Maternity vs Paternity leave?

Question

Let's look at this topic from a different perspective. Let's look at pregnancy as a family affair, as opposed man vs woman issue, calling it "family leave." There are two reasons for a woman to have time off: bonding with the newborn & medical conditions. Then the man would have two reasons for time off also: bonding with the newborn & taking care of wife while she's having the medical conditions.

I'm highly disturbed when people deny the effects of pregnancy on a woman's body but a good husband would also see that as a "family affair" and would want to stay home to take care of the home and wife. This way both would get equal amount of time off, however, some of this time would be to take care of the wife (yes, I need the specific acknowledgement and entitlement to know the time is being given to him specificially to take care ME, damn it! LOL).

I have never been in that situation so this is actually a new topic to me.

Steve: Any "unusual" or "additional" difficulty would be considered like any other medical condition and supported by a doctor---we're concentrating on the "automatic" time off. Don't make me go back to women having to get more time off and sticking to it LOL

OK folks, I'm not looking for a current legal review---I'm wondering what you personally think is fair.

OK. Let's agree on what's fair, then we can discuss the amount of time, who picks up the bill etc. next. But we first have to have an agreement of what is fair regarding the genders.

We'd have to get into different political/social/economical ideologies and which system we need to adapt, if we were to get into the money part of it---this, of course, is not an easy dicussion and an entirely different debate.

I'm putting this question up to discuss "gender" differences and rights, specifically.

Answer 1

I agree it should be family leave. and it should be equal time given to both. although its debatable and i think should be left up to the individual employer whether its paid leave.

Answer 2

That should be an option of the business and not a govt mandate. You as a prospective employee have the right to choose the job with best benefits. Some businesses will offer it and others will not. Some businesses such as those struggling or few employees could not survive allowing long-term maternity leave especially with pay. Ask your prospective employer about the maternity policy before you decide which job to take. As a parent its your job to set your own priorities and sacrifices and make decisions accordingly. That's just one of the reasons its important to have a two-parent family. I'm not much of a traditionalist but it stands to reason that two parents will be better able to provide for a child. Whether the man stays home or the woman depends on the family decision and earning potential.

Answer 3

This is a very individual thing. Some women are on bed rest five minutes after the strip turns blue. Others can deliver the baby in the car on the side of the road on the way home from a 10 hour work-day, without breaking a sweat.

Likewise, I've seen some women who had C-sections walking around with little discomfort in a couple days (very young women usually). However, some are still in significant discomfort more than six weeks later. Most are somewhere in the middle.

I think you've got to plan for the worst case recovery period in terms of leave. And dad should get equivalent time for the reasons you specified.

However, not to be taken lightly is the cost associated with all of this. If you're not the one writing the check, it's easy to feel that the company is obligated. I think it is a corporate benefit that makes people feel good about the company and hopefully breeds some level of loyalty.

I plan (if the creek don't rise) to offer "parental" leave as well as a sabbatical for those with older children as well as those who opt not to have children, to be fair to everyone.

EDIT: Ms. Lioness. I see your point, and think that most people agree, but not for the same reasons you cite.

The prevailing view is that mom is best suited to be the primary caregiver during those first few weeks of the baby's life, and that is the focus. Her physical well being is considered to be a less urgent consideration.

And dad can be there to help mom in whatever way may be needed as well as caring for the little tyke.

That's the theory and that is how it has been practiced for a long time. I'm not locked in. I give.

Answer 4

I won't go into the social/political pros and cons of equal maternity and paternity leave, as you are more knowledgable in those matters than I am and have heard this before, but wanted to add, before continuing to the next point, than in a capitalist-driven country such as the U.S. that would be less likely to take place.

Now, as a right, I think it would be excellent, the father also needs bonding time with his newborn, as well as, with his wife who may be dealing with certain physical medical conditions, but even if she were not, most women experience emotional sensitivity after birth, some experience post partum depression and other related mental/emotional phases, having the husband as a companion in the home (or woman, if lesbian couple) for a period of time, would serve as stability and moral strength for the new mother, which would in turn benefit the newborn baby as well.

Answer 5

I agree totally. With two other kids, ages 2 and 4, when I had my last baby, I NEEDED my hubby there in order to get any rest at all. I didn't get maternity leave, obviously, as a SAHM. But he has taken at least two weeks with each child we've had, and then gone part time for a few more weeks after that. We both feel it is important for him to get to know the new baby, and to help me get enough rest. Luckily, he's a really valuable employee, so he is able to insist on this, but many other Dads aren't so lucky.

**The FMLA only applies to companies with 50 or more employees, and it's only an unpaid leave available.** It should be expanded, IMHO, to all companies, with perhaps a 50 or 75% pay through the government, for perhaps six weeks or so. Of course, it should be available for both men and women, and adoptive parents as well, like the current FMLA. There is good evidence that father-child bonding during the newborn period is really critical to the father's bond in later childhood, and that children really benefit from this. Even in parents who later divorce, that bond is critical to the child, and it seems to affect outcomes in child development. So we would all benefit from healthier children if the parents had this time.

Answer 6

SuperRuper is right. The bill must be paid by someone.

Steve is also right. The whole idea of "family leave" is socialistic in nature which means that some benefit from the work of the many. Unless every employee is granted the same benefits, it is discrimination. Not granting the single and childless the same benefits is discriminating against them while rewarding others for their personal choice that in no way benefits the company and in fact, tends to hurt it.

It seems some need a basic semester in running a for-profit business to understand that benefits are expensive. If the government pays for this, taxes will be increased; if the company pays, the product or service will cost more.
Who pays is the customer, which is me.

It makes perfect sense to me to let people make decisions but also to make them and only them responsible for 100% of the results of that decision, which makes me unpopular in socialist circles. It seems simple to me. If one wants to become a parent, be a parent, not a part-time parent/part-time employee where both jobs suffer.

Answer 7

First you have to recognize that parental leave and medical leave are two different categories. One is for caregiving and the other is for personal medical recovery.

I'd propose: Same amount of parental leave for each parent to care for the new baby.

Mother gets some *medical leave* in addition to parental leave to recover from childbirth. The amount of medical leave that is appropriate is determined by her doctor, dependent upon method of delivery, complications, etc. Some will get only a few days, C-sections warrant longer medical leave.

This seems too easy... have I overlooked something?

Answer 8

I totally agree with you, and I think men should get more time off. I think it's just as important that he have the opportunity to bond with his new child, as well, and yes, help after birth is crucial for the mother.
My husband's job allowed him one week off...generous, by most accounts. My friend's husband was allowed a half day off to be with her while she was in labor, and immediately after birth, then he was back at work the next day, before she even left the hospital. My husband used to work for that same company; thank God he quit before we decided to start a family. I would have been devastated if he had to go back to work that soon.

Answer 9

US law states that as long as you've been at a company for at least one year, and that company has a minimum number of employees, you can take up to twelve weeks time off for ANY family medical issue. Sick mom, new baby, etc. It's up to the employer as to whether or not they pay you for any of it.

I have a friend in The Netherlands. There, by law, she got ten weeks PAID time off for both her children. I don't recall what her husband got, if anything.

Answer 10

The father can apply for FMLA through his workplace. This is a federal law. You can take up tp 12 weeks unpaid leave a year to take care of a family member, adopting a baby, elder care, etc. (Family Medical Leave Act) BIrth of a new baby. Check it out!

Answer 11

I'm pretty sure everyone gets the same amount of time off. The only government mandated maternity leave is FMLA, which is provided to both men and women who qualify and it's not paid, unless some of the time is taken as sick leave. There is no maternity leave that employer is required to offer an employee.

I think some paid time off should be mandated for both parents, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Uther Aurelianus: that's awesome about the Netherlands. That's how it should be in the U.S. .

Lioness: I had to have a cesarean and complications followed after that, so I was in pretty bad shape for about 2 months. My husband was the only one who could stuff my incision with gauze several times a day(sorry to be gross), because I couldn't see what I was doing well enough. We were lucky that he could leave work periodically throughout the day.

My friends who had normal deliveries were out of commission for about 6 weeks. It's pure misogynistic tripe when people try to diminish the pain women endure after childbirth and the need to physically recover. The baby needs a mother to establish a routine of breastfeeding and bonding. A father needs to be there to bond with the baby and help his wife.

Business should exist for the benefit of people and communities. They don't get to operate with no overhead and without providing for the basic needs of employees, that's called exploitation.