blood sport, so I used personal days for school searches and again felt fortunate to have paid time to do this. Took more personal days for sick child emergencies.
It's not just the state, though that's a big part of it. It's also the culture of expectations in the corporate world, that salaries and promotions are incompatible with a genuine commitment to family life--for women. And so we play the game.
And that's for salaried workers. How infinitely more difficult for those women who hold low-paying jobs, often without benefits, while raising children.
53
@aging New Yorker I’ve been fortunate enough to work for a great company and have great bosses when my son as a child. I’ve often wondered how much harder it has to be for non-salaried parents. Just not right. Too many men see this as a “womens” issue, as if they spawned without any assistance from a woman. Wake up, America.
11
I just checked some numbers. Many are blaming low fertility rates. In the US recent number is 1.8. Sweden is 1.85. Finland and Norway 1.79. So why are the women in Scandanavia having babies at close to the same rate with all the support they have?
10
It just shows that raising kids is a tough job, even with help of Government.
2
@Somebody
Countries that lower their birth rate need to be applauded. Granted Malthus (at the beg. of the 19th C) was wrong about how many people the planet could support without massive famine but we seem to be reaching a tipping point.
Who is blaming low "fertility" rates?? and for what??
3
"emulate the Swedes, Germans and Italians by harboring the reasonable expectation that the state will help"
When the state helps these mothers, the state also helps itself. It is not unreasonable nor selfish for those mothers to ask that. It is in the state's own best interests too.
We see in Japan what happens to the state when women are treated so badly that they widely feel unable to have children. Society shrinks. The state loses it tax base for long term things like social security and maintaining GDP and defense.
When we immiserate young mothers, we all lose.
This is a function of how our society has changed. It is no longer farm life and big farm families who help pay their way. It is an intense urban middle class life that can't support children.
In the distant past, urban areas maintained themselves only with constant influx from rural areas. They were never self sustaining. We have not lost any past self sustaining system -- we never had one.
We always made it up from rural areas and overseas immigrants. That isn't a system, is just proves we did not have a system.
38
@Mark Thomason
Excellent points!
2
Add heath care to the mix. The party that doesn't want abortion for any reason abandons the mother and child after birth. Closing Planned Parenthood centers only exacerbates the problem. For many women that is the only health care they can afford.
I was a "working mom" and the stress is real. It seemed that no matter where I was, I felt I should be somewhere else. I was fortunate to be a teacher where I had sick days that I could take for myself and my children (one of whom had a serious illness).
There is no "safety net" for most parents in the richest country in the world.
80
And conservative law makers are dumbfounded at the falling US birthrate (now below replacement levels) because after all, "You can't maintain your culture with somebody else's babies."
American women are wising up: the US is balanced on the backs of working mothers, and that particular Atlas is shrugging more often. It's not an accident that those same conservatives want to limit access to early and accurate sex education, and access to cheap, reliable birth control and abortion. After all, the number one reason women give for seeking abortion is, "I can't afford to have a baby."
51
@Comp
But by restricting abortion as well as the availability for contraception, guess who will be providing those "needed babies?" Obviously it will be lower income, less educated and often teenage women. And how will this "make America great?"
6
Any democracy is ruled by the peoples' votes. Social nets are provided for in some democracies because the citizens who live and vote there have empathy and good common sense just how insecure life is actually. What I've seen, in the most advanced social countries is that time is a valued commodity, just as it in the USA but for entirely different reasons. Time to one's self and family and friends is more valued. Shopping is not. Like everyone, the years of young families are extremely busy, but the investment is different and that investment is reflected by the voters. I can't imagine a single one of my friends here or in Sweden, Norway, Germany, or Belgium, buying their two year old toddler a 12V Battery Operated Ride-on vehicle. Yet, that is what my son was given when he was 2. My grandson had 3 different 12V Battery Operated cars by the time he was 4. The difference is: it is culturally acceptable to any amount of money on opulence in the USA even to point of having difficulty paying ones bills, so who is going to vote for more taxes that will protect them should something unexpected and dire happen? In other cultures the goal is not that a person is respected for what they own, but for rather what they do, and in those countries voting for better educations, social nets, and infrastructure are more important to the voters.
The moral to this story: If you don't like what you have then don't vote like you do.
25
As sure as the sun shines, you can count on an article decrying the hardships mothers face in American society. And I, by and large, agree that our society is not set up to ensure stability for the average American family. I wonder, though, is there space to write about (working) mothers who are content with their lives and don’t agonize about every decision they make regarding their families? Are there no women who are happy with how they are balancing their lives, both in the home and work spheres. It would make for good reading to know if, in fact, not every parent is reduced to tears when explaining how they manage their lives.
5
@Jared Wood...sure. Let's interview Ivanka Trump for a more balanced view of including those who seem to be handling Motherhood and working outside the home. And somehow I don't think she falls into the category of having a Mother or family member who is her childcare solution.
16
@Jared Wood I for one don't know one, or at least one whose income is not sky-high with a nanny/housekeeper to do most of the childcare/housework. Even for the high income, dual working parent families I know.....they stress about the lack of flexibility to respond to family emergencies, the guilt of not enough vacation or leave time etc. etc. There is plenty of 'space' to write about them, but too few of them to be interviewed...they have no time for that either.
7
@Jared Wood
I am extremely happy with both my career and my family life. Having a newborn was a piece of cake compared to grad school. Kids are a privilege and I can't believe how lucky I have been to have both a wonderful career, and two great kids. I did make sacrifices and gave up material things when they were in daycare (eating out, expensive vacations, a big house, a new car), but it was worth it.
1
This my dear young moms is the major issue I have with Feminism
I liked the idea of equality as s 16 yr old but that was during
“ the bra burning period “ and marches in the street before birth control pills and legal abortion gave us some semblance of control
Although the initial birth control pills and IUDs were sometimes deadly dangerous.
We were so young and dumb and angry and not thinking of moms caring for and nurturing their offspring with a willing partner .
We didn’t ask for child care funding so we could do the job
Nope the need to care went to cold germ spreading daycare buildings where half our salary went to childcare and our kids. Never had the joy of just being but wakened at ungodly hours , sometimes brought to very bad facilities cuz we pay for quality big time.
It is an American nightmare unless one spouse can stay home for about 4 to 5 years .
And it has been a nightmare for 50. years unless you are wealthy enough not to need to work or even think about work when your baby is born .
We destroyed the nuclear and extended family support system
We told grandparents to abandon their adult kids and grand babies
“Travel and let the kids have to struggle”
I don’t think any of our celebrity or political class have these challenges and they condescend when a young mom , single and poor wants to nurture her children and be a stay at home mom.
We have fractured support and uneven services for childcare needs and a general meanness toward moms raising their kids !
22
Part of the problem is that motherhood is seen as a choice. After all, we have birth control and, in some areas, access to abortion clinics. So the theory is that we can "choose" when to get pregnant and can hold out until it is most affordable and convenient. But, if our carefully-laid plans don't pan out and our circumstances change, we are then blamed for having children, as though, somehow, we can shove them back in and pop them back out when the time is right again.
44
@Jackie
Interestingly, that is what kangaroos do! If the time, weather, food availability, etc. is not propitious, they can shove the developing baby back in the pouch and absorb it? Then produced a full term one when things are better!
In America you're literally on your own for everything even transportation - you have to have a car to get anywhere. At least the government provides the roads, highways and infrastructure although that was not always a given. Federal and state level governments are loathe to spend funds on infrastructure to include mass transit which is unfortunate compared to other industrialized countries. Why should American women expect any support from the government? Like many things the private sector is expected to pick up the slack but this is uneven at best resulting in the haves and have nots.
18
@Mahalo
Spot-on. It’s why so many women I know have no children or a single child.
2
"The United States is the only country in the industrialized world without federally mandated paid maternity leave. This do-it-yourself approach is often the only option."
The state, any state, wants children. The state then has to help pay. One can quibble about details, but the general principle should be clear.
Alas, it more or less is, at least in the western world, in every country but the US.
The attitude towards pregnant women and child-bearing women in the workplace in the US is beyond comprehension.
52
@Joshua Schwartz
The long history of racism in the US makes it unique, and explains the exception to the rule that you observe. This particular state wants only SOME children, not children of color. Just look at Trump's base's attitude toward people of color. For that matter, look at Republican policies and obstruction of laws and efforts in federal court to undermine the welfare of people of color. There's your answer.
4
@Joshua Schwartz totally agree. the US (esp. the Republicans) claim to have family values but are unwilling to fund family-friendly policies. They'd prefer to force women to have babies they don't want and then rather than give free healthcare or childcare, they tell the women it's their own fault and problem. It is truly mean-spirited.
9
Lack of societal support in general will for sure result in attrition if we manage to keep unwanted birth rates under control. At least that's a win!
3
Well, American women approaching or in their child-bearing years have made the logical choice when confronted with the child and woman unfriendly nature of 21st-century vulture capitalist society--their fertility rates are way down from what they were a half-century ago, all due respect to birth control and the differences in these rates by economic class.
Now, this may not be a bad thing--surely no one thinks we're better off with a constantly burgeoning population, given each new person's contribution to resource usage on a climatically precarious planet. But certainly every one that does manage to be born is worth a societal health care and education commitment. And so are their parents. And everyone else.
12
It's not just child care that's the problem in America. It's time off when one is ill, has an ill family member, cannot find a job due to circumstances beyond our control, whenever we need more than cursory medical care. I can think of no other first world country where people are forced to go without needed medical care because they can't afford it even with insurance.
When it comes to family, America ranks at or near the bottom. We blame poor parents when their school age children get in trouble because of a lack of good after school programs. We blame all parents (except the richest) when something horrible happens to their child and they didn't know exactly where the child was or what the child was doing.
In America working Americans are conditioned to accept the idea that only exceptional people deserve assistance that is taken for granted in countries like France, Sweden, Denmark, etc. Rugged individualism has its place. So do government policies that treat people like human beings rather than cogs to be used until they wear out.
192
@hen3ry
The year before last, I needed to take an absence from work to help care for my father, in what was his increasingly deteriorating condition (and we did have a paid aide come daily, but the cost of even a few hours was exorbitant). I was extremely lucky in that I had enough accrued time to be paid throughout, that I qualified for FMLA, and that my coworkers were extremely supportive and helpful. But what if I hadn't had those factors lined up? What if I might have missed what turned out to be the last weeks of my father's life because I would have otherwise lost my income? What if I hadn't been there to help my mother, who worked herself to the bone, with caregiving, because I would have otherwise jeopardized keeping my job and insurance? It shouldn't come down to luck. And now, NY, NJ and some other states have stepped up with Paid Family Leave, those rights fall under the luck of one's state. Everyone deserves protection.
Thanks, as always, for what you wrote.
90
@NM I know what you mean. My father was seriously ill in 1984. I was lucky enough to have a supervisor who was willing to let me visit him in the hospital on days when there was no work to do. I was fired from a job years later when my father was ill again and I had to make some phone calls on company time to get an idea of what was going on. Apparently it was fine for a supervisor to have a personal life but not the rest of us.
61
This hits so close to home. My father is currently going through his end-of-life process, dying of cancer. My father is a poor man, working as a carpenter his whole life. His only income is Social Security benefits. Medicare and VA benefits his only healthcare assistance. My sister is taking care of my father at her home with visits by hospice nurses. If it weren't for my sister, my father would be left to his own devices to figure out his EOL care. He can't even walk, and can't hardly communicate now. How in the world would we be able to take care of himself without my sister stepping up to help him. She is unable to work because my father needs 24/7 care. What happens to all of us when we find ourselves in a similar position as my father, but due to extremely difficult parenting/work situations, we don't have children like my sister who are available to take care of aging parents. Sure, we can tell people who cannot afford children that they shouldn't have them, but who will care for us when we get old and our healthcare system doesn't provide EOL support? Certainly not the children we didn't have because we couldn't get the support we needed to do so, and apparently not the healthcare system either. We are increase short-sighted in tending to societies needs, and this will bring tremendous pain in the future.
58
Had my 2 children (now 1 and 3 years old) in my surgical residency. I took my 3 week vacation as "maternity leave." Maternity leave started after I was induced 6 days late with the first and 3 days late with the second. That's right, I was operating post due-date during both pregnancies. Needed a crash C-section with the second, and still returned to work at 3 weeks.
I don't blame myself. And I'm still frustrated about the situation. My program has 7 women and they are all hesitant to start their families after seeing what I was forced to go through.
I've raised these concerns and spoken with the current and past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (a female) about creating a maternity and paternity leave policy. Their response? "We'll look into it."
And don't even get me started with nursing and child care.....
161
The Nanny State is not a solution. Life is a series of compromises that we all have to make. Don’t look up to the state to solve every problem. It is doomed to fail.
14
@David Shulman: Nobody is looking to the state to solve every problem, and you exaggerate when you claim that they do. There is nothing wrong with updating policies, laws, and regulations to be more compatible with modern life. There is nothing wrong with the impulse to look out for each other and to band together to solve collective problems that the majority of us will have to face at some point in our lives. Having a good social support system would improve everyone's lives. There would be fewer angry, frightened, impoverished, and resentful Americans, and that would be a good thing in the long run for the entire country.
284
@David Shulman
Government policy deeply affects what those compromises are, how they have to be made, and who has more genuine freedom of choice in making them.
10
@David Shulman
Nanny State is a convenient slur to avoid a meaningful discussion of family policy. If you want to toss around perjoratives, lets call it a GOP kleptocracy that has attacked with extreme prejudice any attempt to help women or families survive.
Given that:
1) over the past 40 years, productivity gains have accrued exclusively to the 0.01%,
2) consequently real wages have flatlined
3) we live in a world of high-deductible healthcare benefits, so even for those of us with ACA or employer coverage we are one hospitalization away from financial disaster (heaven help those without coverage or financial means to pay retail for healthcare)
4) women are paid at $0.70 on the dollar for their labor
5) maintaining even a modest middle class lifestyle mandates 2 wage earners per household
providing a meaningful array of child care services, particularly for low and middle income families, would provide a significant employment opportunity for childcare workers and greatly increase the stability of households with children, and thereby support a more productive workforce.
That is just enlightened self interest at play.
It works in the rest of the developed world.
43
This article shows precisely how Americans are hurt by our fear of "socialism". Our no leave policy causes great harm and is positively cruel. Soon after, American parents have to deal with the stress and cost of child care. And getting kids into a "good" school. All the while, dealing with issues around health care.
While our median income family is juggling this, they must also save for retirement, save for their kids education, pay off their own school loans, and put money in their health savings accounts. Then comes college. 100K? 200k? More?
Parents in many countries, our closest neighbor among them, do not face these burdens and their attendant stresses. Health care is universal. Education, from child care through university, is affordable for all. The elderly are cared for so that people are not forced to become full-time caregivers if they do not choose to do so. The ironic, would be funny if it weren't so sad thing about it, is that the citizens of these countries enjoy a kind of freedom that we don't. We talk the talk of freedom and liberty, being exceptional, having a mission, and making the world free,while failing miserably to provide for the needs of our own citizens.
427
@bobg
I agree with you, as the majority of your comment's readers probably do, and vote accordingly.
However, it's important for the like-minded of us to understand and value the reasons why some Americans may not agree. I think people who object to European-style social programs do so because:
1) They resent having to pay for other people's life choices, particularly when they have had to make sacrifices for similar choices of their own
2) They think it's destructive to fund a permanent entitled class
3) They take pride in American exceptionalism--including its ruthless, hard-knocks school of life--and don't want to become 'soft,' like Europeans
4) They are concerned that family values erode when members step outside traditional roles, and don't want government subsidies to contribute to the problem
I think these are some of the genuine concerns of voters who oppose progressive social policies.
The debate over paid family leave, universal health care, or other publicly funded programs will be unproductive unless we credit our opponents with good intent, and at least acknowledge their fears, even if we don't share them.
6
@bobg
This is easily achieved by any family making $100K and up to pay 60% income tax....like Sweden (roughly adjusted for American middle class incomes X 1.5).
If you are ok with that, then prepare to give up home ownership, 80" TV's, Apple watches, $150.00 sneakers and all the rest of the madness of our consumer culture.
You can't have it all.
3
Those countries can afford those things bc they rely on the security the United States provides.
2
Childcare for working parents, especially working mothers, is an unsolved problem in the US. But what’s missing from this piece is a discussion of quality solutions that the government could enable.
Providing home-like environments, nutritious meals and school readiness would be outstanding investments in young American children.
A democrat might propose a civil service corps to provide support to working families with young children.
A republican night suggests vouchers to spur small businesses to provide these services.
With AI poised to make large swaths of the workforce redundant, perhaps jobs providing wholesome care for out youngest children could be a win-win solution.
12
I was a kid back in the 1950s and at that time very few women with young children worked outside of the home, including my mother, my aunts and mothers of my school friends. They had enough to do at home, as they do today. I know things have changed but I do not know how that happened. Perhaps people today desire more material goods than they did then.
6
No. It’s that higher education, health insurance, and housing costs have gotten far more expensive, and wages have not kept pace. And maybe the people you knew didn’t work, but are you really thinking that the workforce was devoid of mothers? Who were the teachers, the nurses, the cleaners, the nannies, etc? When you left your house, were all the workers you encountered (at cafes, banks, grocery stores, etc) really all males or women of non childbearing age?
112
Apparently banks made the decision in the early 1970's to consider two incomes when deciding on mortgage approvals, where previously only one was allowed. This allowed a wife's earnings to be included in calculating how large a mortgage a family could afford. At first this gave women an option to help their family buy a nicer home, but eventually became a necessity for most families in order to afford anything decent. Or so I read a while back. I'm not 100% sure about this, but it makes sense and is a fascinating example of social engineering.
37
@Aaron Adams I, too, was a kid back in the 50s. My mother never worked outside the home. Such a lovely time that was. I can't imagine what went wrong since then.
Of course, our maids worked outside the home all day, returning to their kids at night. And so did my nanny. And the women who looked after my aging grandparents. But they had darker skin than we did, so of course they didn't count...
86
No blame necessary, simply make mature rational decisions, which might involve delaying gratification.
My wife and I have two children. We don’t have more because we didn’t have the time and money early in our careers to have children then. We exercised self-discipline and delayed the joy of parenting until we could afford it to the benefit of oust selves and our children.
Have children when you have the time and resources to do so. Just as you don’t purchase a house you can’t afford; you don’t take vacation tome you haven’t earned; and you don’t gamble money you don’t have - you postpone having children until you have the time to raise them and can afford to pay the costs involved.
On the other hand, you could selfishly pursue parenting when not practical, and demand us responsible folks pay for you to do so.
20
Considering the stagnant salaries, many people never will be able to afford kids, and what than? Who will care about older generation? Who will pay for Social security benefits?
107
Children are not a luxury. Only the wealthy should have the “privilege”? Where do you expect future generations to come from? Are you not aware of the countries w/falling birthrates and thus many concerns for their economic futures?
108
Thankfully science is always advancing so that soon people in their 60s and 70s, after saving for a lifetime to be able to take unpaid maternity leave and stay home to take care of a sick child, can "have children when they have the time and resources to do so."
16
My dad worked in the shipyard and mom did not have to work. Perhaps society should focus on better jobs for men. When Donald Trump said 58% of all new jobs created last year went to women the white clad feminists at the State of the Union speech stood and cheered. Who cares that men only got 42% of the jobs? No wonder women need even more handouts. More women should consider marriage and rely on extended families for help.
12
The women in the article are married. I am married. I had paid maternity leave but I will say there is nothing but disgust for working mothers. The way the men and some women look at you when you are pregnant and when you come back. I am raising new tax payers AND working. My husband works too. And I don’t want to stay home. I shouldn’t be forced to choose. Some women want to be home with their kids, good for them. But many women do not (or cannot) even if they are married.
147
@Jh: We all have to make choices and make do with what we have. As a matter of public policy you will get free education and an extra tax deduction and even more for child care expenses.
If you don't have to work don't expect more government support or a lot of extra vacation from the boss for both father and mother. If flexible hours are possible that should be enough. When time off is a right no matter what it is abused.
5
Having children it is a favor to society, simply because without children the society will die out. And because children are beneficial to society as future taxpayer and caretakers for older generation, it is only fair for society to chip in.
102
What a spot-on diagnosis of the problems American mothers face. I had my children over two decades ago, and was sure things would be better for my own daughters when they were grown than the struggles I faced getting time off to recuperate, negotiating a difficult and generally unregulated child care market, and struggling in a job that required 50-60 hours per week as "full-time" employment. Sadly, not much has changed, and millennial women are rightly restricting their fertility to all-time lows in the U.S. as a result. Maybe mothers need their own Me Too movement, to hold policy makers accountable for their failure to make childrearing affordable.
175
@JGlass. What’d ya mean “American mothers?” Do you think they exist out there alone in space? We all pay as a society for their difficulty and our children and spouses and in-laws also pay — and through the nose! All of this so that people can hypnotize themselves into thinking that childcare is socialism (a bad word) but that tax benefits and tax write-offs and tax subsidies for businesses aren’t “socialism” but rather are important to keeping us “competitive.”
Too many American voters have mush for brains and think that democracy for them will work even if they don’t vote for their own monetary interests. Only a mix of capitalism and regulations with a bit of socialistic support for our citizens can produce a humane and sustainable society and globe. We cannot maintain America's “greatness” or the planet’s health without that combo.
4
I had one year of paid (92% of my salary for the full 12 months) maternity leave for both of my children and cannot fathom anything less.
205
@Cmd. Yes, Canada has generous national Parental Leave policy compared to the USA, and I found it amusing that this article's author traveled to Europe for her examples when she could have just travelled north! Our Quebec province has been supplying low-cost universal childcare for well over a decade and has the highest per capita participation of women in the Canadian workforce.
24
@Cmd Thankfully for many, Canada is a civilized country. Here in the US, we women still have to fight for dominion over our own bodies, against people who think that a pregnant woman's options and decisions should be dictated by the state. In 2019! It's appalling.
26
@Cmd It sounds like a great, humane policy, but I don't understand how a small employer can hire someone and give them a year off.
4