Let’s get something straight about maternity leave
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.