Bio
Morra Aarons Mele is the founder of Women Online, a consulting firm for companies, not for profits and political campaigns seeking to mobilize women...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Punished for Taking Too Long a Maternity Leave? Blame Feminism.

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 29
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

The blogger Well-heeled brought my attention to this new study with the stunning question: “Could the U.S.’s lack of policy mandating paid maternity leave actually help women’s careers?” I’m going to blame second wave feminism for the fact that we are even having this conversation- and having it over, and over again.

Well-heeled points to a new study discussed in the Times of London that found “American women hold the highest percentage of “managerial position” jobs at 42.7%, followed by Australia, another country without paid maternity leave, at 37.1%. British women hold more than 33% of managerial positions. In Sweden, 31.6% of managers are female.”

The Swedish authors of the study apparently claim “if there is too much job protection for mothers-to-be then firms avoid hiring women, who instead find jobs in the public sector.” So, driven, business-minded men rise to the top and their wives take jobs with gentler schedules. Or, women take short maternity leaves, spend a fortune on outsourced childcare to work the hours expected of them, and climb the ladder. Either trip is a lousy one, if you ask me.

Irritated new mother and Chicago Graduate School of Business student MaybeMBA asks, “Why should a significant portion of the world's "future leaders" be so ignorant/disdainful of one of life's most fundamental experiences”? Well, at B School or even in enlightened Scandinavia, the work world is currently crafted for “ideal workers,” and nowhere more so than in the US.

Like our current US health insurance system, current workplace norms are not sustainable. The US also has had more millionaires, more entrepreneurs, and general hegemony, cultural and economic, for decades. Many signs point to all of this shifting. If we don’t change things, they will change for us.

In an ideal worker norm, you work harder, you take less time away to raise your children, you rise faster.  Joan Williams has written about the ideal worker myth and the ensuing maternal wall many women hit when nature forces them to become “unideal” workers.  Williams, discussing the premise of her brilliant book, Unbending Gender notes on the blog MothersandMore,


Mainstream feminism asked women to perform like men. It did not start from where women are-caring for their children with a strong value system that dictates that desire. The movement for equality devalued mothers and the ideal of caregiving in our society. But it is also true that the push for work/family balance has come from within feminism. One of the things I do is critique full-commodification feminism, which is the sense that women's equality lies in performing as ideal workers along with men, and delegating childcare to outsiders.

As Cathleen Schine writes in her review of Gail Collins’ new book on the women’s movement of the 20th Century,  When Everything Changed, one major thing hasn’t changed for American women: “The basic conflict between motherhood and career, like some sort of blotchy chronic dermatitis, keeps erupting in new unexpected patches.” I know so many women of my generation who, while grateful to the Women’s Movement for fighting for our rights to work hard, are so angry that now we simply must work hard, with no leeway to live the rest of our lives to their fullest.

It’s not enough to say that women shouldn’t take long maternity leaves. How many families can afford the level of childcare it takes for two full time working parents to manage? How many of us can handle the emotional stress? The only way things change is for the actual model of what we think makes a good worker to change.

The glimmer of hope I find is that major corporations will shift their model away from the ideal worker ladder into a “lattice” structure that allows women (and men) to rev up and down their careers depending on where they are in life. The other glimmer is that many companies do understand that women and men raise families and love their work. You can find examples of companies who try to make work “work” here.

But let’s go back to blaming feminism. It’s interesting that Naomi Wolf, exploring what she calls “The Achievement Myth” for women writes,


What if we in the West, by letting feminism be defined as always doing more, doing it better, and outdoing others, have failed to give our daughters a definition of success that sometimes simply lets them be? Unfortunately for us in the West, Second Wave feminism was articulated by ambitious, highly educated women who went to elite colleges and

  • 29
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Alison Moore Smith 5 pts

To me, issuing the challenge seems to imply that only people in business are entitled to have an opinion about work rights and conditions, or that only the opinions of business owners are valid on this topic.

That is a reasonable conclusion, but erroneous in this case. I agree with you that we can't limit discussion to those who have an absolute list of qualifications. In that case, only current/former politicians could render any opinion on what politicians can/should do. I suspect we'd agree that would be inappropriate. :)

But we have to be willing to acknowledge that business owners do have a unique understanding about employing others that those who don't/won't/can't provide for others simply don't have. If we can't honestly evaluate those issues and limitations (even theoretically) in REAL WORLD, working situation, then the discussion isn't helpful. And too often those who have not been in the role of employER will simply deny or gloss over real issues on the employer side of the business model because they are only motivated by WANTING STUFF and have no hand in making sure the "stuff" doesn't put the company out of business.

As I've suggested, such utopian thinking -- outside noting what business really can do and the actual limitations of capital, etc., and how regulation really works in business -- can actually hurt employees a great deal. And that includes just about any legislation that demands particular benefits regardless of the business model or the people who actually work there.

As employers who actually wanted to provide a great working environment, with lots of openness and employee input and big, fat bonuses when possible (to employEES, never to us), and wanted to give whatever perks the employEES wanted to make them WANT to stay and WANT to contribute and feel part of the success of the company, I saw these first hand, every day. The problems created by government intrusion are real and, in the case of our companies, never once helped the employees in the long run.

Obama says he wants to create jobs. His method is to take money (often magic money that is borrowed from our kids or printed at his press, the rest by taking it from people who earn it) and give it to other people to do stuff (or not do stuff) as he decides.

I'll tell you how to create jobs. Lift payroll taxes on all new hires and for each new hire, temporarily lift some portion (the bigger the better) of payroll liabilities from current employees. No billion page bills. No fake, makeshift, temporary jobs. No $18 million web sites. No money going to Japanese car companies. You modify the payroll burden and suddenly companies have money freed up -- but only if they HIRE people.

Tell me what will happen? If I'm can spend $140k for one employee or the SAME MONEY for TWO (and still give them the same wage), what do you think I'm going to do?

Don't tell me nobody in the entire District of Columbia has the brains to think through that. They do. But their "job creation" idea is motivated by something other than actually getting people to work. If DC gets less money and the people are hired in private industry, they don't have nearly the control they do under their massive, wasteful programs.

Anyway, threadjack.

I appreciate the fact that you didn't intend to attack me. I prefer to discuss issues candidly rather than to label motives or emotions. Those things are so rarely done accurately in such venues. And, for what it's worth, just because someone has a lot to say about a particular topic, that really doesn't make them angry. :)

Alison is the owner of Win with 1 ( http://www.win-with-1.com ) and blogs about her dream home at Pix2Brix ( http://www.pix2brix.com ). She's the mom of six great kids and wife to one amazing husband.

Arrietty 5 pts

I guess I don't see vacation as a perk.

Arrietty 5 pts

I will be bowing out of the discussion about maternity leave and work rights. We have different positions and I can see that they come from different, but internally consistent belief systems, so obviously we need to agree to disagree on that score. I can change someone's mind (or have my mind changed) if our underlying beliefs accord, but otherwise argument is quite pointless and enervating.

On the issue of the nature of our exchange, I wish to make a few comments to try to avoid leaving on a sour note. This will be the last I have to say on the matter, though of course you are welcome to respond and have the last word.

Firstly, I called it a "phoney challenge" because I thought the premise of the challenge was false. To me, issuing the challenge seems to imply that only people in business are entitled to have an opinion about work rights and conditions, or that only the opinions of business owners are valid on this topic. Had I accepted the challenge, I would be essentially agreeing with that premise. In fact I think the needs of businesses are just one among many competing demands within society. Business owners have a valid perspective on this matter, as do employees, health professionals, educators, and a whole host of people.

Secondly, I don't think it's fair to characterise my comments as making personal attacks on you. I commented that you seemed angry and asked you why. That was about the tone and length of your comments here on the page and the fact you were issuing personal challenges (phoney or otherwise). You came across as angry with me and I didn't see why you should be. I am sorry if I misinterpreted your tone but that was my reading of it at the time.

In my opinion asking why someone is angry is not a personal attack. I didn't attempt to destroy your argument by attacking your character, background or identity. Anger (and indeed any emotion) is not a crime or shortcoming - it might be a justified and understandable emotion if all the facts are known. Or it might be that you were feeling that I had attacked you and tension was escalating as a result of a misunderstanding. I was not implying that if you were angry that your argument was somehow invalid. I was trying (and obviously failed) to defuse the situation and remind you that it was ok to disagree and that it didn't make either one of us a bad person.

I probably should have left well enough alone - in hindsight I realise that people generally don't like being told to calm down, whether or not it's justified. It's a good reminder for me.

Happy new year to you too.

***

Caitlin Fitzsimmons

RoamingTales ( http://www.roamingtales.com )

Alison Moore Smith 5 pts

Caitlin, in my experience writing entire sentences in all caps is markedly different from using caps on particular words for the sake of emphasis. I'm sorry if you mistook that emphasis for yelling.

I did not make personal, disparaging comments about you (although you did about me). I don't know you and wouldn't presume to assign motive or divine your emotions (although you have done so to me). I also note that in this post, before the latest edit, you accused me of issuing "phony challenges." I'm unsure why you insist that it's phony. As I said, I'm simply asking for a tangible demonstration of what you demand others do.

My "tone" is simply to be clear about my position. So rather than use ad hominem when my position makes you uncomfortable, please focus on the issue. My positions aren't based on anger or any other emotion. They are based on being in business for 22 years and in employing people for 14. I am open to hearing discussion on the issue, but not simply on being impugned.

Let's end this now, please.

If you decide to drop out of the discussion, I understand. :) This is an important issue to me, so it is one I will continue to discuss as the situation warrants.

Happy New Year to you and yours.

Alison is the owner of Win with 1 ( http://www.win-with-1.com ) and blogs about her dream home at Pix2Brix ( http://www.pix2brix.com ). She's the mom of six great kids and wife to one amazing husband.

Alison Moore Smith 5 pts

I think it's reasonable to expect employers to pay for some things as a cost of doing business. For example, I think they should pay for vacation leave. For me, it's just a matter of making sure the burden is not too great and that it doesn't have unintended consequences.

You've stated this, but I don't see the reasoning for it. Why should employers be required to pay for vacation leave? Why, generally speaking, shouldn't the "burden" of vacation be on the person taking the vacation?

As I've said before, we have offered generous vacation leave to our employees because we chose to employ that as a means to make the working environment better for our employees -- so they'd want to work for us. But what if there is something else that my particular employees want? Why shouldn't the employer be able to personalize the benefits package to fit those who work for them?

When we hired our very first employee, we did not offer health insurance. (In order to qualify for group health, you must have at least two non-owner employees (this definition varies by corporate type).) Our first employee's wife worked elsewhere and had good insurance. He did not want insurance and suggested that we hold off getting insurance and pay him more in salary. Understand, he wanted this and it was better for him. Many want mandated health insurance even for small companies, but this is one example of why it's a bad idea. Our next employee didn't want it either. They wanted more salary. If this had been legislated (as some want), it would have hurt our employees and been a DISincentive for them to stay at our company. (Personally, I think having health insurance tied to employment is foolish, but that's another topic and another place where legislations has hurt people (unable to pool and cross state lines, etc.)) Eventually we added a plan (and retirement, etc.) when it was best for our employees.

In the same way, I see mandating vacation pay as an intrusion that does not allow employers and employees the freedom to negotiate what will really work best for them. Why should the government (or you or anyone else) decide what is best between an employee and employer? This isn't a slave state. If I don't provide what employees want, they can leave. Please, let's not gloss over this essential fact. If you don't like what your employer offers, you can leave and work elsewhere. You can leave and start your own business with the terms you like.

There seems to be this notion that there is some massive pot of money in all companies and if we can just LEGISLATE everything, the "greedy" owners won't get "more than their share" and the employees will get a bigger piece with more perks (paid vacation, "free" health care, paid maternity, etc.) that they want. (Workers unite! Let's get what we "deseve"!)

But the truth is, employees pay for their perks. If I want to hire one engineer at a salary of $90,000, I need upwards of $150,000 available to pay all the payroll taxes, unemployment, medical, dental, vision, retirement sick leave, vacation pay, overhead, and on and on. If I don't have that chunk, I can't hire anyone. The more legislation you add, the more I need to hire each person and the higher that number is, the fewer people I can employ.

Because employees pay for their perks, I think they should be the ones to decide which ones they want and which ones they don't.

The main problem I have with paid maternity leave (as opposed to paid parental leave) with employers footing the bill is that it's likely to lead to discrimination against women.

I agree that it will lead to discrimination. But not in the sense of misogyny or chauvinism, but in having judgment or perception. If women demand paid maternity leave then, obviously, women of child-bearing ages are more likely to cost the company money by getting paid not to work! In essence, they are asking for special dispensations due to being women. They are demanding equal pay, when they don't want to do equal work.

We can't claim to want fairness, when we really want all the accoutrements of the traditional "man's world" while not taking on those same responsibilities.

Please note that I have six children. And I stayed home with them. But I did so on my own dime. We chose to have them and I don't think it's anyone else's responsibility to pay me to take care of them. So we chose to take the financial hit (and the struggle) of having one income while I chose to stay home with them. ("Too great a burden" for us? Who else should bear the "burden" of our choices?)

If companies want to offer paid maternity, I think that's great. And there will be some who will find that perk very attractive. And if companies need to add such a policy -- because they can't attract good employees without it, then they will! But if they can -- because lots of people don't want this perk --then why should employers be forced to provide it? Why shouldn't employees be able to choose what perks are important to them?

Best to you.

Alison is the owner of Win with 1 ( http://www.win-with-1.com ) and blogs about her dream home at Pix2Brix ( http://www.pix2brix.com ). She's the mom of six great kids and wife to one amazing husband.

Arrietty 5 pts

Thanks, Karma. I'm glad we can have a civil discussion about it.

I think it's reasonable to expect employers to pay for some things as a cost of doing business. For example, I think they should pay for vacation leave. For me, it's just a matter of making sure the burden is not too great and that it doesn't have unintended consequences. The main problem I have with paid maternity leave (as opposed to paid parental leave) with employers footing the bill is that it's likely to lead to discrimination against women.

About Europe...

Actually the information I have is that German income tax ranges from 14% to 45%. The top rate of 45% is only applicable once you earn €250,401 for an individual. This equates to $358,624 so needless to say it's not an average income.  And the 45% rate doesn't apply to the whole amount, only the part over €250,401. (Or €500,802 for a couple). http://www.worldwide-tax.com/germany/germany_tax.a...

It's true that tax in Europe is on average higher than in the US but it's not as high as many people seem to think.

In the UK the average tax rate is 29% (this is income tax plus national insurance contributions). This pays for free universal health care and also maternity leave. The way the maternity leave works is that you get 90% of your current pay for the first six weeks and then £108.85 ($176.41) after that, to a total of 12 weeks. The employer pays and is reimbursed by the government - large companies get mostly reimbursed (90% is paid by the government and 10% by the company) and small businesses get over-compensated (the government pays back 105%). http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/sep/29/discri... ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/sep/29/discri... )

My husband and I lived in the UK for five years. I think we paid more tax there than we do here, but our health care costs were free. Our current tax bill plus our private health insurance premiums in the US are higher than our UK tax bill. Not by much, but still I'm pretty sure that's right. I'm not complaining - we like living here - just sharing facts.

***

Caitlin Fitzsimmons

RoamingTales ( http://www.roamingtales.com )

Arrietty 5 pts

Forgive me for thinking that writing in capital letters, making personal comments, and deploying sarcasm were signs of anger.

You might be "calm", but that's not the only sign of anger.

I don't have any problem with the fact we disagree, but I do have a problem with the tone and style of your argument.

I think you've made your point clear, as have I. Let's end this now, please.

***

Caitlin Fitzsimmons

RoamingTales ( http://www.roamingtales.com )

KarmaHurts 5 pts

I don't disagree the discussion should be there. 

   Many people feel they should be paid to stay home with baby.  Ok fine, but don't expect your employer to pay for you not to work.  Why should they?  With more than half the businesses in America employing 4 or less individuals, that's a huge expense for any employer who has even one maternity leave mother.  That's pretty crippling to the business owner.

  That indeed does leave your government.  Well the government can't just keep creating funds for these things.  So there's the taxes.  People often use the examples of European countries being these wonderful utopias where mommy and baby can bond in peace and quiet for 12 months and they're lovely places to live.  And true, they sound idyllic.   Except, no one talks about how much each individual pays for that benefit.  Did you know for example, the average single taxpayer in Germany without children pays 50.1% (average) income tax?  In the United States it's 29% (average).   That's a 75% increase if we were up for it!  And in the grand scheme of things, Americans enjoy some of the lowest taxes in the world!

  Maybe the real question isn't feminism's role in lack of paid maternity leave, but our taxes and government involvement, and the bottom line.

Alison Moore Smith 5 pts

Caitlin, calling someone angry and claiming they need to "calm down" is just ad hominem. I'm perfectly calm and not at all angry. I just disagree and, you know what? I'm OK with that. Ahem.

Being legally required to give them at least 20 days would hardly be much of an imposition for you if you are already giving them 40, would it?

Whether or not it would be an imposition for my company or not at this time is irrelevant. I it became an issue, a requirement would simply mean I'd have to fire people if I couldn't afford to give them that much leave (or whatever perks we want to discuss). That's better for employees?

As I said before, if the trade-offs are detrimental for you, then why don't you start a company that provides the things you want legislated. And provide them long-term for lots of families

And, no, the suggestion isn't "silly" at all. It's real life. It's in the trenches. If creating a company that is profitable, that can actually support and provide income for myriad people, that can meet all the taxing and overhead regulations demanded by the government and give them lots of happy paid time off and other perks (paid maternity leave and free lunch), then do it. That's not silly, it's a challenge to put your money (and risk and stress and time) where you mouth is, to do what you seem to think every company should do.

We have an awful lot of folks who feel entitled to all sorts of stuff, like getting paid not to work. Not people who think, "Wow, that's so great that this employer is offering me paid vacation. I appreciate that and I'll make sure that I get my projects in line before I go and make the transition easy and ..." But rather people who say people have a RIGHT to get  paid to sit on the beach or to sit at home with their kids or to sit in a spa getting a message. And the vast majority of those people aren't willing or able to put together a company that can do what they are demanding -- but they do want to complain about what their "greedy" employers are NOT giving them.

You do not have a right to a job or a certain pay scale or to get paid not to work.

You have the right to create a company and compete for customers. You have the right to create a company and give the employees whatever you think will make them want to stay. You have the right to apply for any job you want. You have a right to make yourself a valuable asset to a company. You have a right to take the best job you are offered and change jobs when you find something better.

If what you provide to a company is WORTH a high salary and lots of perks, you can demand it -- and you'll get it. If it's not worth it, then I guess we just run to Uncle Sam and make him mandate what we want anyway.

While you're mandating, make sure I get that record deal signed. I probably won't record anything this year, but I'm sure they'll understand why I need the time off for my mental health.

Alison is the owner of Win with 1 ( http://www.win-with-1.com ) and blogs about her dream home at Pix2Brix ( http://www.pix2brix.com ). She's the mom of six great kids and wife to one amazing husband.

Arrietty 5 pts

@Karma ( http://twitter.com/Karma )

Of course I can see this from the small business owner's perspective as well. I don't think the majority of companies are nasty, faceless corporations. And I don't think these issues are black and white. But I do believe in legislators setting minimum conditions for employment both on pay and on conditions and I think it's appropriate to discuss parental leave in that context. We might decide it's not worth the trade-offs or we might decide it is but not at full pay. Whatever - it's for society to decide through the democratic process, but we should certainly have the discussion.

In some countries, governments rather than companies pay for parental leave. I can't see that happening in the US for a zillion reasons but you may be interested to know.

Arrietty 5 pts

You are the one making a semantic argument, not me. I never claimed that paid vacation leave was an inalienable human right as defined by the US constitution or the UN Declaration of Human Rights. However, it IS a legal right in many countries. That's just a fact. Of course, we can debate whether it should be a legal right - I never said otherwise - but it seems pretty clear we disagree on that.

You know what? I'm okay with that. You can believe that the government shouldn't set minimum standards for vacation. I'll continue believing and arguing otherwise. We don't have to agree. I don't know why you seem to be so angry.

It's great that you provide such generous vacation leave to your employees. Being legally required to give them at least 20 days would hardly be much of an imposition for you if you are already giving them 40, would it? Right now you are offering more than the legal minimum (0 days) and if the law were changed, you could keep right on doing that.

But you are a rare employer. When I'm talking about the detrimental trade-offs I'm talking about the fact that the average American vacation is 2 weeks. That's bad for the country not just the individuals concerned and since the market has failed to rectify this, then it's a suitable topic for legislators to consider. Yes, there are jobs that offer more than average but there are also jobs that offer less (that's why it's an average).

>>Well, here's your challenge. YOU start a company and YOU hire employees and YOU give them all the things you think are "rights" that should be mandated by the government for all employers.

Now you're just being silly. I want change for the 200m+ Americans of working age, not just for however many individuals I might employ.

In fact, I do have my own business and I have at times employed people, though mostly I'm a sole contractor. I also come from a family of small business owners in Australia, none of whom have ever complained about having to give four weeks of paid vacation law to their employees by law. It's just the way it is and in Australia it pretty much IS regarded as a human right.

You can rant and rave about liberty and choices of the individual as much as you like, but I continue to regard minimum paid parental or vacation leave on an equal basis with the minimum wage as a fit topic for government involvement.

I see above that you don't agree with the existence of the minimum wage either. Well that just says it all really. Next time you comment on a post debating whether there should be paid parental leave, perhaps you should just come right out and say "oh and by the way I'm a laissez faire capitalist who doesn't believe in the minimum wage" so we can interpret your statements appropriately. I say this seriously and not as an insult - it's just that it's valuable context that makes sense of your whole belief system.

***

Caitlin Fitzsimmons

RoamingTales ( http://www.roamingtales.com )

Alison Moore Smith 5 pts

Karma, thank you. I raise my hand. We own three small businesses.

Small business is the lifeblood of our economy. Somehow business has been vilified and disembodied as some faceless enemy when, in fact, most people owe their livelihoods to OTHER PEOPLE who have been willing to take on the extreme risks and huge downside (and endless hours and incredibly stress and heightened responsibility) of starting businesses.

As I've said repeatedly, if you can build the perfect company with all the perks you demand and create economic utopia, I'm cheering for you! I'll apply! But if you can't or won't start a company on your own, it's worth considering that just maybe real business owners understand business economies better than you do. And you might want to ask yourself, if this "nice, fair, happy, loving, environmentally conscious, family-friendly" company you imagine is so easy to build, why aren't you willing or able to do it?

KarmaHurts, thanks again for looking at both sides!

Alison is the owner of Win with 1 ( http://www.win-with-1.com ) and blogs about her dream home at Pix2Brix ( http://www.pix2brix.com ). She's the mom of six great kids and wife to one amazing husband.

KarmaHurts 5 pts

Raise your hand if you actually own a small business and can see this issue from the side of a person who owns the company that provides their livelihood and possibly that of others.

  It would be marvelous to have 12 months of leave.  I'd love it.  I've got a baby due in May, and how sweet it would be to take a year off of my job to spend time with my dear one instead of report to a "mean old nasty company".

  Well I can't.  And I respect that they can't afford that to happen.  I respect it because several years I too started a business.  Why?  Because I knew that I'd never find a job that I liked, that had everything I wanted, that was "ideal".  

  So I say, take a moment to consider the business owner, the small one, the start up.  Consider that nearly half of the businesses in the United States employ 1-4 people. Would you really expect 25% of their workforce, or more, be able to take 12 months of not doing work, and get paid for it?  Is that sustainable?   

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html

It's a lovely thought.  But it can never work.  

Alison Moore Smith 5 pts

I say paid vacation leave IS a right in nearly every civilised developed nation on earth and it SHOULD BE a right in the United States as well. In the UK, Australia, New Zealand - employees are entitled to at least four weeks' paid vacation a year by law. In most of Europe it's more like six weeks.

Perhaps at this point it's just a semantic argument. You can claim or demand a "right" to anything you want. I can say I have "right" to reside in your home or stick pins in your ears or throw mud on your car. As you know, legislated entitlements change all the time. I do not believe that every time some benefit is legislated, it is somehow elevated to the status of an inalienable "right."

The constitution says that certain rights cannot be taken away because they are "endowed by our creator." Obviously paid vacation is not on the same level and, therefore, is up for debate. In other words, it's not an inherent "right" and not necessarily a "should." So simply demanding that something is a "right," doesn't address the real issue, which is, "What things are citizens entitled to when they demand the use of others' resources to provide them?" The answers will (and should) change over time.

It says that Europe might actually be more productive than the US despite, or maybe because of, taking massively more vacation

That has nothing to do with whether or not the government should MANDATE it. Of course the results vary by industry, by person, by position. Averages never consider those differences -- and mandates rarely do either (and never efficiently).

Our employees actually get 40 days off (more than the European average) and (because it's not mandated in some unreasonable way) we can do this in a way that works for our company and for our employees.

FWIW, not having mandated paid vacation leave also has some massively detrimental trade-offs - for society, and for the health and well being of the individuals.

Like what? As the example above, it's not mandated here, and we give more than the European average. The "massive tradeoff" is that if YOU want more vacation YOU can find a job that offers it. If YOUR health and well being are suffering, get a different job.

It's as if adults in the US can't possibly manage looking for a job that fits their needs -- and they certainly can't CREATE one -- so the government has to make sure they don't have too much stress staying in the stupid job they are too lazy to leave.

If your job sucks, find a different one. I've been doing that since I was a junior high babysitter. Why aren't adults up to the challenge?

It's no different from the state mandating a minimum wage (which in the USA is low but most Americans seem to accept should exist).

I'm not most Americans. What is the point of minimum wage -- other than to pay people more than a job is really worth? Walter Williams discusses how minimum wage hurts black youth ( http://www.allbusiness.com/labor-employment/compen... ) the most. Interesting.

The best way to promote entrepreneurship, would be to get public health care pronto...

cost of health care is a massive curb to entrepreneurship because so many talented people can't afford to quit their jobs and start businesses, unless they have a spouse with a good family health plan through their employer.
Not at all. The best way to promote entrepreneurship is to get business OUT of health care all together. Insurance should never have been tied to employment at all. It's nonsensical.

Legislation that prohibits pooling should be done away with. Legislation that eliminates purchases across state lines should be done away with.

FWIW, we own three companies. And quit work (at a university with a plush health care policy) to go into business. Private insurance isn't impossible to find.

In fact, I think that when the employers get to choose what they offer, it DEcreases the choices for employees.

Why? You are always free to start your own business and offer whatever YOU want. Your choices are LIMITLESS because YOU get to choose. You think your company doesn't give enough paid vacation? Start your own! You can offer 365 days of paid vacation if you want! (I'll be the first to apply!) You think you don't get enough maternity leave? Start your own company and offer five years PAID maternity leave and guarantee the job will be there after!

Everyone thinks it's a great idea to have tons of paid vacation, paid sick leave, paid maternity, premium health care (vision and dental), retirement contributions and matching and stock options. And a nice corner office with a view.

And if you don't get it, it's because these horrible, faceless companies are so mean that they don't give you enough options and, left to their own greedy devices, they "decrease" your choices and, I suppose, force you to stay and work for them forever. So, again, we have to have government come in and make sure those nasty employers aren't being mean because, after all, no one can look for a new job because it's too hard and stressful. (Where's my valium?)

Well, here's your challenge. YOU start a company and YOU hire employees and YOU give them all the things you think are "rights" that should be mandated by the government for all employers. And everyone will want to work for you and no one will every leave. Let me know how it goes.

The truth is, if you don't like your company, you can LEAVE. And if you don't like ANY company, you can start you OWN and create the perfect work environment. Or maybe it's not quite so easy.

Alison is the owner of Win with 1 ( http://www.win-with-1.com ) and blogs about her dream home at Pix2Brix ( http://www.pix2brix.com ). She's the mom of six great kids and wife to one amazing husband.

Arrietty 5 pts

PS We're starting to deviate quite a bit from the main topic. I may pick up this thread on my blog and if I do, I'll link to it from here.

***

Caitlin Fitzsimmons

RoamingTales ( http://www.roamingtales.com )

Arrietty 5 pts

Obviously we disagree about more than just parental leave!

>>The question is "do you accept it as a right." Of course it's not a right --  unless/until the government decides that somehow people are entitled to get paid for vacations.

You say "of course it's not a right". I say paid vacation leave IS a right in nearly every civilised developed nation on earth and it SHOULD BE a right in the United States as well. In the UK, Australia, New Zealand - employees are entitled to at least four weeks' paid vacation a year by law. In most of Europe it's more like six weeks.

>>FWIW, this kind of government man-handling isn't without huge repercussions for employees.

Yes, paid vacation leave does have some trade-offs - though not as many as you might think, according to this analysis from, wait for it, BusinessWeek. (It says that Europe might actually be more productive than the US despite, or maybe because of, taking massively more vacation - see: http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2...

FWIW, not having mandated paid vacation leave also has some massively detrimental trade-offs - for society, and for the health and well being of the individuals.

Mandating vacation leave is not a path to socialism, as many Americans seem to believe. It's no different from the state mandating a minimum wage (which in the USA is low but most Americans seem to accept should exist).

If you want to talk about supporting small business, let's talk about health care. The best way to promote entrepreneurship, would be to get public health care pronto. The cost of health care is a massive curb to entrepreneurship because so many talented people can't afford to quit their jobs and start businesses, unless they have a spouse with a good family health plan through their employer.

>>When the employERS get to choose what they offer it increases the choices for employEES as well.

I don't buy this for a minute. In fact, I think that when the employers get to choose what they offer, it DEcreases the choices for employees. Sadly, history shows that I am right on this one.

***

Caitlin Fitzsimmons

RoamingTales ( http://www.roamingtales.com )

Alison Moore Smith 5 pts

Hi Caitlin. :)

I agree that parental leave is the same as paid vacation leave!

You say, "Once you accept paid leave as a concept…" isn't a clear statement. Of course I accept it "as a concept." That merely requires understanding what it entails. The question is "do you accept it as a right." Of course it's not a right --  unless/until the government decides that somehow people are entitled to get paid for vacations.

I have no problem with any company offering those things if they choose. It's the idea of MANDATING by LAW people getting paid NOT to work. It's beyond bizarre and can crush many small businesses that simply can't afford to pay people who are at home with the baby or tanning on the beach -- particularly while paying someone else to do the work that isn't getting done.

As I said earlier, my problem is with "demanding" all sorts of things be LEGISLATED. If you want vacation leave, sick leave, maternity leave -- that's cool. Just find the companies that OFFER those or start your own business and offer them. Just understand that some people would rather get paid MORE in salary than have their pay siphoned off by those who want to get paid to go skiing. It is the employees who, ultimately, pay for their off time.

FWIW, this kind of government man-handling isn't without huge repercussions for employees. All the mandated taxation and REQUIRED benefits, simply means companies hire less. They outsource more with subcontractors, other small companies, even overseas.

If the government really wants to "create jobs" as they claim, they will get out of small business and let the businesses compete for employees. For some employers that will mean a juicy benefits package that might include time off with a steady paycheck. For others it might mean higher salary, bonuses, or options. For some it might be environment or telecommuting or job-sharing.

When the employERS get to choose what they offer it increases the choices for employEES as well.

Best to you.

Alison is the owner of Win with 1 ( http://www.win-with-1.com ) and blogs about her dream home at Pix2Brix ( http://www.pix2brix.com ). She's the mom of six great kids and wife to one amazing husband.

Arrietty 5 pts

>>Why should women (or anyone) demand that they get paid BY a company for not doing the work OF a company?

I take your point but I also don't see why the concept of paid parental leave is any different to the concept of paid vacation or paid sick leave. The cost of doing business would be less if you didn't have to pay leave at all, but we live in a world where either the government or cultural norms say that paid leave of whatever kind is a cost of doing business.

Once you accept paid leave as a concept in the first place, then we're just talking about matter of degree.

I think both men and women should get paid parental leave (whether that is paid by the company or the government or a mix of both). I also think they should be forced to take it. The only way maternity leave won't be an impediment to women's careers is if the men around them are taking paternity leave too. It's also better for the individuals and families concerned.

***

Caitlin Fitzsimmons

RoamingTales ( http://www.roamingtales.com )

kbojar 5 pts

 Second wave feminism was no monolith. Yes, there were many writers/ activists focused on making sure women were in top policy making positions, but there were plenty of others challenging our society’s definition of success and what constitutes the good life, critiquing  the culture of over work, “extreme jobs” etc.

 This diversity of thought characterizes third and (should we call it 4th?) wave feminism.

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

feMOMhist 5 pts

so many thoughts, so little time  What can be achieved and when is dependent on many external circumstances.  Do some basic reading on social movements.

I will point that Williams, a fine law professor, might consider taking the longer historical view.  Feminsits have since the emergence of a cash based public employment economy sought ways to address the gendered consequences (My fav Charlotte Perkins GIlman). 

btw Wolf does a great disservice to the many working class women who had in Dorothy Sue Cobble's fine turn of phrase, the other women's movement.  See also Carrie Baker's excellent work on the diverse coalition that lead to sexual harassment laws.

Alison Moore Smith 5 pts

Call me the odd one out. As a small business owner, I don't understand why people don't accept that businesses are, yes, in the business of profit. Otherwise it's not a business. It's a hobby or a pastime or philanthropy or something. And if it's a hobby, you aren't going to get paid a "living wage" for working there. If you want an employer to cut that paycheck, long-term the company has to make a profit. Unlike the fed or the government, businesses can't print cash.

I simply cannot AFFORD to pay someone who isn't working. I can't AFFORD to force others to pick up slack for those who aren't there. I can't AFFORD to hire someone, for some short, possibly indeterminate amount of time, to do very specialized, technical work. To make some blanket statement that "maternity/paternity leave is best for families AND businesses" is nonsensical. Of course it depends on the business in question.

Why should women (or anyone) demand that they get paid BY a company for not doing the work OF a company?

To me an adult (feminist or not) takes responsibility for their choices. If I want to take off X weeks when I have babies (and I have SIX of them), then I (A) find a company that SHARES my sentiment about doing so or (B) start a company so I can implement my own policies.

I can't imagine demanding that everyone must share in my personal preferences of that I should mandate payment for being off the job. When do we stop screaming for rights and start looking at our responsibilities?

-----

Alison is the owner of Win with 1 ( http://www.win-with-1.com ) and blogs about her dream home at Pix2Brix ( http://www.pix2brix.com ). She's the mom of six great kids and wife to one amazing husband.

Lisse 5 pts

While people hunting on Linkedin a few weeks ago, I noticed a disturbing statistic.

I used to work in a department of 15 people. Of the co-workers that passed through during my tenure, ALL FIVE of the men have gone on to be managers at other companies in the five years since I left. Only woman woman has.

Now there are certainly plenty of things this could be attributed to, but the lone female manager is one of only two women from my old department who is single and never had kids.

- Lisse

@ ( http://homeintheworld.typepad.com/ ) Home in the World: International Adoption and Other Travels

Suzanne 5 pts

There are a lot of issues that I have with how second wave feminism unfolded (Laina D's recent post cites those issues), but I don't think that they can be blamed for how things unfolded concerning women and work.  The obstacles, barriers, and resistance to women's ability to participate as equals in the workforce was (and still is) intense.  How could they change an entire social structure in only a few years?  They did the best they could, punching a hole through a brick wall.  It is up to us to make that hole wider and take the next steps to make things equitable.  Again, I blame the continued resistance of a society which clings to male privelege for the ways in which our gains may not have worked entirely to our benefit.

And the flip side to that is that women have to be able to give up some of our privileges as well.  I know everyone's family situation is unique, but why shouldn't men have the right to say that they also want to be part of caring for a newborn?  Yes, there are logistical issues (obviously they can't breastfeed and it is not like pumping is always possible, especially given how resistant employers are to creating space and time for new mothers to pump), but increased balance and options for women means that men get increased balance and options too.  If we ask men to surrender their traditional privilege, we have to be prepared to give up some of ours, too.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender ) Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Oth ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

AKAFiona 5 pts

You're right I didn't really mention men as caregivers. That's because I think focusing on men's role as infant caregivers, and paternity leave, is as distracting from the core argument.

I'm not really talking about men as primary carers of infants - I'm talking about the stress that having a child plays on all members of the family, regardless of which parent will be primary carer. Maternity leave gives space (as would paternity leave if that is what floats a family's boat) financially and relationally to pay attention to family. Do you really think dad's don't have thoughts/feelings about having to put their babies into day care because neither husband or wife can afford time off? Maternity leave is an indication that community and state value family, not 'just women' :)

Fiona - www.wrongside.info ( http://www.wrongside.info )

AKAFiona 5 pts

Thanks for your article, it was certainly thought provoking! I find it interesting that when we consider the role of mothers in the work force, we seem to miss that men have just as much to lose as women by participating in an economy that does not provide support for raising families. 

"...if there is too much job protection for mothers-to-be ...." Do you really think this is 'just a woman's issue'? Do you really think maternity leave doesnt also provide support to families as a whole?

Blaming feminism misses the mark. It keeps men and fathers out of the picture and it distorts the needs of families. It functions as a diversion that stops us from addressing core issues - relationship inequity, current economic conditions, employment inequity, and the best interests of families (which is not a one size fits all consideration).

"Mainstream feminism asked women to perform like men." I disagree. Mainstream feminism worked to create space for women to choose. It didn't demand they go out and work, but it certainly wanted to ensure that if a women wanted to work, she could do so, safely, without harassment and with equity of recognition, pay, and capacity to advance.

What women choose to do with their choices is up to them. Blaming feminism is a trap, and its monkey work. If we stay hyper focused on nasty feminism, maybe we won't notice the rampant structural and systemic biases toward women, mothers, children and families. We'll be too busy to hold the appropriate people responsible for the gross inequities we still see in the year 2009 - we'll just continue to rag on feminism. I guess as long as we are busy doing that, we won't have to look at our responsibility for the choices we make. It's all feminism's fault, eh? Nothing we can do about it.

As for the definition of 'feminsim' - I think an inalienable human right to equity and choice suffices nicely; whether that means you want to stay at home and raise a family, or run a country.

Fiona @ ( http://twitter.com/ ) www.wrongside.info ( http://www.wrongside.info )

Morra Aarons Mele 5 pts

You're right I didn't really mention men as caregivers. That's because I think focusing on men's role as infant caregivers, and paternity leave, is as distracting from the core argument. My husband is an amazing dad. That doesn't mean I wanted him to stay home and nurse our infant. That is just me. Lots of men I know stayed home with infants on paternity leave and it worked great. But those men don't conform to the ideal worker norm either. They'd be in the same trap as women.

And yes, Mashadutoit, I kind of agree with what you say here:

I think that our society is profoundly anti - human.  Businesses are run for short sighted profit, unsustainable use of human energy.  Everyone is replaceable.  Its anti - human, not anti woman, and blaming feminism is really like shooting the messenger.

HOWEVER: business society was created by men. Second wave feminists were complicit in fighting to conform to those norms. Maybe the now wave of feminists...humanists too, can focus on recreating work and success to conform to new, more human norms?

Morra Aarons-Mele
www.womenandwork.org

Arrietty 5 pts

I'm not sure the Australian comparison is a good one. Australia has no mandatory paid maternity leave (though many countries offer it). However, there is legal protection for 12 months' unpaid maternity leave. By law, the company must let you take 12 months off and then you can return to work in the same or an equivalent position. They must also consider any requests to work part time.

I'm not saying this is adequate - that's a discussion for a whole other time, but it's a lot more protection than is given in the US.

***

Caitlin Fitzsimmons

RoamingTales ( http://www.roamingtales.com )

mashadutoit 5 pts

I know so many women of my generation who, while grateful to the Women’s Movement for fighting for our rights to work hard, are so angry that now we simply must work hard, with no leeway to live the rest of our lives to their fullest.

If you look at that sentence carefully, you will see it makes no sense. Would you say that the reason most women have to work so hard is because:

women gained the right / ability / option  to work outside of the home
or

most families cannot survive on the income of one person.
I would think its that last option.  And is that because of feminism?  How? 

I think that our society is profoundly anti - human.  Businesses are run for short sighted profit, unsustainable use of human energy.  Everyone is replaceable.  Its anti - human, not anti woman, and blaming feminism is really like shooting the messenger.

Suzanne 5 pts

Since I think feminism is about the ability of people to do what suits them best regardless of gender, I'd actually argue that one of the biggest failures is that it isn't that interested in creating space for me to say that child rearing interests them, too, because it still perpetrates the stereotype that women are inately better parents.  Further, I don't really believe that feminism devalued women as caregivers as much as critics claim - did anyone really ever <i>value</i> the work that women do/did at home?  No, otherwise it would be recognized as work and valued accordingly.

Feminism allowed women a space in the world of work outside the home, work that might even pay well.  This is a first step.  Obviously a lot more work needs to be done.  And feminism is still pretty flawed in that it often reflects the interests of white women with means.  But yeah, it's easy to blame all the world's ills on feminism instead of a society that fights women's progress and equality at every step of the way. 

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender ) Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Oth ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )