A person called Ellie left a comment this week on a previous post of mine calling for universal paid maternity leave in Australia. Ellie has raised some questions, and she’s done so politely, so it’s nothing personal against her but one of her points is a particular irritant of mine and I’ve seen this stuff come up elsewhere on the net so I’ve decided to tackle this as a post.
Here is Ellie’s comment:
I think the national maternity scheme for Australia is a great idea, but it needs to be worked out differently. It does seem unfair to make all workers pay for this as many may not be able to have children and some also decide (for whatever reasons) NOT to have children. This type of scheme would be ignoring this minority, taking money that they will not benefit from later. Maybe one idea to improve this is to offer people that aren’t having children a few months of general paid leave (sort of like long service leave). Then if people who have taken this leave ever change their minds and have children, they will not get the offer of this maternity scheme and need to do it on their own. Does this suggestion make it a fairer scheme for everyone? What are your thoughts?
Thanks for your comment Ellie. Here are my thoughts.
Maternity leave is not a holiday – it is paid leave to physically and mentally recover from an extremely taxing biological experience – childbirth, as well as time to establish a bond with the baby. Don’t underestimate the second of these. The baby’s very life depends on its bond with the primary care giver (in most cases a mother). It is essential for the physical and psychological health of the baby (and indeed the adult it will become one day) that it has a secure bond with its mother (primary care giver). We all have a vested interest in this outcome because we have to share our planet, if not our neighborhood with them. As I’ve said previously, it is women and only women (or men like Thomas Beatie) who can give birth and (generally speaking) provide the baby’s first nurturing. It is women, almost exclusively who suffer the loss of income and workplace entitlements associated with our species’ reproduction.
It is long past time that Australia (and the United States of America) joined the rest of the world (or at least the OECD countries) and finally established a universal paid maternity leave scheme. It won’t send our economy broke, at least it hasn’t sent Great Britain or Iran broke yet. Paid maternity leave is already paid to some mothers, I was one of them. But it is the better paid and higher qualified mothers who are currently more likely to have a job with paid maternity leave entitlements. Poorer working women are usually left out. This is not fair. All women deserve the opportunity to take at least a couple of weeks from work to recover from childbirth and establish themselves with their baby. It is grossly exploitative of women to do anything else.
Paid maternity leave is about time to recover from a birth and establish care with an infant. In spite of popular mythology, birth is not generally an easy task and there are few paid jobs in this country which could be performed safely by a woman who, for instance, has just had a cesarean (for starters they’re usually on some serious pain medication, and they can’t drive a car or lift anything either), or who is coping with an infection following her episiotomy (she will consequently have difficult sitting or walking on top of feeling very ill). Sick leave is not holiday pay and neither is maternity leave. The failure to provide maternity leave stems from two wrongs. First, we have an out-dated and sexist view of women as financially provided for by a bread-winning male partner. And yet the economy is dependent on its female labour force, and we, the workforce face living costs which increasingly necessitate two income households. Second, women’s work is not valued in our patriarchal culture and we’re not used to compensating it. Women’s lives are ‘the other’, they are not the dominant life cycle around which our economy is structured. If they were we wouldn’t have long service leave which rewards a male life cycle of uninterrupted working years. Because women’s lives are an exception to the rule, an after thought, a common-place, natural occurrence like childbirth is either over-looked or treated as an extravagance in the workplace.
Women who aren’t in the workforce don’t get maternity leave and yet they still face costs associated with raising a new child. This is NOT an argument against paid maternity leave. Means tested assistance should be provided to all families who really need financial support. Sick leave entitlements aren’t paid to people who aren’t in the workforce either, but this doesn’t make sick leave entitlements any less legitimate.
Now to the heart of Ellie’s comments. Some of us may never have a baby and therefore never directly benefit from that tiny portion of our taxes that has gone towards a maternity leave scheme. Some of us may never be seriously injured at work and use the workers compensation scheme either, and some of us rarely even use sick leave. Is this fair? Getting closer to home, what about carersleave? Some of us won’t ever use carers leave, but you know, those of us who never have to be responsible for taking our father to his Alzheimer’s appointments, and who never have to sit at home tending to twin seven year olds exploding from either end with gastroenteritis could maybe think of ourselves as lucky rather than missing out on some entitlement. Because this leave, like maternity leave, is NOT a holiday.
We live in a society where we contribute a certain amount of our incomes towards a pool of money which can be used to provide big expensive services and infrastructure that we could not possibly provide for ourselves as individuals. Because we live in a society made up of lots of different people and not just clones of ourselves needs vary, and some of the stuff our taxes contribute to won’t be used directly by us. That’s ok, because this risk is shared by everyone in society. And while we’re worrying about the accounting, keep in mind that you will need to work a great many years to pay back your own use of the system – your health care, schooling, policing, road use, enjoyment of parks etc etc.
Babies are not lifestyle choices, even though the marketing of baby products sometimes indicates this. Babies are not even real choices (see here and here for a good discussion of what I mean). A lot of pressure is put on women to back away from pursuing paid maternity leave. You’ll be told that the economy will suffer, that businesses will go broke, and that it will undermine the goodwill towards women in the workforce. You may also be told that you’re selfish and greedy for wanting paid maternity leave. Rubbish, these are the same arguments that were used against the women before us who fought for equal pay for equal work. Paid maternity leave is not only increasingly necessary, it is just plain fair. Mother love alone won’t buy the food and pay the electricity bill. We need to keep the support up for the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick in her campaign for, as a minimum, a government-funded 14 week paid maternity leave scheme paid with two weeks paid paternity leave, at the level of the federal minimum wage.
P.S. I lost my first shot at this post (thanks WordPress) and I have forgotten some of my points. I may revisit this post over the next day or so and add to it as I remember things.
Sing it sister.
*stands and claps*
NZ has a 14 week paid parental leave scheme which is funded by the Government (and can be transferred to or shared with the partner who didn’t go through pregnancy) and it has yet to send the sky crashing to the ground. I imagine there isn’t much research on it yet, but it has certainly made a very pertinent and practical difference for me and my family.
Superb, articulate post. Thank you. In Germany, there is paid maternity leave, which stops after a few months, and then women’s jobs are “kept” for them for three years. This doesn’t mean they return to the same job, but they can return to a similar one. No-one here regard this as a holiday. Instead, it is considered a crucial time to raise and bond with a child. There are other problems with getting women back into the workforce that I won’t raise here, but I have to say I enjoy living in a society that, to a certain extent, values the work and time that goes into child-raising, whether it is being done by the mother or father.
Very nice. We do a lot of things with our tax money that not everyone benefits from. That’s the whole point of those programs, is it not? You mentioned several of them.
I subsidize the highways so that suburbanites can drive into my city to work. My dad subsidizes my children’s education and health care. I subsidize a fire department that I hope to never need.
[...] “Let’s get something straight about maternity leave”. [...]
Thanks for the information. Me this theme too interests. I shall read still.
Lovely and true. I am so uncomfortable with the divisive nature of these debates – who gets how much and who misses out – which seem to fail to acknowledge we live in a community where we all depend on each other and the common pot to which we all contribute.
Personally, I feel 14 weeks is stingy. I’m disappointed unions aren’t pushing for a year and I’m disappointed (but oh, not so much surprised) at Rudd and co’s failure to come out strongly on this issue.
I would, however, argue for paid parental leave that can be divided across the carers as they need, in an effort to chip away at the gendered parenting roles we all struggle with.
These are all great points, Blue Milk. There’s another one – on a purely prudential basis, we should be supporting people who have children.
Very roughly, all going well, one day I will be old, and I will need other people to look after me. I will need doctors and checkout clerks and roadworkers and farmers. Those people don’t spring full-grown from the forehead of Zeus; they are the children of today. If, as prudent person, I want to be sure that I can have access to the services I will need in the future, then I need to be sure that there will be people there to provide those services. All the money in the world won’t be able to buy me the services, if there are no people to provide them. So I should be very, very grateful to the people who take on the hard work of parenting, and support them accordingly.
I should add that the prudential argument is a weak one, but it’s the type of argument that ought to appeal to people who ask ‘why should I subsidise other people’s children’.
My cousins in Norway brag constantly about the system of parental leave there. I think it’s 2 weeks for mother and 20 weeks to be split any way between parents with maternal pay nearly half earned income. Denmark is said to be equally generous.
I’m sorry, I misspoke, that’s 54 weeks according to wiki (which is not always accurate- I know) but there is a good comparison listed under “Parental Leave”.
THANKYOU. I *hate* that argument. Paid maternity leave is fair, and decades (aeons) overdue. Our economy is bloody well structured upon the foundation of women’s unpaid and underpaid work. Actually, make that the world’s economy.
I’m a bit unhappy about the proposed 4 weeks for dads: while it’s an awesome jump forward for Australia, it’s still nowhere as good as systems which allow 20 weeks or two years or whatever to be split between parents as they choose.
‘ these people don’t spring fully grown from the head of zeus’ – no, and by and large those that complain about ‘other people’s children’ seem to forget the wealth of care and resources that the community has all ready invested in them as children – medical care, education, the infrastructure their parents used to provide for them. kris said it well – we live in a community, where we reap the benefits daily… this ties in well with your point about carers leave.
THANK YOU. I have been noticing the workforce makes it difficult mothers to return to work after child birth. A lot of women have to return before their babies can sit up well, and then, depending on the workplaces absentee policy, they have difficulty take off to care for a sick child. At a previous job the policy was what they called “no fault” policy. You had a certain amount of time, but once you used more than that amount you were terminated. Thankfully I did not work their when I had my child.
I agree. Wholeheartedly. At the time of my daughter’s impending birth, I worked for a small non-profit company in the US. As a company with fewer than 50 employees, they were not legally required to offer me any time off, let alone paid time off. I actually had to negotiate my maternity leave which ended up being 9 weeks. 2 of which was made up of paid holiday and sick days (which, of course, meant I was stressed out about my lack of sick days for the day my child really got sick). The remaining 7 weeks were entirely unpaid. It sucked to have to negotiate something so important; something that should be a given. In the end, it was the time off part that was the hardest to negotiate. I knew I’d never get them to pay me in my absence. It was enough that I convinced them to continue to pay for my health insurance while I was on leave. But I started out requesting 12 weeks total of leave and ended up with 9.
I also should add that in the US, most daycare centers will not accept children under 6 weeks old. So, if you’re given two weeks of leave but your child has no where to go for the next four, what do you do?
It has been, at some point, illegal for a woman to go back to work within 6 weeks of birth (someone I know wanted to go back after 2 weeks). Interesting dichotomy.
I just don’t get the obsession with the “cost” of raising children. We are a social species, not one of us can survive without the work and sacrifice and financial contribution of a zillion people, why fuss over this contribution or that one?
I can see how those who can’t have kids might find it a bit painful, but then I find father’s day a bit painful since I lost my father when he was 48. Doesn’t mean no-one else should celebrate it.
Great post blue, and very true. We live in a society – social beings all of us – and all require some assistance at various times in our lives. And 14 weeks is simply not enough. At that stage I was in a twilight zone and still recovering from the birth, and work (even though we desperately needed the money) was not an option – physically or mentally.
Good post.
The unexpected thing that we struck when we had our boy (here in New Zealand) was that my hubby wasn’t allowed time off (we just assumed that there would be parental leave). He wangled a day of sick leave for the day of birth, and that was it (unless he wanted to use annual leave of course). So day 2 I’m on my own with a newborn – and I’ve never held a baby before! Yikes. But we survived – thanks to my wonderful mum.
So a non-working mum gets no pay and no help from hubby.
Thank you! Well written. I was able to take my 3 months of leave at partial pay by qualifying for disability (the only way you get any money in the U.S.) and I’m one of the lucky ones. Many women have to go back to work after 2 weeks with their savings depleted. Society needs to cath up to reality, you know?
I hope the U.S. policies will change with new leadership. We can’t do much worse.
From time to time we hear again that breastfeeding for more than a limited period is highly desirable, has health benefits for the baby etc.
I know milk can be expressed but I can really say that a mother needs to get to know her baby, to ideally breastfeed it herself, and to establish routines which hopefully means more than slinging a baby into the car and handing it over to someone else before heading off to work.
Women will vary in how many months they might want to breastfeed their baby but it is a crying shame if they don’t have the choice.
It can in itself be tiring and the woman should be able to look after herself at this time (maybe manage a bit of daytime rest if circumstances permit). Motherhood is being devalued by this expectation that woman will bear their babies and in minimal time will go back into the workforce.
Bluemillk, I absolutely agree with the argument that maternity leave isn’t a holiday. I don’t necessarily agree with the idea I put forth- I was just wondering what response it would arouse and if any more people would have been willing to consider it. Its great to see that so many people support maternity leave in its own right, whether they have children or not.
However, I will have to disagree with you on the opinion that babies aren’t choices (even reading the other posts you linked). Even though having children is considered a “natural” part of life, its what men and women are made for and its essential to keeping our species alive- I pose the question of whether it is still “natural” in a postmodern society? And what is “natural” now? Many people consider motherhood and being able to breastfeed “natural”- but its not necessarily the case. In such a postmodern society where there are even more choices open to us, it does seem to be as much of a decision to have children as to not have them – especially with so many economic, social and lifestyle issues to consider.
I agree with Ellie…children are definatly a lifestyle choice, sometimes women choise their careers over children, or some families opt for a cat or dog! Children may have been the old fashion “natural” thing for a woman to do, but in those days women stayed at home, cleaned and cooked. Alot has changes since then.
Ellie and Madam, that may be so, but the fact is that men and women are still going to have children. If we would like our species to continue (not advocating any particular point of view here), then it is only FAIR that we support people to do it. It’s a poor and unfeeling argument to blame people with ‘it’s your own choice’ when they find that the system isn’t set up for them. It might be their ‘choice’ to have kids, but it isn’t their ‘choice’ that the system wants men in the workforce and women at home looking after kids for free.
Can we just accept that the system doesn’t work? Because it doesn’t. People don’t always make choices with their heads, they make them with their hearts too.
You nailed it, second shot or not. Well said.
Sevanetta, we were not arguing that the national meternity scheme is not a great idea (because it is) and that the government should put it in place to help women remain equal within the workforce etc. I’m only disagreeing with the fact that having children aren’t choices. Even if we choose to have kids, we should still be entitled to paid maternity leave.
I think for a certain number of women, having children is a choice. There are those for whom birth control fails (I know someone with 4 kids to 4 kinds of birth control) and to say they have the choice not to have sex may be valid, but where do you draw the line? You have the choice not to eat?
Also, whether by nature, nurture or both, some (maybe many? I don’t know) women have such a strong drive to have children that it feels no more like a choice to them than it feels like a choice to live in society for most people.
Ultimately everyone has the choice whether to live or die, so what do we mean by a meaningful choice in the real world? You wouldn’t tell a person struggling with depression they have the choice not to live, so how can it be ok to tell a struggling mother she had the choice not to have kids?
Modern society has made it possible for those people disposed to not having kids to follow that more easily, but I don’t believe it has truly made it an academic choice for most people, and I have my doubts it ever will.
(Spoken as a person who did the massive flip flop from “never ever having kids!!!” to 3 of the beasties. And I still don’t know what flipped the switch. It didn’t feel like a choice.)
I agree with you Ariane. The debate about whether it is a choice is pretty academic and far removed from the reality that most women face, many of whom have no idea what “postmodern” even means.
We also live in a culture that often does not punish for choices made. We don’t deny health care to people with lung cancer even though they chose to smoke. My state had “no-fault” car insurance so when someone chooses to talk on their cell phone and eat a hamburger at the same time and runs a red light as a result, they still get that damage covered. For some reason, motherhood is an exception to this rule.
If you choose to breastfeed, you can’t get upset if you are asked to leave an airplane or a restaurant. If you choose to work, you can’t get upset if there is no reliable or affordable daycare nearby. ETC. I know that no one on this thread is suggesting that because it is a “choice” (when it often is not, despite available technology) that mothers should not be assisted, but still, that very argument is often used by anti-social services groups and so I do take issue with it, even if it is only being posed an intellectual question as opposed to a policy position.
Re. this babies as a choice thing.
Having my child three years ago comes as close to resembling a choice as it possibly can, but there are some important aspects to my situation to bear in mind when you’re thinking that women make choices about having babies (and therefore user-pays should accomodate all the costs) –
I was provided with sex education before I started having sex
I had access to a range of contraceptions
I could afford contraceptions
Contraceptions worked
My partner respected my reproductive choices
My partner did not threaten to leave me if I didn’t have a child before I was ready to
My partner has never raped me
No-one else has ever raped me
I didn’t become a step-parent when I got together with my partner
I did not receive intense pressure from either his family or mine to reproduce
My value in my community is not overly-dependent on whether I have children or not
I am not religious and feel no religious duty to reproduce
I was raised with enough empowerment to believe that it is my body and my choice
I have no moral conflicts with using emergency contraception
I was not so fertile that I got pregnant on the occasions that I took risks.. etc etc.
Awesome post,bluemilk! What’s with these people who ‘choose’ not to have babies worrying about schemes that actually will aid in the wellbeing of children? It’s a bit mean, isn’t it? Maybe the only logic that would be convincing is that of a pure economic rational argument which shows the long-term benefits of maternity leave in terms of generating a productive and healthy labour force. But who wants to resort to that kind of logic when we’re talking about infant and maternal health? You may have linked it already, but Ellie might want to engage with bitch PhD’s blog who has lots of edifying comments on the reduction of children to free-willed, individualised ‘choice’. The point to keep in mind is not whether or not having a child was a decision we consciously made, (which it sometimes absolutely is), it is to think about the logical extentison of these claims to free choice: which run the lines of: you made your bed, now lie in it. Just because a woman chooses to have a baby, for whatever reasons, does not mean that the rest of society has no responsibility towards her or her child. Some might call it a social contract.. whatever.. the point is who cares how they got here (mothers and babies), how do we all ‘choose’ to value and support them? Let’s expose the implication of ‘well it’s your choice’ for what it is: a statement that delegitimises any claims for equity; trivialises the worth of children and their rights; and offers instead a comforting avenue to abnegate all responsibility since having children is like so many other lifestyle choices (i.e. drug-taking, riding a bike without helmet, alternative commune living? )
I’m in the U.S. and parental leave is one of the issues I am often on my soapbox about. I so thank you for this reasoned exposition – and many of the comments are great, too. Truthfully, I have decided not to have a child, because of the leave policies. I work for a small company (not covered by FMLA which would give me 12 unpaid workweeks of leave in the event of birth of a child, medical leave, or caring for a family member) and could expect 2 weeks of leave before having to go back. I have medical conditions that make me concerned that I wouldn’t be able to perform well at work after only 2 weeks (and those spent not just healing but also learning to feed and care for a newborn, who wakes up at night to be fed, et c.). I also fear that I would be the parent who had to leave work early or take days off if the child were “sick” – my husband’s traditionally male job wouldn’t allow for such time off – and in part because of my health, I’m not comfortable jeopardizing my earnings potential in that way. I see the choice to raise a child as one between my own financial safety and a constant and unending struggle to provide for my family at the least danger to myself and my own health and future, and I just can’t face living that way.
Thanks for bringing up this salient issue!!! I have heard the productivity commission, whoever they are, is currently debating whether Australia should have a universal maternity leave policy. At least it may be a small step in the right direction and way over due. Maternity leave, parental leave, and other social democratic policies that recognise and support parenting should be a considered a fundamental right in society. Thanks, brilliant blog…
[...] gives us some home truths about the paid maternity leave debate, at “Let’s get something straight about maternity leave”, taking on the “not on my taxes” arguments against extending paid maternity leave to [...]
Children = Society’s future ERGO why shouldn’t paid maternity leave be funded by taxation?
[...] 2008 by Jo Tamar I’ve been thinking about parenting in various ways lately, kicked off by various posts. I’ve even written a couple of posts. These have mostly been to do with the roles of [...]
I’ve been pretty happy with my maternity leave in Ontario Canada. We only receive 55% of regular pay I believe tax free (They didn’t deduct tax from mine.), although your work place can top up. I had 15 weeks maternity leave and then the rest of the year was parental leave that could be shared with my husband. He can share it at the same time or consecutively.
In the past 8 or 9 years since the 1 year maternity leave was set up, the economy hasn’t been damaged and the government hasn’t spun wildly into debt. I wouldn’t have breastfed for 2.5 years between two children without the years maternity leave for each. I will be returning to maternity leave for my 3rd child in October and will be sharing some of the parental leave with my husband. I don’t see why the US or Australia couldn’t implement a similar system.
staistically a choice would mean something hovering around 50%. When around 98% of the population reproduce, choice doesnt enter the equation. On a population level, its biologically determined
“A lot of pressure is put on women to back away from pursuing paid maternity leave…. Rubbish, these are the same arguments that were used against the women before us who fought for equal pay for equal work.”
- Thank you! Finally someone who is willing to say that the arguments used to shame women for seeking Maternity leave entitlements are the same ones used when the Sex Discrimination Act was being tabled. I was screaming at the television when I caught a glimpse of Elizabeth Broderick being interviewed on one of those awful breakfast TV shows this morning. I so desperately wanted her to retort what you had said above, but sadly it wasn’t so.
Wonderful post.
Just a different side of Maternity Leave.
In 1959 I was a teenager in a tobacco growing area, the Italian women would be chipping tobacco plants until they started to go into labour. Then with the help of friends delivered the baby.
Within two days of the birth these women were back chipping tobacco.
I kid you not……………………..!
Actually no, we only partially support the community. This is not a communist or socialist country, where yes, you can go and be supported for as long as you like.
If the woman is not well, then that is what SICK leave is for, not maternity leave. You talk about being unable to drive, which is for 6 weeks, and yet want 6 months off.
You talk about this helping the poor? What rubbish, if the mother is a single income family, she is unlikely to be able to afford to live off the minimal payment given without savings anyway. So who will be able to take full advantage?? Oh, yes the people with money.
So if you do decide to go back to work due to being unable to afford time off – will you still receive the money? NO.
So simply deciding to return to work puts you at a disadvantage, regardless of your health.
Unemployed or lower income people would already be supported through the Family Tax benefit A,B and social security.
Remember those?? Its not like your not being supported, you are.
You need to accept some responsibility for your own decisions or mistakes.
And you can’t compare Workers Compensation to Maternity Leave… one is an insurance.. which the employer pays.
Your not asking for insurance – your asking for a hand-out. By all means, take out Maternity Insurance, but at your own cost – not mine.
Children = Society’s future.
Yes your right. And by all means, spend 400 million on child education and assistance.
But this isn’t going to the children. Its going to you.
Sure, many parents will spend it on or towards there children.
But many won’t and it will be six months of free alcopops and cigis, while the children live in squaller.
If every part of society was perfect, then go for it. But the fact is the child is more likely to be helped by spending this money on education, health and other forms of support and assistance, than giving hand-outs to new parents.
getreal, it’s not six months “off”. It’s six months at home with a baby. Babies that our government has been desperately trying to convince us that we should have. For the first six months of my sons life I was flat out breastfeeding (which you’ve probably noticed is not an easy job to share), trying to get him to sleep (including very very long walks around the neighbourhood), changing nappies and occasionally doing really exciting things for myself, like having a shower, or getting him to sleep or play happily for long enough for me to eat. It was far harder work than I have done before or since, and for that ‘pleasure’ and ‘choice’ I was living below the poverty line.
Also, what Kel said: having babies isn’t a choice. You can choose not to have them (and hooray for that) but having them is biologically standard. Our society needs to be designed in such a way that half the population isn’t discriminated against for just doing what our bodies are designed to do.
As women are currently still paid 10% less than men in equivalent positions for their entire careers, I’d say it’s women doing the subsidising of business, not the other bloody way around.
innercitygarden, well why don’t we pay you everyone to stay at home and look after their kids permanently. You will soon find out that it doesn’t getter any easier after 6 months.
Lots of things are a part of life. Housing, Food. But this isn’t provided for you?
Yes, housing can be supported, but you are already supported with the Family Tax benefits.
Reproduction is a way of continuing your personal family line, its a completely selfish act. You could have adopted – but you didn’t.
I have 4 kids, all under 6, including 18 month old twin girls.
Shouldn’t I receive double you? or even 4 times? After all its surely got to be harder for us?
Its not like your left to yourself. You currently will receive over $5,000 payment. Plus hundreds per fortnight in tax payments. You also receive tax rebates per child.
If your low income, there is the dependent partner offset.
Yes parenting is hard work. But your parents raised you and received nothing and your not alone. Do you want some sort of medal?
Your not discriminated against – what feminist bull – give me one example that a male gets 6 months paid work for any situation. Just because its a “part of life”
Woman have massive opportunities for shared work, flexible working, during school hours. etc. Which is the main reason for male/female incomes being different. 95% of men work full-time, vs 50%?
As I said, if you have a medical reason, then SICK leave, MEDICAL or INCOME PROTECTION insurance is available.
So what you really want, is to be paid for 40 hours work, for each and every child – plus benefits and offsets. Hey, why not just stay at home popping babies out and we’ll continually pay you a wage.
Or – you could stop the whine, do what every other generation has managed to do without the soap opera, and eventually contribute some taxes which can actually help society, like build those schools, hospitals and other stuff which you also “expect” to be able to use for free.
getReal – I think you said all we need to know about your enlightened views when you said – “Sure, many parents will spend it on or towards there children.
But many won’t and it will be six months of free alcopops and cigis, while the children live in squaller”.
There is a talk-back radio show out there somewhere missing your valuable contribution, please don’t deprive them.
I was horrified to see a phone poll on last night’s news showing only 15% or so of people supported paid maternity leave! What is wrong with our society? Posts on this site are frightening…http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/29/2376856.htm. Paid maternity leave is not a holiday and is not a welfare handout! It should recognize the valuable contribution that women make to the workforce. We seem to live in a very old fashioned society where women are still expected to stay home with their kids for five years after giving birth. The attitudes expressed (in comments in the above post) suggest no recognition for the contribution of women to the workforce. Over 50% of University graduates are women. If all educated women left the workforce after having children…we would be in real trouble. I am looking forward to having children, but don’t believe it is fare or realistic to expect that I leave the workforce for a number of years, after which my 10 years of University education (medical degree and PhD) will be very much out of date. To lose educated women from the workforce due to a lack of universal paid maternity leave would cost the country far more than 18 weeks at minimum wage.
Bluemilk, I know you hate people with a different opinion, and I’m sure you have wide experience sipping lates at your local cafe. But in the real world, more than 20% of parents are deadbeats.
I have witnessed a mother, after her child was hit by a car, refuse the cost of an ambulance and the father comment that there income would drop.
Its funny you are so quick to right off any argument, while 85% of people are more likely to agree with me.
A News article about sums it up.. “PAID maternity leave sucks up a large sum of taxpayer dollars on what is essentially a feminist feel-good policy, writes Jessica Brown”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24423078-5007146,00.html
Need I say more.
Emma – don’t worry too much about phone polls, they’re pretty much the MOST innacurate form of polling available. Their outcomes mean diddly-squat unless you’re really wanting to know how the knee-jerk ignoramuses are feeling about some hot issue.. and then they probably rang the wrong number anyway, thinking they were participating in some poll about whether they wanted to bring back slavery or something.
getReal – I don’t hate people with a different opinion but I’m beginning to get pretty bored with yours.
I think you’ve been given plenty of space to make your pretty limited arguments. It is ok, you can feel satisfied that your views have been adequately represented on a feminist website now. Unfortunately no-one seems to feel particularly inspired to retrace such tired old ground in the debate with you, and I see that you’re getting trollier and trollier in an effort to get some reaction, but I can also see that no-one is interested in you. Given all this I’m letting you know that you’re done.
[...] proposed maternity leave entitlements in Australia. From there I did a little surfing and ended up here. It seems to me that a lot of the discussion is about women being treated fairly from a monetary [...]
[...] abilities deserve at least a few months to recover physically and to establish their babies. Paid parental leave is not a holiday. Women must demand not to be continually penalised in the workplace for their biology. The Australian [...]
It’s ridiculous!
My wife who is pregnant NOW!, will be forced to pay tax to support paid maternity leave for people who are pregnant in the future, when she is back at work.
It doesn’t get more backward than that. Socialism comes but with a heavy price. Tax payers money is not a freebie, it is something that is worked hard for and earned at a great cost to the individual.
Pregnancy is a choice, a choice that has been free for the couple involved, without force.
Yet more expenditure schools, hospitals and policing will forsake.
The working singles are getting shafted and they are the ones fueling the economy with :
A: Productivity
B: Expenditure
That’s the way it works and to tax them and give it to a child bearer is criminal, it’s not a choice anyone should have the RIGHT to make.
It’s criminal!
Either you earn what you work for or you don’t, otherwise what else will happen?
Socialist policy begets the downfall of civilization, it always has and it always will.
Flabbergasted, I think you are just trolling, but in regards to
“Pregnancy is a choice, a choice that has been free for the couple involved, without force.” did you see blue milk @ May 17, 2008 at 2:35 am in the comments thread?
I wasn’t aware having a valid opinion that was opposed to yours was trolling @rayedish?
My opinion is simple – I don’t like stealing from the poor to give to the poor?
Because that’s what this policy will do. Come on, let’s get real, it’s just not fair for a working mother to be having her kids in childcare, while she works to pay tax for other fortunate mothers who get government paid leave, in fact it’s a slap in the face, if you can not enact a policy immediately then don’t enact it at all.
It seems to me the overwhelming opinion here is if I disagree with this policy then I’m some evil right wing sadist who devalues the role of women in society, but it’s the exact opposite, I’m anti paid parental leave for BOTH!, yes BOTH – Hear me loud and clear on this one – BOTH genders.
Because it’s only fair that both father and mother receive equal time to stay at home and look after the children.
The mothers role in this modern day is no more or less important than the fathers. Neither is soley responsible for being the bread winner nor the child raiser.
Because of this it becomes a bigger debate, but to can the policy is to close the door on the ambiguities, inconsistencies and blatant unfairness that said policy implements.
I don’t think I’m trolling here.
A Logical fallacy is as ignorance does.
I’m far from ignorant about this subject, but my view is one of contrast to you, however from an ethical and moral stand point, I do not endorse the taking of money from one and giving it to another. You however believe that it is a right and to argue against such theft is a fallacy.
I can not and will never subscribe to the notion that social policy is better by spending MORE!
Flabbergasted, you certainly are. rayedish is right to point you to other threads where I have responded to some of your points, because I’m not going to re-hash arguments I’ve already made earlier. See under the category “maternity leave” for all posts I’ve written on the topic.
And my follow-up comment on this post in response to Othello Cat’s comment covers the central argument you are making here –
http://bluemilk.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/we-must-not-walk-away-from-this-fight/
I’d particularly like to emphasize this point I made in that comment:
“We are all benefiting from government expenditure, parents and non-parents alike, and indeed children and adults alike. It will take you many years as a tax-paying adult to re-pay your own use of publicly provided services/infrastructure/programs/benefits etc before you even start paying for another’s share.”
And this…
” It is simplistic and incorrect to examine one transfer (a paltry paid parental leave scheme in this case) in the absence of all others and then make conclusions about the net transfer of wealth in society. Further, any consideration of taxes paid and benefits received should be considered over a lifetime, very few people, (including your quoted four out of ten families) will pay no net tax in every single year of their lives.”
Lastly, I’d like to respond to this part of your comment, because it tickled my fancy…
“It seems to me the overwhelming opinion here is if I disagree with this policy then I’m some evil right wing sadist who devalues the role of women in society, but it’s the exact opposite, I’m anti paid parental leave for BOTH!, yes BOTH – Hear me loud and clear on this one – BOTH genders.”
Against paid parental leave for both genders, how non-sexist of you. And when unpaid parental leave is taken in equal quantities by both genders then that will really mean something… right now it is almost exclusively women who wear the burden, and so boo hoo it will probably be women who use the paid entitlement, at minimum wage.
“Against paid parental leave for both genders, how non-sexist of you. And when unpaid parental leave is taken in equal quantities by both genders then that will really mean something… right now it is almost exclusively women who wear the burden, and so boo hoo it will probably be women who use the paid entitlement, at minimum wage.”
So what burden is it that women have?
Is raising kids not equal to or greater than not having children? Is it then so, that those who miss out on the wonders of parenthood and continue to work miss out 2 fold.
It is Not simplistic and incorrect to examine one transfer as each individual case is inherent with it’s own merits absence of the presence of all others.
The truly incorrect assertion is to examine such facts within the confines of emotionally based bias. Such bias is absence of factual implication and is charged only with the outcome of the arguing opinion.
In response to your “mother” of all arguments about not paying your share in tax until such a time as you are in the work force for a substantial time?
If this is the case, it’s the tax paid by the parents that supports your entry into society, but the balance is shifted when the parent becomes a further burden on society as payment is usurped through such means as a benefit of any kind.
This will mean that the balance will shift from the burden of parent onto the burden of the child, I only expect intelligent people to grasp the very real economics of this, but if you receive a maternity benefit it will be absolutely at the expense of expenditure, often incurring debt, debt that future generations will be forced to pay for.
So as “wrong” as you may think I am, it’s only your opinion, but mine is based in the ethic that earned is kept and kept is fair. There is no logically argument against that other than theft is acceptable for social means.
As a general note to commentators – To understand why child-rearing is both an enormous pleasure for mothers but also exploitatively under-valued caring work, work which is probably among the most productive in the economy, read Ann Crittendon’s The Price of Motherhood.
Flabbergasted, with taunts about our intelligence you have without a doubt crossed over to troll now, so that’s your last comment here. Much of your last comment is incoherant but I’ll leave it there for you so you can feel your views are represented in your absence.
I just can’t agree with paid parental leave. I understand both sides of the argument, but at the end of the day, your children are your responsibity and it’s up to the parents to work out an equitible plan between them. It’s all about responsibility.
The parents need to pay not me!
Should I be punished for being a 28 year old single (man) worker? It seems most people here would say yes. I seems that the opinion of BlueMilk is that it is a right, but what about my rights.
Just my opinion, hopefully I’m seen as been entitled to it.
Thankyou
Daniel
Worker, This not about the government giving bucket loads of money to people to have and raise children. This is about parents getting the minimum wage for 18 weeks to enable one of them to take time from their jobs to bond with the new baby at the most crucial time. Many women already get maternity leave at better rates from generous employers, what the government is doing is allocating a small amount money to parents to help leaven out some of the inequalities of our society, and by making it parental leave hopefully doing a little bit to changing the idea that child rearing is the exclusive purview of women.
It seems that some working people in our community are under the delusion that we can pick and choose the way in which our tax dollars are spent. (Personally I’m a pacifist but I don’t argue that my tax dollars shouldn’t be spent on the military, this spending is something that the majority feels is valuable for our society and I go along with that). Taxes aren’t going to increase because of this decision, so nobody is being robbed or being punished for being childless.