Supermom? (Credit: Workin' Moms/Netflix)
Motherhood is in crisis. And nowhere in the West is this truer than in America, famously bringing up the rear by every measure when it comes to parental leave. (Where Sudan offers eight weeks of statutory maternity pay, the USA offers precisely zero.) The United States’s unique combination of workaholism and social conservatism means that mothers are failures if they stay home with their kids (unemployed layabouts!), but also if they work outside the home (neglectful career women!). The American way involves mixing anti-abortion politics with a bootstraps insistence that if you make the decadent lifestyle choice to perpetuate the species then you’d best not expect help with that.
It’s always a challenge to balance professional and personal responsibilities, no matter your gender or nationality. The 2022 Autumn of Cough was not just a US phenomenon. But the American mother is always, at any given moment, doing the wrong thing — and, at least in theory, being shamed for it. American motherhood literature emerges, then, from that situation.
An earlier microgeneration of American moms had to contend with parenting advice. Books that explained whether you could drink a glass of wine while pregnant, or how to get your children to eat vegetables. (The answer in all matters was: be like the French.) Today’s reading material, growing out of the lockdown and school closure era as it does, is more nihilistic. The message is: it’s not your fault; everything is systemic. A portrait begins to emerge, in contemporary American mom-lit, of a mother who, rather than taking small steps to ease her suffering, wants to use her own struggles as a starting point to highlight still-greater ones. She’s not a sassy bad mom, but if she moms badly, it is because the system has (and it has!) set her up for failure.
This year, for instance, we have had New York Times parenting journalist Jessica Grose’s book Screaming on the Inside: a well-reported, head-on attack on American mothers’ struggles, which are structural, and worse for the marginalised. We have had, too, the science journalist Chelsea Conaboy’s Mother Brain, which takes a more roundabout approach. Here, too, everything is structural, everything is impossible, but extra impossible if you don’t happen to be straight or white. Arguing contrary to conventional wisdom, Conaboy’s conclusion is that being a mom (or a dad, or a non-binary parent; she doesn’t exclude) can actually make you a better worker.
These books — like the various articles, posts and newsletters making similar cases — are written not, of course, by mothers generally. They are written by a subset of American women who happen to be both writers and mothers, and who apply the liberal critiques common to the world of mainstream journalism to the intractable problem that is American motherhood. They speak to an audience of women who agree with them, but who are too resigned, too exhausted, or privately too convinced the American way is the only valid one, to materially shake things up.
And they, the writers of American motherhood-crisis lit, have a way of blurring material challenges with ambient (and at times imagined) social pressures. Health care bureaucracy and the absence of paid leave, which the writers I mention point out repeatedly, are facts. The requirement to wake up at 4am to bake “dinosaur-shaped muffins that taste like rainbows but are made of steamed arugula” is the stuff of satire but not an actual demand. The suburban writer who recounted, in the New York Times, that “pulling up with the stroller in anything besides smudged black leggings would earn me glares from other moms” at her local play area was reporting on a vibe, not a reality. Who’s to say that if she’d shown up in couture anyone would have cared?
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeLiterary scribblings do not a crisis maketh. A large part of the crisis as explained seems to concern what others are writing. This status-obsessed mindset is the curse of literary types, who seem determined to influence everyone else and yet are obviously the least satisfied and most troubled people of all.
This points to culture – not economics – as the problem, but it probably appeals less to the author to challenge her own culture. The fact is those who don’t share the author’s culture – but do share a similar or indeed far worse economic balance – have more children. In a Darwinian fashion, cultural memes that are anti-children will die away. Indeed, the decline of the West is wholly linked to its demographic decline, its refusal to have children.
This is especially so now the Western states – from their government to employers and their literary classes – have worked out they can create new economic units without the cost of children. That’s the economic reality of the 21st century, no matter how much I protest at this awful turn of events. Many in the chattering class would have a tantrum if *potential* Trump supporters could have more children, and who wants to give more support to the upper middle class?
The simple fact is those Western states with the most generous maternity leave still share some of the lowest birth rates in the world. Even with the best support in the world, Western culture at an individual level prioritises things other than children.
At an individual level, fundamentally, you *do* choose children over other things and the value placed on having children above other things is cultural. I chose to climb mountains, which meant sacrificing some amazing work opportunities and also not having children. I then stopped climbing mountains and had children. Children, like camping at 5000m, are pretty incompatible with a lot of other nice things. Even with all the government support in the world, there will still remain more choices for those without kids and people like the author will feel like they’re missing out. There’s that worrying about what others are doing, again…
A good post, but I would add a factor that won’t be popular amongst some – women do seem more inclined to the fear of missing out, not running with the herd, or failing to embrace the fashionable zeitgeist.
We also lack the same amount of time to, as you did, do something else first before deciding to have children. Not considering this causes a lot of women to be dissatisfied, frustrated and angry – it was their choice to spend too long on the mountain-climbing, or what have you, but they’d prefer to act as if it’s someone else’s fault. ‘Society’ or ‘men’, probably.
I’m in my 60’s – half of my friends had no kids and the other half began ‘too late’ and bemoan that they couldn’t have more than one. Young women today still think they can get pregnant into their 40’s even though it’s a well-known fact that fertility drops dramatically after 35. For some reason, it’s tough to give up travel, bar-hopping, clubbing and yes all that freedom only to realize you have boxed yourself in in other ways years down the line.
Yes I am one of those unfortunate ‘recovering’ second wave feminists who went through what you describe until I woke up to what was happening. They led us down the primrose path.
Yes I am one of those unfortunate ‘recovering’ second wave feminists who went through what you describe until I woke up to what was happening. They led us down the primrose path.
I’m in my 60’s – half of my friends had no kids and the other half began ‘too late’ and bemoan that they couldn’t have more than one. Young women today still think they can get pregnant into their 40’s even though it’s a well-known fact that fertility drops dramatically after 35. For some reason, it’s tough to give up travel, bar-hopping, clubbing and yes all that freedom only to realize you have boxed yourself in in other ways years down the line.
That was better than the article and mercifully shorter.
I was thinking that also. Straight-forward, intelligent use of language. The essay seemed tortured by a need to be clever and seem overly intellectual.
I was thinking that also. Straight-forward, intelligent use of language. The essay seemed tortured by a need to be clever and seem overly intellectual.
A good post, but I would add a factor that won’t be popular amongst some – women do seem more inclined to the fear of missing out, not running with the herd, or failing to embrace the fashionable zeitgeist.
We also lack the same amount of time to, as you did, do something else first before deciding to have children. Not considering this causes a lot of women to be dissatisfied, frustrated and angry – it was their choice to spend too long on the mountain-climbing, or what have you, but they’d prefer to act as if it’s someone else’s fault. ‘Society’ or ‘men’, probably.
That was better than the article and mercifully shorter.
Literary scribblings do not a crisis maketh. A large part of the crisis as explained seems to concern what others are writing. This status-obsessed mindset is the curse of literary types, who seem determined to influence everyone else and yet are obviously the least satisfied and most troubled people of all.
This points to culture – not economics – as the problem, but it probably appeals less to the author to challenge her own culture. The fact is those who don’t share the author’s culture – but do share a similar or indeed far worse economic balance – have more children. In a Darwinian fashion, cultural memes that are anti-children will die away. Indeed, the decline of the West is wholly linked to its demographic decline, its refusal to have children.
This is especially so now the Western states – from their government to employers and their literary classes – have worked out they can create new economic units without the cost of children. That’s the economic reality of the 21st century, no matter how much I protest at this awful turn of events. Many in the chattering class would have a tantrum if *potential* Trump supporters could have more children, and who wants to give more support to the upper middle class?
The simple fact is those Western states with the most generous maternity leave still share some of the lowest birth rates in the world. Even with the best support in the world, Western culture at an individual level prioritises things other than children.
At an individual level, fundamentally, you *do* choose children over other things and the value placed on having children above other things is cultural. I chose to climb mountains, which meant sacrificing some amazing work opportunities and also not having children. I then stopped climbing mountains and had children. Children, like camping at 5000m, are pretty incompatible with a lot of other nice things. Even with all the government support in the world, there will still remain more choices for those without kids and people like the author will feel like they’re missing out. There’s that worrying about what others are doing, again…
I don’t see how how the writer’s experience is any different to previous generations. This reads as standard self-obsessed young parent stuff. I get it – I remember those feelings when our kids were growing up , but I’m left feeling an overwhelming need to say, “get over yourself”. It’s just another of life’s rites of passage.
There needs to be a conversation here in the UK too about the Brownite dream of mass feminisation of the workforce. America seems especially punishing on mothers. But here we plainly have inadequate nursery support. The WFH movement – says the civil service – is driven more by concerns for female workers – gender equality – than efficiency. Is that sustainable when public sector performance is collapsing? More astonishingly, the health unions have declared that the higher stresses of work within the NHS make it ‘anti-women’ – a dysfunctional offshoot of an earlier older male patrirachal system. This is a complete disaster we refuse to acknowledge because of the 1.2 workers in the broken NHS, fully one million are female. Over 80% of GPs are women. We desperately need a 24/7 NHS. An NHS open at weekends. Is the impossible ‘anti women’ work regime in the NHS the hidden reason we never ever will have it?? Why are we not talking about this?
“Over 80% of GPs are women.”
Is that true. It sounds like a very big success story for women.
I get the impression a disproportionate number of Asians are GPS too.
Yup – 32% from the various ethnic minorities:
https://bjgpopen.org/content/4/5/BJGPO.2020.0155
And about 55% are women:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/891945/general-practitioners-in-england-by-gender/
It’s more like a huge fail for the GP service
Yes. A success story for them. But do we not have to ask if this new gender balance in the health service and the declared ‘anti women’ nature of the work burden today is linked to the current NHS crisis – specifically the difficulties patients are having in seeing a GP and the flood of early retirees due to work pressures and pension issues?? First the over generous GP deal with Blair ended home visits and tightened hours. Now post Covid we endure ‘remote’ online interaction instead of the better face to face meetings. Gender is o ly one of many issues bedevilling the NHS. But it is the only one we are not talking about. How will we ever get a 24/7 service and hospitals working through the weekends if the specific burdens of health care work are already – as their unions affirm – incompatible with over 90% of its staff??
Excellent question. Examined in a little more depth here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html
The problem is wider and more serious than the article suggests.
Many years ago, when I still listened to Radio 4, I retired female doctor called in to a phone-in on junior doctors’ hours.
She explained that the long hours was the only way in to accrue the experience you needed to accumulate over a short period of time to be a competent doctor.
It is not a 9 to 5 job if you desire to be any good. The same is also true of some other professions
The problem is wider and more serious than the article suggests.
Many years ago, when I still listened to Radio 4, I retired female doctor called in to a phone-in on junior doctors’ hours.
She explained that the long hours was the only way in to accrue the experience you needed to accumulate over a short period of time to be a competent doctor.
It is not a 9 to 5 job if you desire to be any good. The same is also true of some other professions
Excellent question. Examined in a little more depth here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2532461/Why-having-women-doctors-hurting-NHS-A-provovcative-powerful-argument-leading-surgeon.html
We have one female GP at our local practice. She is favourable by comparison to her male Asian colleagues (they make you feel like you’re wasting their time despite only going once in a blue moon) however she only works two days a week.
The reason there are so many female GPs is because the working hours favour women who have children, rather than working hospital shifts.
That’s fine, I just we had a couple more to fill out the working week so we have a better chance to be seen by someone who hasn’t lost the will to care!
…and quite reasonably they tend to work less than full-time as a result. Alas, it costs the same to train a part-time GP as it does a full-time GP, with inevitable consequences on training budgets – and therefore capacity over the long term. This ought to be at least partly balanced by the increased efficiency of the part time GP, but oddly there’s little sign of that.
That’s fine, I just we had a couple more to fill out the working week so we have a better chance to be seen by someone who hasn’t lost the will to care!
…and quite reasonably they tend to work less than full-time as a result. Alas, it costs the same to train a part-time GP as it does a full-time GP, with inevitable consequences on training budgets – and therefore capacity over the long term. This ought to be at least partly balanced by the increased efficiency of the part time GP, but oddly there’s little sign of that.
Maybe she’s spending the other days home with her kids?
The reason there are so many female GPs is because the working hours favour women who have children, rather than working hospital shifts.
Maybe she’s spending the other days home with her kids?
Actually, according to a quick Googling, it appears that between 53% and 55% of all GP’s are women, at least in England…and perhaps in the whole UK:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/891945/general-practitioners-in-england-by-gender/
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/analysis/workforce/why-female-gps-are-earning-15-less-than-their-male-counterparts/
That Statista source has data for the whole UK but you can’t get it without a subscription it seems.
I did feel the 80% was pushing it.
I did feel the 80% was pushing it.
I get the impression a disproportionate number of Asians are GPS too.
Yup – 32% from the various ethnic minorities:
https://bjgpopen.org/content/4/5/BJGPO.2020.0155
And about 55% are women:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/891945/general-practitioners-in-england-by-gender/
It’s more like a huge fail for the GP service
Yes. A success story for them. But do we not have to ask if this new gender balance in the health service and the declared ‘anti women’ nature of the work burden today is linked to the current NHS crisis – specifically the difficulties patients are having in seeing a GP and the flood of early retirees due to work pressures and pension issues?? First the over generous GP deal with Blair ended home visits and tightened hours. Now post Covid we endure ‘remote’ online interaction instead of the better face to face meetings. Gender is o ly one of many issues bedevilling the NHS. But it is the only one we are not talking about. How will we ever get a 24/7 service and hospitals working through the weekends if the specific burdens of health care work are already – as their unions affirm – incompatible with over 90% of its staff??
We have one female GP at our local practice. She is favourable by comparison to her male Asian colleagues (they make you feel like you’re wasting their time despite only going once in a blue moon) however she only works two days a week.
Actually, according to a quick Googling, it appears that between 53% and 55% of all GP’s are women, at least in England…and perhaps in the whole UK:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/891945/general-practitioners-in-england-by-gender/
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/analysis/workforce/why-female-gps-are-earning-15-less-than-their-male-counterparts/
That Statista source has data for the whole UK but you can’t get it without a subscription it seems.
I recall that when most of my fellow doctors were male we regularly worked 80 hour weeks, often working 32 hours with minimal breaks. I certainly felt put upon, but discrimination and sexism weren’t blamed, although I did struggle to sympathise with nurses over their complaints of 10 hour night shifts, which looked like luxury to me.
This is what I hear. The Old Order demanded the most punishing hours and stresses as you describe. Then regulatory measures like EU Work Rules banished these Stakhanovite practices. The unions call them old anti women and ‘patriarchal’. If work in the all women NHS is officially ‘anti women’ I guess the dream of a 24/7 accessible Health Service is just that; an unachievable pie in sky dream.
This is what I hear. The Old Order demanded the most punishing hours and stresses as you describe. Then regulatory measures like EU Work Rules banished these Stakhanovite practices. The unions call them old anti women and ‘patriarchal’. If work in the all women NHS is officially ‘anti women’ I guess the dream of a 24/7 accessible Health Service is just that; an unachievable pie in sky dream.
About maternity leave… my husband’s USA company had a small office in Italy. They hired a woman who immediately got pregnant and took most of the year off, she came back after a few months and then got pregnant again. That small office of a half dozen people had to subsidize her childbearing and it was not insubstantial. They had to cover her clients, pay her while she was out and then after all this – a few months after she returned from having the second baby – she left the firm entirely. Eventually, this office was shut when they realized that operating in Italy was ‘burdensome’, France & Spain also had their own unique employment problems – high costs, lots of employment requirements.
Well said, Cathy, and your post below also!
One day though that women’s children will be working and paying the end of life healthcare costs of those adults, so maybe it’s rather selfish of them not to want to help struggling young families?
The other people in that office had families that they were supporting as well…..it’s quite a lot to ask a family man to support his family and someone else’s as well…
Would his family not have been entitled to the same maternity rights that he was now supporting?
Would his family not have been entitled to the same maternity rights that he was now supporting?
The other people in that office had families that they were supporting as well…..it’s quite a lot to ask a family man to support his family and someone else’s as well…
Blimey. Is anyone studying what impact such employment laws and regulations are having inside a fully feminised but anti women NHS workforce?? It is staggering that this debate is not being heard when the NHS is falling apart after the covid madness and decades of mismanagement.
The company wouldn’t have had to pay her while she was out, as in Italy this is paid from central government from taxes paid by all companies.
Therefore if the office failed to find a replacement for the women for the almost two years she was off, that to me implies the company was incredibly poorly run and failed because of incompetence from those at the top rather than due to a single employee having a couple of children.
Funny how thousands of businesses survive just fine in the numerous countries with maternity (and some cases paternity) legislation
This sounds a bit odd. You don’t get maternity leave from the time you fall pregnant, do you?
Well said, Cathy, and your post below also!
One day though that women’s children will be working and paying the end of life healthcare costs of those adults, so maybe it’s rather selfish of them not to want to help struggling young families?
Blimey. Is anyone studying what impact such employment laws and regulations are having inside a fully feminised but anti women NHS workforce?? It is staggering that this debate is not being heard when the NHS is falling apart after the covid madness and decades of mismanagement.
The company wouldn’t have had to pay her while she was out, as in Italy this is paid from central government from taxes paid by all companies.
Therefore if the office failed to find a replacement for the women for the almost two years she was off, that to me implies the company was incredibly poorly run and failed because of incompetence from those at the top rather than due to a single employee having a couple of children.
Funny how thousands of businesses survive just fine in the numerous countries with maternity (and some cases paternity) legislation
This sounds a bit odd. You don’t get maternity leave from the time you fall pregnant, do you?
“Over 80% of GPs are women.”
Is that true. It sounds like a very big success story for women.
I recall that when most of my fellow doctors were male we regularly worked 80 hour weeks, often working 32 hours with minimal breaks. I certainly felt put upon, but discrimination and sexism weren’t blamed, although I did struggle to sympathise with nurses over their complaints of 10 hour night shifts, which looked like luxury to me.
About maternity leave… my husband’s USA company had a small office in Italy. They hired a woman who immediately got pregnant and took most of the year off, she came back after a few months and then got pregnant again. That small office of a half dozen people had to subsidize her childbearing and it was not insubstantial. They had to cover her clients, pay her while she was out and then after all this – a few months after she returned from having the second baby – she left the firm entirely. Eventually, this office was shut when they realized that operating in Italy was ‘burdensome’, France & Spain also had their own unique employment problems – high costs, lots of employment requirements.
There needs to be a conversation here in the UK too about the Brownite dream of mass feminisation of the workforce. America seems especially punishing on mothers. But here we plainly have inadequate nursery support. The WFH movement – says the civil service – is driven more by concerns for female workers – gender equality – than efficiency. Is that sustainable when public sector performance is collapsing? More astonishingly, the health unions have declared that the higher stresses of work within the NHS make it ‘anti-women’ – a dysfunctional offshoot of an earlier older male patrirachal system. This is a complete disaster we refuse to acknowledge because of the 1.2 workers in the broken NHS, fully one million are female. Over 80% of GPs are women. We desperately need a 24/7 NHS. An NHS open at weekends. Is the impossible ‘anti women’ work regime in the NHS the hidden reason we never ever will have it?? Why are we not talking about this?
I don’t see how how the writer’s experience is any different to previous generations. This reads as standard self-obsessed young parent stuff. I get it – I remember those feelings when our kids were growing up , but I’m left feeling an overwhelming need to say, “get over yourself”. It’s just another of life’s rites of passage.
Much criminality results from inadequate parenting, especially when kids are very young, i.e., before the age of 2. Society depends on there being well-adjusted children, but is too stupid to realise this. Lack of parental leave exacerbates the problem.
About 60 years ago, the capitalists turned feminist when they realised that increasing female participation in the rat-race meant that they could practically double the cost of key consumer items, principally houses.
Prior to what was then called “women’s liberation”, primarily it was men (many of whom were problem drinkers) who were rats on the wheel. The greatest trick of capitalism was to dress up the hamster wheel as liberation, and thereby conning women into becoming as downtrodden and hollowed-out as the majority of men.
Of course, you not allowed to say any of the foregoing lol. The foregoing is offensive to conventional (linear progress) feminist thinking; and it is just as offensive to simpering HR departments and to today’s post-union hipster pleb class (men and women alike), who collectively are dumb enough to be convinced that that bosses and employees are “in it together”.
So what’s your alternative, send women back to the kitchen sink?
The ability of a nation to fully utilise the talents, brains and energy of all it’s adult population can only be a good thing, although you seem to be suggesting otherwise, and of course blame “capitalists” for plotting the emancipation of women, rather than advances in science and medicine (e.g. the Pill) and socialists such as Barbara Castle.
I take these downticks as a sign that there’s no counter-argument, and you’d prefer women back in the home. The Taliban would approve.
The alternative would be to make it as easy as possible for mothers (or fathers) to stay at home if that’s what they wished, rather than forcing both parents to work full time simply to keep a roof over the children’s heads
The question is: what is that adult population trying to do when they’re utilizing their talents, brains and energy?
You imply that women who are not embedded in Work Cubicle World are somehow wasting all that. Or, visa-versa, that glorified widget pushing (even in a nice office) is somehow more ‘self-actualizing’ and worthwhile than building a family.
Nah…I don’t buy either side of that coin.
The truth is you can be brainless at Work or at Home — if being brainless is your preferred choice. And equally you can be pushing your talent, brains, and energy as far as you can push them at either place, doing either thing. The choice, again, is our own.
As for the so-called emancipation of women….it hardly seems emancipating to deliberately chain one’s self (8-9-10 hrs/day…5-6-7 days a week) to someone’s else’s schedule, to do someone else’s bidding, according to someone else’s standards, for someone else’s idea of what is ‘reasonable and fair’ compensation. Trading our prime of life for a paycheck actually is more a dubious and somewhat dismal necessity if you want to buy groceries and pay a mortgage.
The idea that a ‘career’ beats parenthood & family building is and always has been foolish.
Wealth, indeed, can be a fine thing but no one on any deathbed ever said with deep regret, “I’m sorry I didn’t spend more hours at the office improving that workflow and redesigning that organization!”
Nobody should ‘send’ anyone anywhere. But I feel that the State encouraging/subsidising women to go to work has long term problems: weaker family structure (so less able to resist those trying to destroy it AND more likely to crumble from internal tensions), lesser children (see today’s woke nutters), fewer children, higher taxes, an obsession with consumerism etc.
Sure it might increase GDP but, like mass immigration, it damages quality of life and social cohesion.
To my mind 2 days’ work per week is probably the best balance for ‘active’ mothers. But everyone must decide for themselves, yet not expect anyone else to subsidise their choices.
The only people to have escaped “the kitchen sink” are those wealthy enough to pay someone else to do the work. The rest of us have to stand at the kitchen sink and do the washing up, or load the dishwasher, whether we work an 8 – 12 hour day outside or inside the home. If you have a family they must be fed and kept clean or they will get ill and die.
It would be in the best tradition of classic liberalism to enable familes to make a free choice, without overloading them with feminist ideology or strict religious expectations (pretty similar if you ask me), or a cost of living so high both parents have to work full time outside the home to survive.
Give people the choice and see what happens.
I was a stay at home mum until my youngest was 14, then I went back to work. I now work in residential childcare, utilising my mothering skills and helping children who have been denied boundaries and the necessary care that children need.
Also worth pointing out that there is a growing number of young people ending up in care that are spoilt and entitled. They are in care because their parents were too busy to properly parent and as a result A) spoilt them out of guilt and B) lost control due to not being home to enforce boundaries. These young people find themselves at risk of CCE and CSE and are frequently overconfident in their ability to look after themselves.
I take these downticks as a sign that there’s no counter-argument, and you’d prefer women back in the home. The Taliban would approve.
The alternative would be to make it as easy as possible for mothers (or fathers) to stay at home if that’s what they wished, rather than forcing both parents to work full time simply to keep a roof over the children’s heads
The question is: what is that adult population trying to do when they’re utilizing their talents, brains and energy?
You imply that women who are not embedded in Work Cubicle World are somehow wasting all that. Or, visa-versa, that glorified widget pushing (even in a nice office) is somehow more ‘self-actualizing’ and worthwhile than building a family.
Nah…I don’t buy either side of that coin.
The truth is you can be brainless at Work or at Home — if being brainless is your preferred choice. And equally you can be pushing your talent, brains, and energy as far as you can push them at either place, doing either thing. The choice, again, is our own.
As for the so-called emancipation of women….it hardly seems emancipating to deliberately chain one’s self (8-9-10 hrs/day…5-6-7 days a week) to someone’s else’s schedule, to do someone else’s bidding, according to someone else’s standards, for someone else’s idea of what is ‘reasonable and fair’ compensation. Trading our prime of life for a paycheck actually is more a dubious and somewhat dismal necessity if you want to buy groceries and pay a mortgage.
The idea that a ‘career’ beats parenthood & family building is and always has been foolish.
Wealth, indeed, can be a fine thing but no one on any deathbed ever said with deep regret, “I’m sorry I didn’t spend more hours at the office improving that workflow and redesigning that organization!”
Nobody should ‘send’ anyone anywhere. But I feel that the State encouraging/subsidising women to go to work has long term problems: weaker family structure (so less able to resist those trying to destroy it AND more likely to crumble from internal tensions), lesser children (see today’s woke nutters), fewer children, higher taxes, an obsession with consumerism etc.
Sure it might increase GDP but, like mass immigration, it damages quality of life and social cohesion.
To my mind 2 days’ work per week is probably the best balance for ‘active’ mothers. But everyone must decide for themselves, yet not expect anyone else to subsidise their choices.
The only people to have escaped “the kitchen sink” are those wealthy enough to pay someone else to do the work. The rest of us have to stand at the kitchen sink and do the washing up, or load the dishwasher, whether we work an 8 – 12 hour day outside or inside the home. If you have a family they must be fed and kept clean or they will get ill and die.
It would be in the best tradition of classic liberalism to enable familes to make a free choice, without overloading them with feminist ideology or strict religious expectations (pretty similar if you ask me), or a cost of living so high both parents have to work full time outside the home to survive.
Give people the choice and see what happens.
I was a stay at home mum until my youngest was 14, then I went back to work. I now work in residential childcare, utilising my mothering skills and helping children who have been denied boundaries and the necessary care that children need.
Also worth pointing out that there is a growing number of young people ending up in care that are spoilt and entitled. They are in care because their parents were too busy to properly parent and as a result A) spoilt them out of guilt and B) lost control due to not being home to enforce boundaries. These young people find themselves at risk of CCE and CSE and are frequently overconfident in their ability to look after themselves.
Western societies indifference towards the value of a good family is very evident. We just don’t value it as we should. Not just quality mothering, but quality paternal influence too. Boundaries enforced with love and respect would go a long way in the west.
Western?
I suspect rather the right modifier is Modern. The suicide rate in Japan, as a for instance, is almost twice as high for men and 3X that of women compared to the United States. South Korea’s rate is 50% higher than the U.S. rate….and in India, although the suicide rate is marginally lower than the American rate, that still means that, annually approximately 164K Indians kill themselves compared to 43K in the U.S.
Modernity (or perhaps, more accurately, the moral relativism of Post-Modernity) destroys families as it destroys the values & traditions that create and maintain families. Things fall apart; the center does not hold. Nihilistic abandonment (the lack of family, the lack of life meaning) breeds — among many other things — the suicidal, homicidal, destructive, anarchic urge that we see expressed daily in this our Clockwork Orange.
In the absence of God, everything’s permissible…and nothing save a passing, feel-good pleasure matters. Hard to value family in the midst of that wilderness.
How does the UKs suicide rate compare today to say the 30’s when religion was much stronger? Also why compare non Christian countries to the states when bemoaning the demise of Christianity?
Good question about the historical suicide trends…I have no idea. It’d be an interesting question to research, assuming you can find data that stretches back at least to the early 1800’s..given that Modernity, the Modern Era is roughly estimated to begin in the late 19th century. As a for instance, EA Robinson’s suicide poem, “Richard Cory” was written in 1897. Prufrock in 1915, The Second Coming in 1919.
But the cultural/social groundswell which was Modernity / Post-Modernity encompasses far more than what lies beneath the Western/Judeo/Christian umbrella. Certainly it was experienced in different ways in the East than the West, but the “indifference to the value of Family” noted by Lindsay S. (above) is, I believe, far more a symptom of Yeat’s “Rough Beast…its hour come round at last” than it is simple geography.
The Modern Era begins after the Middle Ages, which ended in about 1500. The Industrial Revolution begins about on your timeline, though some here will recognize textile mills in c. 1770s England as an origin point too. And we’re living through the Internet Age, or whatever it’ll eventually be called.
So you are taking Yeats to refer to a literal Second Coming which is now upon us? I’m not sure why everything you post seems so self-certain or absolute, but maybe I’m not giving you the benefit of the doubt. Are you in the habit of giving people the benefit of the doubt, sir?
Good point; obviously I reference the “Late Modern Era”….what is sometimes called ‘Modernism’.
As for Yeats…and the ‘center which cannot hold’…I would think the reference is obvious. As we look at the 4 Horsemen ride roughshod over the world…Pestilence, Famine, War, Death…it would be difficult if not impossible to argue that the ‘center’ of the West is holding true, wouldn’t you agree? The blood-dimmed tide, indeed, seems loosed.
Where this ends…what’s next…whether indeed we can regain the shining city on the hill — all that remains to be seen.
As for my own certainty? Heck, I consider it akin to most. Very similar to yours. My comments are aimed at the truth, to the best of my ability (given the limits of this space & time). I would trust yours are also. And, of course, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, don’t you?
But the courtesy involved in the assumption that the Other is, indeed, speaking honestly does not mean that we grant or accept assertions that are simply untrue. You may tell me, as a for instance, that pigs fly…and though I grant that you are sincere in that belief, I would not hesitate to tell you that you are wrong.
That’s a fair reply. I found your series of longish comments here to be full of more intensity and absolutism than most, rarely acknowledging any validity in the viewpoint of those you replied to. But that could reflect, in significant measure, my own bias, or dim illumination around my mirror, so to speak.
Since I’m in favor of more generosity of spirit and openness of exchange, I’ll try to do better at practicing that, instead of just preaching it so much. But since we strongly disagree on a few things about the America we live in, I’ll probably just let that be and not reply to you very often–unless you reply to me or seem to provoke a “passionately intense” response.
Have a good day.
Argument & Counter is how we stretch ourselves. We’d be fools to only reply to perspectives with which we agree, don’t you think?
As for intensity? Interesting comment. I don’t feel particularly intense…curious that you read my commentary in that way. Longish, though, is definitely true.
And ‘acknowledging any validity in the viewpoint of those to whom I reply’….heck, I’m always glad to do that, when it’s there. But when what I read indicates a serious lack of validity (perhaps due to a lack of experience and/or actual rational thought) … well, perhaps that’s where the ‘intensity’ comes from.
‘Absolutism’, though, is a puzzler. Not sure what it is you reference. Pigs don’t fly is an absolute …and I’m sure one with which you’d agree. But in this particular string, what I “suggest” (that Modern is a far better modifier than Western) is far from absolutist. It’s not a demand; it’s a suggestion . I’d simply argue that Modern (late Modern!) is a better causal factor than Western.
In any case, best wishes. I’m sure we’ll run into each other from time to time as these discussions progress.
[FYI…I’m not the one giving you ‘thumbs down’, by the way. Always found that practice to be silly. If I like a comment I give it ‘thumbs up’…if I dislike it, then I either ignore it or write a response.]
It’s pretty hard to read tone in printed characters, and I sometimes lose track of that fact.
I do wonder what argument you encountered (from anyone) that was comparable to a claim that pigs could fly, or why someone who hasn’t employed anyone (I have on a few occasions) should accept all your views as authoritative just because of that, or how your disagreements rose to the level of finding no validity in the viewpoint of all those you’ve disagreed with, though in theory you would “when it’s there”. Perhaps there could be disagreement that results from something other than inexperience or irrationality on either side.
Also, experience and rationality, when detached from kindness and empathy, isn’t a complete or very humane path to understanding, in my opinion.
Am I wrong to think you accept almost no government protection against exploitation of workers, or that if the worker agrees to do a job, it pretty much can’t be exploitation?
Would you call yourself a free-market absolutist or nearly so?
I appreciate your willingness to follow-up and discuss perceptions vs. intention. Argument and Counterargument is one way we shape and expand ourselves, agreed. But not through contentious opposition alone. Conversation is valuable too. Although this means of communication doesn’t really encourage much subtlety or depth, civility and fairmindedness are still important. I can see you have more of both than I’d given you credit for.
Best wishes to you too.
{these columns are getting narrow with our series of replies; might have to pick it up again in connection–some connection, I hope!–with another article}.
It’s pretty hard to read tone in printed characters, and I sometimes lose track of that fact.
I do wonder what argument you encountered (from anyone) that was comparable to a claim that pigs could fly, or why someone who hasn’t employed anyone (I have on a few occasions) should accept all your views as authoritative just because of that, or how your disagreements rose to the level of finding no validity in the viewpoint of all those you’ve disagreed with, though in theory you would “when it’s there”. Perhaps there could be disagreement that results from something other than inexperience or irrationality on either side.
Also, experience and rationality, when detached from kindness and empathy, isn’t a complete or very humane path to understanding, in my opinion.
Am I wrong to think you accept almost no government protection against exploitation of workers, or that if the worker agrees to do a job, it pretty much can’t be exploitation?
Would you call yourself a free-market absolutist or nearly so?
I appreciate your willingness to follow-up and discuss perceptions vs. intention. Argument and Counterargument is one way we shape and expand ourselves, agreed. But not through contentious opposition alone. Conversation is valuable too. Although this means of communication doesn’t really encourage much subtlety or depth, civility and fairmindedness are still important. I can see you have more of both than I’d given you credit for.
Best wishes to you too.
{these columns are getting narrow with our series of replies; might have to pick it up again in connection–some connection, I hope!–with another article}.
Argument & Counter is how we stretch ourselves. We’d be fools to only reply to perspectives with which we agree, don’t you think?
As for intensity? Interesting comment. I don’t feel particularly intense…curious that you read my commentary in that way. Longish, though, is definitely true.
And ‘acknowledging any validity in the viewpoint of those to whom I reply’….heck, I’m always glad to do that, when it’s there. But when what I read indicates a serious lack of validity (perhaps due to a lack of experience and/or actual rational thought) … well, perhaps that’s where the ‘intensity’ comes from.
‘Absolutism’, though, is a puzzler. Not sure what it is you reference. Pigs don’t fly is an absolute …and I’m sure one with which you’d agree. But in this particular string, what I “suggest” (that Modern is a far better modifier than Western) is far from absolutist. It’s not a demand; it’s a suggestion . I’d simply argue that Modern (late Modern!) is a better causal factor than Western.
In any case, best wishes. I’m sure we’ll run into each other from time to time as these discussions progress.
[FYI…I’m not the one giving you ‘thumbs down’, by the way. Always found that practice to be silly. If I like a comment I give it ‘thumbs up’…if I dislike it, then I either ignore it or write a response.]
That’s a fair reply. I found your series of longish comments here to be full of more intensity and absolutism than most, rarely acknowledging any validity in the viewpoint of those you replied to. But that could reflect, in significant measure, my own bias, or dim illumination around my mirror, so to speak.
Since I’m in favor of more generosity of spirit and openness of exchange, I’ll try to do better at practicing that, instead of just preaching it so much. But since we strongly disagree on a few things about the America we live in, I’ll probably just let that be and not reply to you very often–unless you reply to me or seem to provoke a “passionately intense” response.
Have a good day.
Good point; obviously I reference the “Late Modern Era”….what is sometimes called ‘Modernism’.
As for Yeats…and the ‘center which cannot hold’…I would think the reference is obvious. As we look at the 4 Horsemen ride roughshod over the world…Pestilence, Famine, War, Death…it would be difficult if not impossible to argue that the ‘center’ of the West is holding true, wouldn’t you agree? The blood-dimmed tide, indeed, seems loosed.
Where this ends…what’s next…whether indeed we can regain the shining city on the hill — all that remains to be seen.
As for my own certainty? Heck, I consider it akin to most. Very similar to yours. My comments are aimed at the truth, to the best of my ability (given the limits of this space & time). I would trust yours are also. And, of course, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, don’t you?
But the courtesy involved in the assumption that the Other is, indeed, speaking honestly does not mean that we grant or accept assertions that are simply untrue. You may tell me, as a for instance, that pigs fly…and though I grant that you are sincere in that belief, I would not hesitate to tell you that you are wrong.
The Modern Era begins after the Middle Ages, which ended in about 1500. The Industrial Revolution begins about on your timeline, though some here will recognize textile mills in c. 1770s England as an origin point too. And we’re living through the Internet Age, or whatever it’ll eventually be called.
So you are taking Yeats to refer to a literal Second Coming which is now upon us? I’m not sure why everything you post seems so self-certain or absolute, but maybe I’m not giving you the benefit of the doubt. Are you in the habit of giving people the benefit of the doubt, sir?
Good question about the historical suicide trends…I have no idea. It’d be an interesting question to research, assuming you can find data that stretches back at least to the early 1800’s..given that Modernity, the Modern Era is roughly estimated to begin in the late 19th century. As a for instance, EA Robinson’s suicide poem, “Richard Cory” was written in 1897. Prufrock in 1915, The Second Coming in 1919.
But the cultural/social groundswell which was Modernity / Post-Modernity encompasses far more than what lies beneath the Western/Judeo/Christian umbrella. Certainly it was experienced in different ways in the East than the West, but the “indifference to the value of Family” noted by Lindsay S. (above) is, I believe, far more a symptom of Yeat’s “Rough Beast…its hour come round at last” than it is simple geography.
Let me add two later lines from the Yeats poem you referenced: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity”.
Great line….and I’m sure we both agree that we see MUCH passionate intensity displayed in these comments.
I strongly agree that it’s a great line, and I stand accused by it myself at times.
As someone who reveres the teachings and example of Jesus of Nazareth but isn’t an institutional Christian (a bit much to announce, but true): I hope any real Second Coming will prove less violent than the picture Yeats presented about 100 years ago, or the weird nightmare foretold in Revelations.
I hope you’re right!
I hope you’re right!
I strongly agree that it’s a great line, and I stand accused by it myself at times.
As someone who reveres the teachings and example of Jesus of Nazareth but isn’t an institutional Christian (a bit much to announce, but true): I hope any real Second Coming will prove less violent than the picture Yeats presented about 100 years ago, or the weird nightmare foretold in Revelations.
Great line….and I’m sure we both agree that we see MUCH passionate intensity displayed in these comments.
How does the UKs suicide rate compare today to say the 30’s when religion was much stronger? Also why compare non Christian countries to the states when bemoaning the demise of Christianity?
Let me add two later lines from the Yeats poem you referenced: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity”.
Western?
I suspect rather the right modifier is Modern. The suicide rate in Japan, as a for instance, is almost twice as high for men and 3X that of women compared to the United States. South Korea’s rate is 50% higher than the U.S. rate….and in India, although the suicide rate is marginally lower than the American rate, that still means that, annually approximately 164K Indians kill themselves compared to 43K in the U.S.
Modernity (or perhaps, more accurately, the moral relativism of Post-Modernity) destroys families as it destroys the values & traditions that create and maintain families. Things fall apart; the center does not hold. Nihilistic abandonment (the lack of family, the lack of life meaning) breeds — among many other things — the suicidal, homicidal, destructive, anarchic urge that we see expressed daily in this our Clockwork Orange.
In the absence of God, everything’s permissible…and nothing save a passing, feel-good pleasure matters. Hard to value family in the midst of that wilderness.
So what’s your alternative, send women back to the kitchen sink?
The ability of a nation to fully utilise the talents, brains and energy of all it’s adult population can only be a good thing, although you seem to be suggesting otherwise, and of course blame “capitalists” for plotting the emancipation of women, rather than advances in science and medicine (e.g. the Pill) and socialists such as Barbara Castle.
Western societies indifference towards the value of a good family is very evident. We just don’t value it as we should. Not just quality mothering, but quality paternal influence too. Boundaries enforced with love and respect would go a long way in the west.
Much criminality results from inadequate parenting, especially when kids are very young, i.e., before the age of 2. Society depends on there being well-adjusted children, but is too stupid to realise this. Lack of parental leave exacerbates the problem.
About 60 years ago, the capitalists turned feminist when they realised that increasing female participation in the rat-race meant that they could practically double the cost of key consumer items, principally houses.
Prior to what was then called “women’s liberation”, primarily it was men (many of whom were problem drinkers) who were rats on the wheel. The greatest trick of capitalism was to dress up the hamster wheel as liberation, and thereby conning women into becoming as downtrodden and hollowed-out as the majority of men.
Of course, you not allowed to say any of the foregoing lol. The foregoing is offensive to conventional (linear progress) feminist thinking; and it is just as offensive to simpering HR departments and to today’s post-union hipster pleb class (men and women alike), who collectively are dumb enough to be convinced that that bosses and employees are “in it together”.
I don’t know much about “American Moms” or American motherhood as such but I do read two American blogs – Posie Gets Cosy and Small Things. The first is written by a woman unable to have a child after an horrific accident but had one by surrogate, she also runs a small needlecraft business. The second blog is written by a woman, a home schooler, with eight children, who also runs a small business linked to her homestead.
I find both these women inspiring and comforting. Neither of them sells herself as a supermom, far from it, they share their struggles and joys with honesty and humility.
The article is fair enough as a critique of capitalism at it’s most ruthless and the effect that has on American mothers generally, but it has always been the case that most of us have to live where we live, with the rules and customs that exist there. You have to find ways to live your life with as much integrity and courage as you can within those parameters. You can only do what you can do, but if you do it with love there’s a better chance for a happier outcome.
I don’t know much about “American Moms” or American motherhood as such but I do read two American blogs – Posie Gets Cosy and Small Things. The first is written by a woman unable to have a child after an horrific accident but had one by surrogate, she also runs a small needlecraft business. The second blog is written by a woman, a home schooler, with eight children, who also runs a small business linked to her homestead.
I find both these women inspiring and comforting. Neither of them sells herself as a supermom, far from it, they share their struggles and joys with honesty and humility.
The article is fair enough as a critique of capitalism at it’s most ruthless and the effect that has on American mothers generally, but it has always been the case that most of us have to live where we live, with the rules and customs that exist there. You have to find ways to live your life with as much integrity and courage as you can within those parameters. You can only do what you can do, but if you do it with love there’s a better chance for a happier outcome.
“The United States’s unique combination of workaholism and social conservatism means that-”
No, you can blame the tens of thousands of corporate lobbyists in Washington D.C for a lack of paid maternity leave.
Yes, an interesting idea about “The United States’s unique combination of workaholism and social conservatism”, as if it’s the mothers’ own fault and they would turn down maternity leave because they love work so much. But anyway, what’s so unique about it?
And that workaholism must be the reason so many women have two jobs.
Not really. The USA, if you haven’t noticed is enormous and encompasses a wide variety of businesses big and small. Folks tend to be entrepreneurial no matter how much politicians dump on the ambitious. That said, encumbering new businesses by burdening them with ever increasing costs is not good for economic growth. If women want extra benefits they would be smart to target the companies that have the economies of scale to offer them super-duper benefits. No healthy economy should require its businesses to be ‘one-size-fits-all’. There’s a reason why the USA is so vigorous- and seemingly can pay $100 Billion to Ukraine to fight yet another European War. There is still a subset of Americans who are not interested in slowing down economic growth with a European-style welfare state. Maybe American women are just cleverer in parsing myriad possibilities ? And of course, they’ll always be the whiners (like Ms Markle!) who think never enough is done for them.
If the only way your business can survive is by forcing your employees into poverty then the country would be much better off if that business failed and their market share taken by a more productive rival.
The Americans all seem to make a big deal about the idyllic family (working dad, mum staying home baking apple pie and helping the community etc) yet they seem to do all they can to economically discourage it
“Forcing your employees into poverty”??
My goodness that’s the first time I’ve ever seen the receipt of a paycheck described as something which forces the recipient into having less money than they did before they got the paycheck.
That’s rather an exaggeration don’t you think?
The point Cathy makes is a good one. If benefits beyond the paycheck are critical, the individual looking for a job needs to be targeting those businesses which offer those benefits (and pretty much all medium+ companies do exactly that). If the skill sets are not sufficient to be employed at such a place, then employment at companies with thinner margins (and fewer benefits) becomes the solution to the unemployment problem.
No business ever forces its employees into poverty. They simply make an employment offer. And paychecks should always be preferrable to no paychecks, regardless of benefits.
If you only offer wages that aren’t enough to live on, what else are you doing but expecting your employees to live in poverty?
Without minimum standards it simply becomes a race to the bottom with most companies offering nothing with the taxpayer having to pick up the tab. It’s just corporate welfare
I don’t expect my employees to do anything other than the job I’m paying them to do. How they choose to live is their challenge, not mine.
If I only offer wages that people can’t live on….and they expect to live exclusively on those wages….then they shouldn’t take the job as offered, should they? Rather they should take a job which pays more.
And if they take my job, which pays less, and then object because it’s not a living wage, then we’d have to ask why they took that job in the first place, wouldn’t we?
If I’m hiring you to clean restrooms and you expect to cover a mortgage payment, and food for 3 kids with that paycheck, you’ll be sadly disappointed.
The fact that I offer a non-living wage for any particular job does not mean that I expect my employees to live on what I pay them. As a matter of fact, it indicates the exactly opposite. It indicates I expect that they either carry a 2nd job… or someone else in the household has a 2nd income…. or they have another income source entirely. In any case, how they choose to live is not the problem that the employer has to solve when he calculates his payroll.
No employer is ever under any obligation to offer as salary what his employees would like to earn in order to live the way they’d like to live….they are only obligated to offer what the market requires them to pay (to maintain a work force).
Of course there are also legally required minimum wage standards which must be maintained, but that minimum wage standard’s connection to a so-called ‘livable wage’ is tenuous at best.
But no, what you describe is not ‘corporate welfare’. It’s Social Services or Private Welfare. The beneficiary is not the corporation which is receiving nothing from the State; it’s the individual who actually receives the government payments / state assistance who benefits.
And in no case is any business “forcing its employees into poverty.” That’s simply ridiculous.
You are a truly disgusting human being! You think that little of your staff you want full time workers but expect the state to top up their wages in order to live.
Welfare is evil socialism unless it’s corporate welfare am I right?
And a Merry Christmas to you and the family, my friend!
This conversation would be so much more efficient if you took the time to read what was actually written. I don’t expect the State to ‘top up their wages’….I expect that IF an employee can’t make ends meet with the salary I pay for the entry-level job they do….that they find additional income via a 2nd job, or a a 2nd income provider in the household…. or a 2nd income source entirely (stipend from Mom & Dad, as a for instance). I don’t expect the State to do a darned thing.
As for how that particular minimum wage employee will actually handle this challenge, that’s entirely up to them. We are all responsible for ourselves and the lives we choose to lead, wouldn’t you agree?
And Social Services Programs? My goodness, we, the people, already spend $1.3T annually on Social Services for those individuals who need some extra assistance. Does that somehow seem insufficient to you?
In the end, how you choose to lead your life is your business…not the State’s…not mine…not your employer’s…not your doctor’s…not even your Mom’s. And if you choose to work a low-end, entry level job, for minimum wage, then that’s your choice. No employer is under any obligation to pay you any more than the job is worth as long as that $$ figure is equal to or greater than minimum wage.
How you then choose to live with that wage is up to you. It always has been.
And a Merry Christmas to you and the family, my friend!
This conversation would be so much more efficient if you took the time to read what was actually written. I don’t expect the State to ‘top up their wages’….I expect that IF an employee can’t make ends meet with the salary I pay for the entry-level job they do….that they find additional income via a 2nd job, or a a 2nd income provider in the household…. or a 2nd income source entirely (stipend from Mom & Dad, as a for instance). I don’t expect the State to do a darned thing.
As for how that particular minimum wage employee will actually handle this challenge, that’s entirely up to them. We are all responsible for ourselves and the lives we choose to lead, wouldn’t you agree?
And Social Services Programs? My goodness, we, the people, already spend $1.3T annually on Social Services for those individuals who need some extra assistance. Does that somehow seem insufficient to you?
In the end, how you choose to lead your life is your business…not the State’s…not mine…not your employer’s…not your doctor’s…not even your Mom’s. And if you choose to work a low-end, entry level job, for minimum wage, then that’s your choice. No employer is under any obligation to pay you any more than the job is worth as long as that $$ figure is equal to or greater than minimum wage.
How you then choose to live with that wage is up to you. It always has been.
You are a truly disgusting human being! You think that little of your staff you want full time workers but expect the state to top up their wages in order to live.
Welfare is evil socialism unless it’s corporate welfare am I right?
I don’t expect my employees to do anything other than the job I’m paying them to do. How they choose to live is their challenge, not mine.
If I only offer wages that people can’t live on….and they expect to live exclusively on those wages….then they shouldn’t take the job as offered, should they? Rather they should take a job which pays more.
And if they take my job, which pays less, and then object because it’s not a living wage, then we’d have to ask why they took that job in the first place, wouldn’t we?
If I’m hiring you to clean restrooms and you expect to cover a mortgage payment, and food for 3 kids with that paycheck, you’ll be sadly disappointed.
The fact that I offer a non-living wage for any particular job does not mean that I expect my employees to live on what I pay them. As a matter of fact, it indicates the exactly opposite. It indicates I expect that they either carry a 2nd job… or someone else in the household has a 2nd income…. or they have another income source entirely. In any case, how they choose to live is not the problem that the employer has to solve when he calculates his payroll.
No employer is ever under any obligation to offer as salary what his employees would like to earn in order to live the way they’d like to live….they are only obligated to offer what the market requires them to pay (to maintain a work force).
Of course there are also legally required minimum wage standards which must be maintained, but that minimum wage standard’s connection to a so-called ‘livable wage’ is tenuous at best.
But no, what you describe is not ‘corporate welfare’. It’s Social Services or Private Welfare. The beneficiary is not the corporation which is receiving nothing from the State; it’s the individual who actually receives the government payments / state assistance who benefits.
And in no case is any business “forcing its employees into poverty.” That’s simply ridiculous.
“No business ever forces its employees into poverty. They simply make an employment offer.”
I think that’s just too simplistic. Yes, if you’re good at your job, better than others, you can negotiate your wage and benefits or move up the ladder to another company offering higher wages, though more will be expected from you. But there are a lot of jobs that can be learned pretty quickly for those whose skills are limited, and those jobs offer little in the way of wages and benefits, but they’re also services used by a large proportion of the population, so essential to a large degree, but still low value, hence low wages. The people who take up those positions are very short on choices. And if you suggest they should go and up-skill then who will take up those jobs. How many of those employers, possibly in a jam themselves, are surviving purely because of the minimum wage and no benefits? Should they survive only because they can pay minimum wages? That doesn’t sound like a solution to me. It sounds like people being pushed into poverty.
Right. It’s an extreme form of capitalism to suggest that it’s acceptable for someone, for example, to feel forced to accept a job at minimum wage with extended hours and no benefits or overtime pay, since the employee has “agreed” to that, under duress.
What duress?
As an employer I only make a job offer (with compensation). You either choose to accept or not accept that offer. The choice is yours. I, certainly, am not forcing you to do anything. I don’t even know you.
But if you come into my business, accept the offer, and the noted compensation, then that’s your freely willed choice isn’t it? I, the employer, haven’t forced you to do a single thing. I only shook your hand, said ‘welcome aboard’, and trained you how to do the job I’m paying you to do.
If you feel somehow ‘forced’ to accept that job, that’s your problem, not mine (I am definitely not forcing you to do anything…I’m simply offering to pay you for performing a job).
If you’re not skilled enough to do any other job, again, that’s your problem, not mine. I’m not preventing you from developing your skills or doing something different.
And again, if you, as employee, don’t like any of that, then you are entirely free to choose to do something else. Your choice entirely.
The duress of a job and rental market where working full time doesn’t allow a decent–not deluxe or “preferred’–standard of living.
I understand that other people’s problems, including those you choose to employ, are not your own or your legal obligation to alleviate, but why wouldn’t you want to help within your power, according to your success and good fortune as a Job Creator? Or are you just a single household, or society of one?
You’re talking about charity? Sure, absolutely; charity is a very good thing. “When we give cheerfully and accept gratefully, everyone is blessed.”
But as a job creator, as a business owner with a host of financial obligations, including the implicit obligation to run a profitable business, that allows on-going reinvestment, that gives all my employees long-term employment opportunities, the pay we offer for any job is set to match (and in some cases) exceed the market. To design a payroll any other way … to build a payroll that compensates some more than others because of their life circumstance… destroys not only the integrity of the agreement between employer & employee, it destroys the business and the livelihood of all who depend upon that business.
You’re talking about charity? Sure, absolutely; charity is a very good thing. “When we give cheerfully and accept gratefully, everyone is blessed.”
But as a job creator, as a business owner with a host of financial obligations, including the implicit obligation to run a profitable business, that allows on-going reinvestment, that gives all my employees long-term employment opportunities, the pay we offer for any job is set to match (and in some cases) exceed the market. To design a payroll any other way … to build a payroll that compensates some more than others because of their life circumstance… destroys not only the integrity of the agreement between employer & employee, it destroys the business and the livelihood of all who depend upon that business.
The duress of a job and rental market where working full time doesn’t allow a decent–not deluxe or “preferred’–standard of living.
I understand that other people’s problems, including those you choose to employ, are not your own or your legal obligation to alleviate, but why wouldn’t you want to help within your power, according to your success and good fortune as a Job Creator? Or are you just a single household, or society of one?
What duress?
As an employer I only make a job offer (with compensation). You either choose to accept or not accept that offer. The choice is yours. I, certainly, am not forcing you to do anything. I don’t even know you.
But if you come into my business, accept the offer, and the noted compensation, then that’s your freely willed choice isn’t it? I, the employer, haven’t forced you to do a single thing. I only shook your hand, said ‘welcome aboard’, and trained you how to do the job I’m paying you to do.
If you feel somehow ‘forced’ to accept that job, that’s your problem, not mine (I am definitely not forcing you to do anything…I’m simply offering to pay you for performing a job).
If you’re not skilled enough to do any other job, again, that’s your problem, not mine. I’m not preventing you from developing your skills or doing something different.
And again, if you, as employee, don’t like any of that, then you are entirely free to choose to do something else. Your choice entirely.
Not at all simplistic. Just accurate.
I have a job (let’s say, cleaning restrooms) and a compensation level I’ve tied to that job. If you want that compensation , then you take that job. Your choice entirely.
If you can find a better job, you should do so. If you take my job, then you’re accepting that compensation as offered. To take the job and then demand more $$’s is like joining me for a hamburger dinner and then objecting when I serve you a hamburger (rather than steak). That would be unreasonable.
If you do a good job, then you’ll earn raises and promotions assuming the business itself thrives (and of course the health of the business is critically dependent upon the quality of work you, as employee, produce).
If you are low-skilled and can’t find a better job…then my job is better than being unemployed. But the cold, hard fact is that I am under no obligation, legal/ethical/or moral to pay you what you need to earn to maintain your life as you’d like to maintain it. I’m only obligated to pay you what the market says I need to pay you (and what the State — per minimum wage law — requires me to pay you).
And yes, if my business (cleaning restrooms) is viable because all my jobs are minimum wage jobs, then that is a perfectly acceptable solution for me, the employer. If my business is not viable because I can’t hire anyone at that wage, then I need to pay more or change my business. In any case, the fact that my business pays only “X” does not and cannot push anyone into poverty. The exact opposite, in fact, as any wage paid is better than no wages paid.
“But the cold, hard fact is that I am under no obligation, legal/ethical/or moral to pay you what you need to earn to maintain your life as you’d like to maintain it.”
I don’t think that’s what I’m suggesting. You’re playing games there. I’m not suggesting you pay wages to maintain someone’s life as they’d like to maintain it, like it’s some sort of lifestyle they want you to support.
And I do wonder what you would pay employees if there was no minimum wage.
Well, if you’re not suggesting that employees be paid what they’d require to maintain the lifestyle they’d like to lead….what are you suggesting? Something less than that but more than minimum wage? What is that number and how is it calculated? And would it be different for employees with 3 kids vs. 2…or 2 kids and a sick mother who lives with them….or 5 kids but the oldest is 16 and capable of getting a minimum wage job (assuming some still exist)? Would you pay a single Mom more than a married Mom? Or a married Mom whose husband is incarcerated?
The point is there are only two real points on the compensation curve: the figure required by minimum wage law….and the figure required by the market to hire the talent I need to hire. Anything else is an artificial figure which will do nothing but inflate the cost of labor over market value, while simultaneously increasing the cost-effectiveness of robotics to replace that expensive labor.
It’s why McDonalds is quickly eliminating the human labor behind the order counter. Cheaper to buy kiosk automation. And the more expensive we make unskilled labor, the lower the hurdle rate that automation has to clear.
As for what I’d pay employees without a minimum wage law….exactly what I’d need to pay them to recruit and keep talented labor. That’s it. No more. What is that number? Depends on the industry and the availability of talent …and, obviously , on the complexity & impact of the job I’m trying to fill. To pay them any more than that makes my business a bad investment for me, for the bank, and for anyone who would otherwise seek to invest in my business’s future.
Well, if you’re not suggesting that employees be paid what they’d require to maintain the lifestyle they’d like to lead….what are you suggesting? Something less than that but more than minimum wage? What is that number and how is it calculated? And would it be different for employees with 3 kids vs. 2…or 2 kids and a sick mother who lives with them….or 5 kids but the oldest is 16 and capable of getting a minimum wage job (assuming some still exist)? Would you pay a single Mom more than a married Mom? Or a married Mom whose husband is incarcerated?
The point is there are only two real points on the compensation curve: the figure required by minimum wage law….and the figure required by the market to hire the talent I need to hire. Anything else is an artificial figure which will do nothing but inflate the cost of labor over market value, while simultaneously increasing the cost-effectiveness of robotics to replace that expensive labor.
It’s why McDonalds is quickly eliminating the human labor behind the order counter. Cheaper to buy kiosk automation. And the more expensive we make unskilled labor, the lower the hurdle rate that automation has to clear.
As for what I’d pay employees without a minimum wage law….exactly what I’d need to pay them to recruit and keep talented labor. That’s it. No more. What is that number? Depends on the industry and the availability of talent …and, obviously , on the complexity & impact of the job I’m trying to fill. To pay them any more than that makes my business a bad investment for me, for the bank, and for anyone who would otherwise seek to invest in my business’s future.
“But the cold, hard fact is that I am under no obligation, legal/ethical/or moral to pay you what you need to earn to maintain your life as you’d like to maintain it.”
I don’t think that’s what I’m suggesting. You’re playing games there. I’m not suggesting you pay wages to maintain someone’s life as they’d like to maintain it, like it’s some sort of lifestyle they want you to support.
And I do wonder what you would pay employees if there was no minimum wage.
Right. It’s an extreme form of capitalism to suggest that it’s acceptable for someone, for example, to feel forced to accept a job at minimum wage with extended hours and no benefits or overtime pay, since the employee has “agreed” to that, under duress.
Not at all simplistic. Just accurate.
I have a job (let’s say, cleaning restrooms) and a compensation level I’ve tied to that job. If you want that compensation , then you take that job. Your choice entirely.
If you can find a better job, you should do so. If you take my job, then you’re accepting that compensation as offered. To take the job and then demand more $$’s is like joining me for a hamburger dinner and then objecting when I serve you a hamburger (rather than steak). That would be unreasonable.
If you do a good job, then you’ll earn raises and promotions assuming the business itself thrives (and of course the health of the business is critically dependent upon the quality of work you, as employee, produce).
If you are low-skilled and can’t find a better job…then my job is better than being unemployed. But the cold, hard fact is that I am under no obligation, legal/ethical/or moral to pay you what you need to earn to maintain your life as you’d like to maintain it. I’m only obligated to pay you what the market says I need to pay you (and what the State — per minimum wage law — requires me to pay you).
And yes, if my business (cleaning restrooms) is viable because all my jobs are minimum wage jobs, then that is a perfectly acceptable solution for me, the employer. If my business is not viable because I can’t hire anyone at that wage, then I need to pay more or change my business. In any case, the fact that my business pays only “X” does not and cannot push anyone into poverty. The exact opposite, in fact, as any wage paid is better than no wages paid.
Well Walmart encouraged their full-time employees to go on food stamps and buy dented goods, and Amazon imposes punishing quotas on its “fulfillment center” workers. For companies that are so big and profitable, I think that kind of worker treatment is unacceptable.
It amounts to a type of corporate welfare, where the cost of strapped workers going on assistance, or with medical issues but no health care access except the ER, gets passed on to taxpayers, since the mega-corps are not required to provide a decent level of compensation and benefits.
And when so many are overworked or in financial straits, the whole society suffers in ways that are not just monetary. I think right, left, and center should be able to acknowledge that the US is too materialistic, and also under-concerned with the material wellbeing of everyone.
I realize that’s not the case, I just think it should be.
Most companies, pushing widgets, have quotas. Compensation is typically tied to those quotas. You may not like being asked to hit a quota target, that’s entirely up to you. But if you work for a company with quotas, that’s the expectation. If you dislike it enough, I’m sure you’ll leave.
In any case, having a quota to drive productivity and worker efficiency is entirely acceptable. It’s how pretty much every business works that produces widgets. And no, it’s not a type of ‘corporate welfare’ (honestly where does this idea come from??). The corporation is under no obligation to provide you compensation you like or benefits you prefer. If you don’t like the compensation or the benefits as provided, go somewhere else. It’s really very simple.
And — If the State, in its infinite wisdom, decides to subsidize health care for everyone, then everyone pays, including corporations.
As for ‘acknowledging that the US (???) is too materialistic (???) …what on earth does that even mean? By whose standards is that being measured? And why is Bob’s concern with material goods any of Susie’s business?
The truth is, People are, by nature, materialistic (save for the odd saint who shows up every now & then). Some want more, some want less, and we all want differently. That’s life. And I’d say it’s pretty much true for all 8B of us.
But if, indeed, we were to say that 330M people living in the US are ‘too materialistic’ wouldn’t that mean that we are currently OVER concened with everyone’s material well being?? And, visa versa, if we were to somehow, magically, make 330M people less materialistic, wouldn’t that, by definition, make them even LESS concerned with everyone’s material condition?
No. It means that the measure of worth and happiness would be too material, but the sense of duty to one’s neighbor and countrymen would be weak–even according to a monetary or materialistic standard of worth.
Again, by whose standards is that being measured? Who is to say what is “too material” (whatever that means)? And why is Bob’s concern with material goods, any of Susie’s business?
As for any of our individual concerns for our family, friends, neighbors, and community…that is, again, our business, our responsibility as individuals…and distinctly not something mandated by the State.
You and I may have a certain philosophy about how we might choose to lead our lives (materially, spiritually, emotionally, intellectually), but it is not our responsibility (thank God) to make sure that the rest of the world does what we do…or doesn’t do what we believe they shouldn’t do?
And ultimately, how we choose to lead our lives must include, as a fundamental choice, how we choose to make a living to pay for those lives: the roof over our head, the clothes on our back, our food, our transportation, and our physical and mental well-being. Those decisions are our decisions. Those choices are our choices. And we live (and die) with the consequences of those choices.
Again, by whose standards is that being measured? Who is to say what is “too material” (whatever that means)? And why is Bob’s concern with material goods, any of Susie’s business?
As for any of our individual concerns for our family, friends, neighbors, and community…that is, again, our business, our responsibility as individuals…and distinctly not something mandated by the State.
You and I may have a certain philosophy about how we might choose to lead our lives (materially, spiritually, emotionally, intellectually), but it is not our responsibility (thank God) to make sure that the rest of the world does what we do…or doesn’t do what we believe they shouldn’t do?
And ultimately, how we choose to lead our lives must include, as a fundamental choice, how we choose to make a living to pay for those lives: the roof over our head, the clothes on our back, our food, our transportation, and our physical and mental well-being. Those decisions are our decisions. Those choices are our choices. And we live (and die) with the consequences of those choices.
No. It means that the measure of worth and happiness would be too material, but the sense of duty to one’s neighbor and countrymen would be weak–even according to a monetary or materialistic standard of worth.
Most companies, pushing widgets, have quotas. Compensation is typically tied to those quotas. You may not like being asked to hit a quota target, that’s entirely up to you. But if you work for a company with quotas, that’s the expectation. If you dislike it enough, I’m sure you’ll leave.
In any case, having a quota to drive productivity and worker efficiency is entirely acceptable. It’s how pretty much every business works that produces widgets. And no, it’s not a type of ‘corporate welfare’ (honestly where does this idea come from??). The corporation is under no obligation to provide you compensation you like or benefits you prefer. If you don’t like the compensation or the benefits as provided, go somewhere else. It’s really very simple.
And — If the State, in its infinite wisdom, decides to subsidize health care for everyone, then everyone pays, including corporations.
As for ‘acknowledging that the US (???) is too materialistic (???) …what on earth does that even mean? By whose standards is that being measured? And why is Bob’s concern with material goods any of Susie’s business?
The truth is, People are, by nature, materialistic (save for the odd saint who shows up every now & then). Some want more, some want less, and we all want differently. That’s life. And I’d say it’s pretty much true for all 8B of us.
But if, indeed, we were to say that 330M people living in the US are ‘too materialistic’ wouldn’t that mean that we are currently OVER concened with everyone’s material well being?? And, visa versa, if we were to somehow, magically, make 330M people less materialistic, wouldn’t that, by definition, make them even LESS concerned with everyone’s material condition?
If you only offer wages that aren’t enough to live on, what else are you doing but expecting your employees to live in poverty?
Without minimum standards it simply becomes a race to the bottom with most companies offering nothing with the taxpayer having to pick up the tab. It’s just corporate welfare
“No business ever forces its employees into poverty. They simply make an employment offer.”
I think that’s just too simplistic. Yes, if you’re good at your job, better than others, you can negotiate your wage and benefits or move up the ladder to another company offering higher wages, though more will be expected from you. But there are a lot of jobs that can be learned pretty quickly for those whose skills are limited, and those jobs offer little in the way of wages and benefits, but they’re also services used by a large proportion of the population, so essential to a large degree, but still low value, hence low wages. The people who take up those positions are very short on choices. And if you suggest they should go and up-skill then who will take up those jobs. How many of those employers, possibly in a jam themselves, are surviving purely because of the minimum wage and no benefits? Should they survive only because they can pay minimum wages? That doesn’t sound like a solution to me. It sounds like people being pushed into poverty.
Well Walmart encouraged their full-time employees to go on food stamps and buy dented goods, and Amazon imposes punishing quotas on its “fulfillment center” workers. For companies that are so big and profitable, I think that kind of worker treatment is unacceptable.
It amounts to a type of corporate welfare, where the cost of strapped workers going on assistance, or with medical issues but no health care access except the ER, gets passed on to taxpayers, since the mega-corps are not required to provide a decent level of compensation and benefits.
And when so many are overworked or in financial straits, the whole society suffers in ways that are not just monetary. I think right, left, and center should be able to acknowledge that the US is too materialistic, and also under-concerned with the material wellbeing of everyone.
I realize that’s not the case, I just think it should be.
“Forcing your employees into poverty”??
My goodness that’s the first time I’ve ever seen the receipt of a paycheck described as something which forces the recipient into having less money than they did before they got the paycheck.
That’s rather an exaggeration don’t you think?
The point Cathy makes is a good one. If benefits beyond the paycheck are critical, the individual looking for a job needs to be targeting those businesses which offer those benefits (and pretty much all medium+ companies do exactly that). If the skill sets are not sufficient to be employed at such a place, then employment at companies with thinner margins (and fewer benefits) becomes the solution to the unemployment problem.
No business ever forces its employees into poverty. They simply make an employment offer. And paychecks should always be preferrable to no paychecks, regardless of benefits.
If the only way your business can survive is by forcing your employees into poverty then the country would be much better off if that business failed and their market share taken by a more productive rival.
The Americans all seem to make a big deal about the idyllic family (working dad, mum staying home baking apple pie and helping the community etc) yet they seem to do all they can to economically discourage it
Social conservatism…In my dreams
There are several states and even a few cities where you wouldn’t have to dream.
There are several states and even a few cities where you wouldn’t have to dream.
Yes, an interesting idea about “The United States’s unique combination of workaholism and social conservatism”, as if it’s the mothers’ own fault and they would turn down maternity leave because they love work so much. But anyway, what’s so unique about it?
And that workaholism must be the reason so many women have two jobs.
Not really. The USA, if you haven’t noticed is enormous and encompasses a wide variety of businesses big and small. Folks tend to be entrepreneurial no matter how much politicians dump on the ambitious. That said, encumbering new businesses by burdening them with ever increasing costs is not good for economic growth. If women want extra benefits they would be smart to target the companies that have the economies of scale to offer them super-duper benefits. No healthy economy should require its businesses to be ‘one-size-fits-all’. There’s a reason why the USA is so vigorous- and seemingly can pay $100 Billion to Ukraine to fight yet another European War. There is still a subset of Americans who are not interested in slowing down economic growth with a European-style welfare state. Maybe American women are just cleverer in parsing myriad possibilities ? And of course, they’ll always be the whiners (like Ms Markle!) who think never enough is done for them.
Social conservatism…In my dreams
“The United States’s unique combination of workaholism and social conservatism means that-”
No, you can blame the tens of thousands of corporate lobbyists in Washington D.C for a lack of paid maternity leave.
For those who are as slow as me, lit=literature. It dawned on me eventually…
Mat=maternity and trad=traditional.
Did the author go over her allotted number of characters?
Perhaps – just as you clearly went over your quota of daily tolerance.
Totally. I just couldn’t get “lit”.
Totally. I just couldn’t get “lit”.
Perhaps – just as you clearly went over your quota of daily tolerance.
For those who are as slow as me, lit=literature. It dawned on me eventually…
Mat=maternity and trad=traditional.
Did the author go over her allotted number of characters?
I was a radical feminist in England in the 1980s. I have rethought many of my ideas over the last few years. I had a powerful urge to have children but made decisions based on my radical feminist conditioning and ended up mothering as a single parent twice. I didn’t expect high enough standards from men especially in the area of providing for their family. I became dependent on the state which was a substitute provider. All I really wanted to do – and still do – is the mothering, home and hearth keeping that women have traditionally done since ancient times. However I felt I shouldn’t want this, that I should be earning as well. I didn’t realise it was natural and good for me. In the last few years, now a grandmother in my 60s, I believe it makes so much sense to have this urge and no longer feel inadequate for wanting to be home and children based.
Of course devoting most or any of one’s life to motherhood and domesticity should not be required of women. But the strain of feminism that sought to shame and discredit stay-at-home motherhood was a bad overcorrection from which we are still trying to recover in much of the so-called West.
What feminism has given us is the choice. Let women have careers in anything they want but I think our families and greater society would benefit immensely if those women so inclined did what comes naturally to many of us.
Feminism has not given us the choice. It is the market which has given us the choice by creating the demand for our labour outside the home. Feminism is the expression of the competition with men that has been the result. It is both real in terms of the market, and unreal because men and women need each other for their different roles as they always have done.
That dichotomy causes a tension between us at the present time, or at least it can if we let it, we can choose not to be feminists, not to play the game.
Feminism has not given us the choice. It is the market which has given us the choice by creating the demand for our labour outside the home. Feminism is the expression of the competition with men that has been the result. It is both real in terms of the market, and unreal because men and women need each other for their different roles as they always have done.
That dichotomy causes a tension between us at the present time, or at least it can if we let it, we can choose not to be feminists, not to play the game.
What feminism has given us is the choice. Let women have careers in anything they want but I think our families and greater society would benefit immensely if those women so inclined did what comes naturally to many of us.
Of course devoting most or any of one’s life to motherhood and domesticity should not be required of women. But the strain of feminism that sought to shame and discredit stay-at-home motherhood was a bad overcorrection from which we are still trying to recover in much of the so-called West.
I was a radical feminist in England in the 1980s. I have rethought many of my ideas over the last few years. I had a powerful urge to have children but made decisions based on my radical feminist conditioning and ended up mothering as a single parent twice. I didn’t expect high enough standards from men especially in the area of providing for their family. I became dependent on the state which was a substitute provider. All I really wanted to do – and still do – is the mothering, home and hearth keeping that women have traditionally done since ancient times. However I felt I shouldn’t want this, that I should be earning as well. I didn’t realise it was natural and good for me. In the last few years, now a grandmother in my 60s, I believe it makes so much sense to have this urge and no longer feel inadequate for wanting to be home and children based.
Written like someone who has never employed anyone. The current system in the US strikes a sensible balance. You can have the time off, but it doesn’t cost your employer more, aside from having to hold your job for 12 weeks, but still get your work done, while you are out.
You can’t have it both ways. If you want employers to not make excuses to not employ child-bearing-age women, you have to make it less onerous and risky to hire them.
An alternative might be to trade paid maternal leave for lower pay, overall. Then, once again, the cost is balanced.
Also about USA:
”mothers are failures if they stay home with their kids (unemployed layabouts!), but also if they work outside the home (neglectful career women!).”
Literally no one thinks this unless the mother uses her children to get State Welfare. A stay at home mother who is supported within the family is respected. A mother who works is respected.
Stay at home mothers are looked down upon but secretly envied, that has been my experience.
Stay at home mothers are looked down upon but secretly envied, that has been my experience.
If it’s such a sensible balance, why does no other first world country copy that system?
To defend current practices from an employer’s perspective is one thing; but “sensible balance” to describe the US labor system or wider economy? That sounds satirical!
Actually most first world nations do copy the American capitalist model, hoping for the same GDP impacts. And if they choose to not copy certain aspects of that free-enterprise model, they do so somehow believing that State intervention will produce a better outcome than market operation. In most cases the jury is still out on that decision.
It’s also more than a little misleading to compare economic model to economic model, nation by nation, because the security of the West, in general, is maintained by the multi-trillion-dollar defense umbrella built and maintained by the U.S.. We currently spend an estimated $800B on defense….the UK, about $59B.
China emerged from it’s economic stagnation exactly because it opened its markets and its resources to the West. Japan became a world economic power because the West essentially rebuilt the Japanese economy & industrial engines after the war.
The fact that the American State has not yet universally mandated $X for maternity leave is a minor variance, made more minor by the fact that about 55% of all businesses do provide paid maternity leave.
As always it’s a question of balance….what is it worth, what does it cost….and in the total list of things that tax payers should be paying for, is paid maternity leave anywhere in the top 50?
To defend current practices from an employer’s perspective is one thing; but “sensible balance” to describe the US labor system or wider economy? That sounds satirical!
Actually most first world nations do copy the American capitalist model, hoping for the same GDP impacts. And if they choose to not copy certain aspects of that free-enterprise model, they do so somehow believing that State intervention will produce a better outcome than market operation. In most cases the jury is still out on that decision.
It’s also more than a little misleading to compare economic model to economic model, nation by nation, because the security of the West, in general, is maintained by the multi-trillion-dollar defense umbrella built and maintained by the U.S.. We currently spend an estimated $800B on defense….the UK, about $59B.
China emerged from it’s economic stagnation exactly because it opened its markets and its resources to the West. Japan became a world economic power because the West essentially rebuilt the Japanese economy & industrial engines after the war.
The fact that the American State has not yet universally mandated $X for maternity leave is a minor variance, made more minor by the fact that about 55% of all businesses do provide paid maternity leave.
As always it’s a question of balance….what is it worth, what does it cost….and in the total list of things that tax payers should be paying for, is paid maternity leave anywhere in the top 50?
“An alternative might be to trade paid maternal leave for lower pay,”
Or the government could pay it.
Like in every other first world country you mean? American exceptionalism would never allow it and besides, they’re the richest country on the globe they couldn’t possibly afford it!
Why a downvote? Is that because people think government shouldn’t pay for it? And if so I’d be interested to hear why.
I’ve upvoted you to put you on the plus side for now. You do realize that expressing a view that the government should do almost anything but stay out of business and labor dealings altogether will bring reflexive downvotes from some commenters here.
I don’t mind the downvotes, I just wanted to know what it was they disagreed with. I’m also finding your syntax a bit confusing. Do you mean people want government out of business or in it. But either way, the government paying for maternity leave doesn’t affect business, except in juggling staff, which they successfully do in many countries.
Out of business and labor concerns completely, among the sort of subscribers who tend to advocate free-market, antigovernment radicalism on this site. The government “paying for” maternity leave does mean increased taxes, perhaps for businesses in particular. I was also thinking of a step that might be more achievable here at present: requiring companies of a certain size to provide maternity leave, perhaps with the govt. subsidizing it on a sliding scale according to size and profitability.
“The government “paying for” maternity leave does mean increased taxes”
Maybe not so much increasing taxes as managing existing taxes a little differently, changing priorities. If the most successful and richest country in the world doesn’t support mothers through maternity leave then I’d say someone’s against it and that reason is, I guess, the idea of keeping government out of peoples lives. And anyway, how do other countries manage to offer maternity leave without destroying the economy or the fabric of society?
I do not disagree. You might be mistaking my point of view but I’ll make a renewed effort to avoid that too.
Sure, I understand that.
Sure, I understand that.
I do not disagree. You might be mistaking my point of view but I’ll make a renewed effort to avoid that too.
“The government “paying for” maternity leave does mean increased taxes”
Maybe not so much increasing taxes as managing existing taxes a little differently, changing priorities. If the most successful and richest country in the world doesn’t support mothers through maternity leave then I’d say someone’s against it and that reason is, I guess, the idea of keeping government out of peoples lives. And anyway, how do other countries manage to offer maternity leave without destroying the economy or the fabric of society?
Out of business and labor concerns completely, among the sort of subscribers who tend to advocate free-market, antigovernment radicalism on this site. The government “paying for” maternity leave does mean increased taxes, perhaps for businesses in particular. I was also thinking of a step that might be more achievable here at present: requiring companies of a certain size to provide maternity leave, perhaps with the govt. subsidizing it on a sliding scale according to size and profitability.
I don’t mind the downvotes, I just wanted to know what it was they disagreed with. I’m also finding your syntax a bit confusing. Do you mean people want government out of business or in it. But either way, the government paying for maternity leave doesn’t affect business, except in juggling staff, which they successfully do in many countries.
Government don’t pay for it other people do
Where I live guns are an available resource to help feed our families when times get tough. Many of us actually have family and community ties which support both parents and children, and reach out to those less fortunate, without involving the federal government. Funding the voracious wasteful bureaucracy advocated in this article would have made it impossible for us to enjoy the custom made framework that supported our early family life. Choice matters.
I’ve upvoted you to put you on the plus side for now. You do realize that expressing a view that the government should do almost anything but stay out of business and labor dealings altogether will bring reflexive downvotes from some commenters here.
Government don’t pay for it other people do
Where I live guns are an available resource to help feed our families when times get tough. Many of us actually have family and community ties which support both parents and children, and reach out to those less fortunate, without involving the federal government. Funding the voracious wasteful bureaucracy advocated in this article would have made it impossible for us to enjoy the custom made framework that supported our early family life. Choice matters.
The government actually being, of course, the taxpayer aka everyone else.
“The government actually being, of course, the taxpayer”
Thats right. Is that the problem, that helping others leads to some sort of unhealthy dependency?
“The government actually being, of course, the taxpayer”
Thats right. Is that the problem, that helping others leads to some sort of unhealthy dependency?
Like in every other first world country you mean? American exceptionalism would never allow it and besides, they’re the richest country on the globe they couldn’t possibly afford it!
Why a downvote? Is that because people think government shouldn’t pay for it? And if so I’d be interested to hear why.
The government actually being, of course, the taxpayer aka everyone else.
Or, an alternative might be for women generally to stay home with their kids in the young years, and to pay fathers enough to support the family. That would best help support the traditional family like the one I grew up in. I still don’t see why society should have to provide for the provision of childcare that mothers should responsible for themselves.
Yes, I’d go along with that. Or at least put the childcare money into supporting mothers at home to supplement their husbands’ wages. But as you can see from comments some see that as locking women up in the home.
Yes, I’d go along with that. Or at least put the childcare money into supporting mothers at home to supplement their husbands’ wages. But as you can see from comments some see that as locking women up in the home.
Also about USA:
”mothers are failures if they stay home with their kids (unemployed layabouts!), but also if they work outside the home (neglectful career women!).”
Literally no one thinks this unless the mother uses her children to get State Welfare. A stay at home mother who is supported within the family is respected. A mother who works is respected.
If it’s such a sensible balance, why does no other first world country copy that system?
“An alternative might be to trade paid maternal leave for lower pay,”
Or the government could pay it.
Or, an alternative might be for women generally to stay home with their kids in the young years, and to pay fathers enough to support the family. That would best help support the traditional family like the one I grew up in. I still don’t see why society should have to provide for the provision of childcare that mothers should responsible for themselves.
Written like someone who has never employed anyone. The current system in the US strikes a sensible balance. You can have the time off, but it doesn’t cost your employer more, aside from having to hold your job for 12 weeks, but still get your work done, while you are out.
You can’t have it both ways. If you want employers to not make excuses to not employ child-bearing-age women, you have to make it less onerous and risky to hire them.
An alternative might be to trade paid maternal leave for lower pay, overall. Then, once again, the cost is balanced.
Perhaps I missed it….the point, that is.
It must be in there somewhere. That there is an American Motherhood Crisis maybe? But there is no evidence of that save the same endless whine of endless victimhood by a handful of Highly Vocal Victimites (Ohhhh, nobody knows the trouble we’ve seen!) who somehow manage to convince publishers that such sexist whining sells (and I guess it does, the bookstores are full of it).
Or perhaps it’s the lack of an official, formal, State-Mandated Maternity Leave policy in the U.S…..cause gosh oh golly, without an official, notarized State Policy (“with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one”), surely no one is having babies are they?
Or perhaps it’s the sad fact — despite all the commercials & personal paeans that testify, ‘Yes, indeed, you can ‘have it all’ — that no, you really can’t (cause no one ever can)? We mere mortals are lucky to walk & chew gum simultaneously….add in birthing babies, raising children, earning incomes, paying bills, being a loving wife & mother & daughter & daughter-in-law, and an informed citizen, good neighbor, party girl, sexy chick, wise woman, earth mother, and general-all round-community asset…well, it’s just not happening. It’s NEVER happened (no matter what Enjoli told us).
Of course reality itself is much different from these hysterical proclamations (cause ‘nobody knows the trouble they’ve seen!) of angsty, feminist ‘sturm und drang’.
The truth is, if you work for a reasonably sized company, you receive a significant chunk of paid maternity leave. The fact that the State does not require it, does not mean it’s not there. The market forces maternity leaves just as it forces many things. If you want to hire good people, then you have to offer what good people demand. Paid maternity leave is part of that package…and everyone’s free to make his or her own choice.
But still there is, or so they say, the ‘hit’ that maternity leave (paid or unpaid) imposes upon a so-called career (cause nobody knows….).
So what? 30 years spent in cubicles, moving numbers, making phone calls, going to meetings, writing memos, shuffling widgets? The vast majority of all of us ‘careerists’ come and go, (not even speaking of Michelangelo) and the vast, implacable Ozymandias Corp simply goes on, implacably chunking out yet more of those redesigned widgets, oblivious entirely to our ‘careers’ (but pleased as punch that so many of us are more than willing to trade our ‘blink-of-time’ lives for a two-dimensional multi-decade sentence on the Widget Ship)
There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. Everyone’s gotta earn a living and shuffling widgets is a pretty good way to do that. But let us not pretend that dressing-up and going widget-shuffling is any more important or appealing or socially or culturally valuable than raising a family. 25 years later and we’ll have either a full-grown human being (flesh of our flesh), who, with just a bit of luck will be with us all the days of our life ….OR…we’ll have a really nice mantel clock, or shiny block of engraved Lucite, and maybe even an open invitation to an annual dinner for all of us who ‘built their widget-shuffling career’ at ole Ozymandias Corp. Make sure you take your name tags at the door, so they know who you are.
In the end, no, ‘motherhood is not in crisis’… motherhood is simply a normally challenging part of being a grown-up… .but for everyone who believes such nonsense, sure, Sudan is probably taking applications even as we speak.
Perhaps I missed it….the point, that is.
It must be in there somewhere. That there is an American Motherhood Crisis maybe? But there is no evidence of that save the same endless whine of endless victimhood by a handful of Highly Vocal Victimites (Ohhhh, nobody knows the trouble we’ve seen!) who somehow manage to convince publishers that such sexist whining sells (and I guess it does, the bookstores are full of it).
Or perhaps it’s the lack of an official, formal, State-Mandated Maternity Leave policy in the U.S…..cause gosh oh golly, without an official, notarized State Policy (“with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one”), surely no one is having babies are they?
Or perhaps it’s the sad fact — despite all the commercials & personal paeans that testify, ‘Yes, indeed, you can ‘have it all’ — that no, you really can’t (cause no one ever can)? We mere mortals are lucky to walk & chew gum simultaneously….add in birthing babies, raising children, earning incomes, paying bills, being a loving wife & mother & daughter & daughter-in-law, and an informed citizen, good neighbor, party girl, sexy chick, wise woman, earth mother, and general-all round-community asset…well, it’s just not happening. It’s NEVER happened (no matter what Enjoli told us).
Of course reality itself is much different from these hysterical proclamations (cause ‘nobody knows the trouble they’ve seen!) of angsty, feminist ‘sturm und drang’.
The truth is, if you work for a reasonably sized company, you receive a significant chunk of paid maternity leave. The fact that the State does not require it, does not mean it’s not there. The market forces maternity leaves just as it forces many things. If you want to hire good people, then you have to offer what good people demand. Paid maternity leave is part of that package…and everyone’s free to make his or her own choice.
But still there is, or so they say, the ‘hit’ that maternity leave (paid or unpaid) imposes upon a so-called career (cause nobody knows….).
So what? 30 years spent in cubicles, moving numbers, making phone calls, going to meetings, writing memos, shuffling widgets? The vast majority of all of us ‘careerists’ come and go, (not even speaking of Michelangelo) and the vast, implacable Ozymandias Corp simply goes on, implacably chunking out yet more of those redesigned widgets, oblivious entirely to our ‘careers’ (but pleased as punch that so many of us are more than willing to trade our ‘blink-of-time’ lives for a two-dimensional multi-decade sentence on the Widget Ship)
There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. Everyone’s gotta earn a living and shuffling widgets is a pretty good way to do that. But let us not pretend that dressing-up and going widget-shuffling is any more important or appealing or socially or culturally valuable than raising a family. 25 years later and we’ll have either a full-grown human being (flesh of our flesh), who, with just a bit of luck will be with us all the days of our life ….OR…we’ll have a really nice mantel clock, or shiny block of engraved Lucite, and maybe even an open invitation to an annual dinner for all of us who ‘built their widget-shuffling career’ at ole Ozymandias Corp. Make sure you take your name tags at the door, so they know who you are.
In the end, no, ‘motherhood is not in crisis’… motherhood is simply a normally challenging part of being a grown-up… .but for everyone who believes such nonsense, sure, Sudan is probably taking applications even as we speak.
Isn’t it time that we all accept that new truth is that biology is not reality. On the other hand, didn’t the Soviets do that in the 1930s? When will we drop all this madness and accept the world as it is?
Isn’t it time that we all accept that new truth is that biology is not reality. On the other hand, didn’t the Soviets do that in the 1930s? When will we drop all this madness and accept the world as it is?
Hi I would politely ask that the author not opine about us unless she actually knows what is going on here. We don’t just hand out guns to whomever asks. And frankly studies show that children need the maternal bond for the first three years of life. If you don’t want to actually rear your children don’t be surprised when they find it easy to estrange themselves from you as adults.
So if that maternal bond is so important, why does American society make it as financially hard as possible for mothers to spend the first year with their children?
Also your gun laws are incredibly lax compared to almost any other first world country, hence the shockingly high number of gun deaths
I’m pretty sure something like 54% of those deaths per annum were suicide. Admittedly still gun related, but not homicide.
So 46% of them weren’t suicide then? That’s still thousands of people who have lost their lives due to guns.
I’d also some of those suicides wouldn’t happen if the people didn’t have access to a gun to do the job for them
So 46% of them weren’t suicide then? That’s still thousands of people who have lost their lives due to guns.
I’d also some of those suicides wouldn’t happen if the people didn’t have access to a gun to do the job for them
Switzerland has very high gun ownership. Use of guns is cultural and due to societal problems. In USA huge number of gun deaths but many, many more legal defenses with firearms.
If guns are illegal then only criminals will have guns.
But you see no intrinsic problem in the fact that there are many more guns than people here in the US?
Switzerland has high levels of gun ownership (though 1 gun for every 4 Swiss is a world away from America that has more guns than people), but those guns are much more tightly regulated. Citizens have to go through stringent background checks, guns are registered and licenced, and it’s exceedingly rare to be given a permit to carry them in public. It’s chalk and cheese to the States
But you see no intrinsic problem in the fact that there are many more guns than people here in the US?
Switzerland has high levels of gun ownership (though 1 gun for every 4 Swiss is a world away from America that has more guns than people), but those guns are much more tightly regulated. Citizens have to go through stringent background checks, guns are registered and licenced, and it’s exceedingly rare to be given a permit to carry them in public. It’s chalk and cheese to the States
“American society make it as financially hard as possible for mothers to spend the first year with their children”
It just doesn’t pay for it
Why not? Society needs children to be born (unless you want large scale immigration), so why not offer assistance to an incredibly important but incredibly expensive part of life?
Young families in the US can face large hospital bills simply for giving birth, and with high rents and low wages many are often then forced back into workforce before the baby even recognises them simply to avoid becoming destitute
In the UK we have gradually increased maternity leave so it is no up to 52 weeks and it has had np perceptible affect on birth rates.
The real issue is that for the vast majority of the population it long since ceased to be possible to raise a possible to raise a family on one income an even with 2 working parents most families cannot afford to raise more than 2 children.
Apart from the wealthy the only section of the population who can really afford to have more than 2 children are the benefit dependant to whom another child is additional income
In the UK we have gradually increased maternity leave so it is no up to 52 weeks and it has had np perceptible affect on birth rates.
The real issue is that for the vast majority of the population it long since ceased to be possible to raise a possible to raise a family on one income an even with 2 working parents most families cannot afford to raise more than 2 children.
Apart from the wealthy the only section of the population who can really afford to have more than 2 children are the benefit dependant to whom another child is additional income
Why not? Society needs children to be born (unless you want large scale immigration), so why not offer assistance to an incredibly important but incredibly expensive part of life?
Young families in the US can face large hospital bills simply for giving birth, and with high rents and low wages many are often then forced back into workforce before the baby even recognises them simply to avoid becoming destitute
But American society does not ‘make it as financially hard as possible’ for new mothers to be mothers. Not only is having a new baby only half or less the price of an average new car (and we buy 15M of them)… American society, the whole of that society, encourages and enables motherhood out the wazoo.
America dotes on kids and moms and apple pies. It always has.
And, as a result, kids were had by the millions for about two centuries here in the U.S. before any kind of paid maternity leave was ever offered to anyone. The population grew by 100X (and not a hint of paid maternity leave anywhere!). My parents didn’t have it…their parents…their parents…their parents. It simply did not exist.
And yet somehow, despite the tremendous financial burden that children create (estimated by some to be as high, today, as $50K/year), Americans still had millions and millions of kids without any state or private subsidies at all.
The point is, any mother is perfectly free to choose to spend the first year with their child. If she is currently employed, that 12 month absence will undoubtedly impact her earning capacity, but she and her husband (the father of the child) are perfectly free to make that choice and that financial sacrifice to achieve that goal. [And actually, given the cost of childcare (est to be $10K annually), the financial sacrifice is really not as painful as it otherwise would be, when we consider that the median income for a 24 yr. old female is a gross of $35K].
The truth is — there are a host of things, behaviors, practices, & customs that are socially highly valued…but equally unsubsidized by the State. The fact that society morally or culturally values something does not mean and does not require tax dollars to pay for the thing valued.
my point was that the bond is important so women need to make a choice to put their own childrens needs ahead of their own. that they can’t get paid to take a year off is not my first concern. it’s unfair to men and women would take advantage of it because they aren’t stupid.
high numbers of gun deaths are due to societal problems rather than lax gun laws. back in the 50’s we didn’t have the same issues even though more people owned guns. if you don’t want law abiding people owning guns then only criminals will own them. we have no social cohesion anymore, nor shared values or history or family stability; there will be a price paid for the societal problems foisted upon us by the people(boomers) who changed the country.
“there will be a price paid for the societal problems foisted upon us by the people(boomers) who changed the country.”
How so?
You talk as if most women have a choice in the matter. It’s a very middle class outlook in life where you think mothers have the financial means to have no money coming in whilst looking after their child.
You bemoan that the problems with guns are due to family breakdowns, yet your outlook on how society should functions is a major cause of families breaking up
I think that you will find that both the numbers of households with guns and the number of guns per capita in the USA were substantially lower than they are today.
“there will be a price paid for the societal problems foisted upon us by the people(boomers) who changed the country.”
How so?
You talk as if most women have a choice in the matter. It’s a very middle class outlook in life where you think mothers have the financial means to have no money coming in whilst looking after their child.
You bemoan that the problems with guns are due to family breakdowns, yet your outlook on how society should functions is a major cause of families breaking up
I think that you will find that both the numbers of households with guns and the number of guns per capita in the USA were substantially lower than they are today.
I’m pretty sure something like 54% of those deaths per annum were suicide. Admittedly still gun related, but not homicide.
Switzerland has very high gun ownership. Use of guns is cultural and due to societal problems. In USA huge number of gun deaths but many, many more legal defenses with firearms.
If guns are illegal then only criminals will have guns.
“American society make it as financially hard as possible for mothers to spend the first year with their children”
It just doesn’t pay for it
But American society does not ‘make it as financially hard as possible’ for new mothers to be mothers. Not only is having a new baby only half or less the price of an average new car (and we buy 15M of them)… American society, the whole of that society, encourages and enables motherhood out the wazoo.
America dotes on kids and moms and apple pies. It always has.
And, as a result, kids were had by the millions for about two centuries here in the U.S. before any kind of paid maternity leave was ever offered to anyone. The population grew by 100X (and not a hint of paid maternity leave anywhere!). My parents didn’t have it…their parents…their parents…their parents. It simply did not exist.
And yet somehow, despite the tremendous financial burden that children create (estimated by some to be as high, today, as $50K/year), Americans still had millions and millions of kids without any state or private subsidies at all.
The point is, any mother is perfectly free to choose to spend the first year with their child. If she is currently employed, that 12 month absence will undoubtedly impact her earning capacity, but she and her husband (the father of the child) are perfectly free to make that choice and that financial sacrifice to achieve that goal. [And actually, given the cost of childcare (est to be $10K annually), the financial sacrifice is really not as painful as it otherwise would be, when we consider that the median income for a 24 yr. old female is a gross of $35K].
The truth is — there are a host of things, behaviors, practices, & customs that are socially highly valued…but equally unsubsidized by the State. The fact that society morally or culturally values something does not mean and does not require tax dollars to pay for the thing valued.
my point was that the bond is important so women need to make a choice to put their own childrens needs ahead of their own. that they can’t get paid to take a year off is not my first concern. it’s unfair to men and women would take advantage of it because they aren’t stupid.
high numbers of gun deaths are due to societal problems rather than lax gun laws. back in the 50’s we didn’t have the same issues even though more people owned guns. if you don’t want law abiding people owning guns then only criminals will own them. we have no social cohesion anymore, nor shared values or history or family stability; there will be a price paid for the societal problems foisted upon us by the people(boomers) who changed the country.
You and I sound like sisters in traditionalism, Kat!
So if that maternal bond is so important, why does American society make it as financially hard as possible for mothers to spend the first year with their children?
Also your gun laws are incredibly lax compared to almost any other first world country, hence the shockingly high number of gun deaths
You and I sound like sisters in traditionalism, Kat!
Hi I would politely ask that the author not opine about us unless she actually knows what is going on here. We don’t just hand out guns to whomever asks. And frankly studies show that children need the maternal bond for the first three years of life. If you don’t want to actually rear your children don’t be surprised when they find it easy to estrange themselves from you as adults.
“Yet some of what Grose describes regarding the pressures to be a “supermom” are specific to the sort of milieu where families have the extra bandwidth to worry about such things.”
Thanks to the author for treading into a difficult subject.
This point itself is brilliant and worthy of a separate essay about :extra bandwidth”–whether that’s extra time, or the creation/fixation on “self” engendered by the post WW2 and contemporary therapized-social media culture. Sure, childbirth hurts whether your self-conception is of a medieval woman wondering why she’s a sinful vessel for men, or a master’s level marketing professional today examining 25 microtraumas and peeling an endless onion of “self,” but one wonders if the tools and freedoms of today do not sometimes CREATE more stressors rather than free one from earlier oppressive ideologies as translated into the 1450 daily life of female disempowerment. There are truths from nondualism here–the “self” as experienced through our inner talking to ourselves is always a phantom fluid procession of symbols and word, and therefore not “real” in any permanent sense. And a lot of freedom–enlightenment, being born again in the Kingdom of God, serenity, whatever you want to call it–comes from recognizing that reality of our being a ripple in a vast ocean on a very profound level. So the more we fixate on self and identity politics, the more we create problems that suck the energy required by the physical/material and basic interpersonal necessities of human life, which are very very real, as any woman who’s given birth can attest.
“Yet some of what Grose describes regarding the pressures to be a “supermom” are specific to the sort of milieu where families have the extra bandwidth to worry about such things.”
Thanks to the author for treading into a difficult subject.
This point itself is brilliant and worthy of a separate essay about :extra bandwidth”–whether that’s extra time, or the creation/fixation on “self” engendered by the post WW2 and contemporary therapized-social media culture. Sure, childbirth hurts whether your self-conception is of a medieval woman wondering why she’s a sinful vessel for men, or a master’s level marketing professional today examining 25 microtraumas and peeling an endless onion of “self,” but one wonders if the tools and freedoms of today do not sometimes CREATE more stressors rather than free one from earlier oppressive ideologies as translated into the 1450 daily life of female disempowerment. There are truths from nondualism here–the “self” as experienced through our inner talking to ourselves is always a phantom fluid procession of symbols and word, and therefore not “real” in any permanent sense. And a lot of freedom–enlightenment, being born again in the Kingdom of God, serenity, whatever you want to call it–comes from recognizing that reality of our being a ripple in a vast ocean on a very profound level. So the more we fixate on self and identity politics, the more we create problems that suck the energy required by the physical/material and basic interpersonal necessities of human life, which are very very real, as any woman who’s given birth can attest.
Despite the comments I still haven’t seen any clear reason as to why maternity leave shouldn’t be covered by the government.
That’s the wrong question.
Rather we should ask, why should it?
We’ve gone for 200+ years without providing paid maternity leave as a ‘unalienable right’…why on earth should we do so now? Because it would be nice to do? Because it would help people? Because we have the billions of dollars simply sitting idle, waiting for a spending opportunity?
Paying for someone’s maternity leave is not a function of the federal government. Indeed it is not an unalienable right. And definitely not a spending need which justifies jumping even further into national debt.
But if we’re asking why not… we might as well ask, why not have the government simply send everyone a monthly check? Why not have all our groceries subsidized? Why not have free college…free transportation….and free funeral expenses?
The fact that paying for stuff is onerous is not an argument for having the State pay for it instead.
If it wasn’t for the necessity of some mothers having to go to work because the household requires two wages to manage the family I would agree. I also understand your position and appreciate you giving me an answer. I also understand your position on wages and employees. Your position sounds very American (are you?), which is keep government out of peoples’ lives, which I also agree with. But asking if we should subsidise groceries, free transport or free funerals, that’s a bit of a straw-man argument. Welfare is tricky, it does cause dependency and waste. My position is, if we’re going to encourage women into the workplace, for whatever reason, and we want a secure, healthy, educated society then somehow we have to fill in the gaps where needed. Maternity leave occurs once only with each child. It can’t be a bad thing for mother and child. Nor does it have to be the same amount and time as private business offers. Other countries do it and somehow it doesn’t have a detrimental affect. Maybe it’s an investment. Not having it contributes in some ways to the idea the mother and child and the health and bonding therein is not essential, that children can be raised under different non-traditional ways. As you say, it’s not an unalienable right, it’s a privilege to be cared for by a caring society, it means you’re important.
American, indeed! (And true, it was a strawman argument)
We are very close on many of these issues…but as you know, close is sometimes far enough apart to feel like disagreement.
I would argue that we’re NOT encouraging women into the workplace. We being, the State. Does our society; does our culture? Probably. 2nd & 3rd Wave Feminism definitely pushed that particular agenda under the mistaken belief that women’s lack of representation in the workplace (some might say, rat race) somehow indicated a lack of ‘equality’…or a lack of ‘power’. and that would be true if we only measured ‘power’ and ‘equality’ as doing what a man does. But personally I’ve also felt that to be a very weak and condescending kind of argument. Like me saying to you, as a for instance, that unless you’re doing what I’m doing…and living as I’m living that not only are you ‘unequal’ you’re ‘less’. That’s ridiculous. As ridiculous as arguing that all of our great-great-great-great grandmothers were ‘powerless’.
In any case, if what we value is a sound and stable family raised with bedrock, high moral standards….then encouraging parenting by proxy is not the thing to do (and subsidizing maternity leave with tax dollars would, indeed, tend to encourage it).
But heck, we could go on for another zillion exchanges on this complex, multi-layered topic…. I understand your points, but probably far more productive (and much more fun) to debate them over a pint!
American, indeed! (And true, it was a strawman argument)
We are very close on many of these issues…but as you know, close is sometimes far enough apart to feel like disagreement.
I would argue that we’re NOT encouraging women into the workplace. We being, the State. Does our society; does our culture? Probably. 2nd & 3rd Wave Feminism definitely pushed that particular agenda under the mistaken belief that women’s lack of representation in the workplace (some might say, rat race) somehow indicated a lack of ‘equality’…or a lack of ‘power’. and that would be true if we only measured ‘power’ and ‘equality’ as doing what a man does. But personally I’ve also felt that to be a very weak and condescending kind of argument. Like me saying to you, as a for instance, that unless you’re doing what I’m doing…and living as I’m living that not only are you ‘unequal’ you’re ‘less’. That’s ridiculous. As ridiculous as arguing that all of our great-great-great-great grandmothers were ‘powerless’.
In any case, if what we value is a sound and stable family raised with bedrock, high moral standards….then encouraging parenting by proxy is not the thing to do (and subsidizing maternity leave with tax dollars would, indeed, tend to encourage it).
But heck, we could go on for another zillion exchanges on this complex, multi-layered topic…. I understand your points, but probably far more productive (and much more fun) to debate them over a pint!
If it wasn’t for the necessity of some mothers having to go to work because the household requires two wages to manage the family I would agree. I also understand your position and appreciate you giving me an answer. I also understand your position on wages and employees. Your position sounds very American (are you?), which is keep government out of peoples’ lives, which I also agree with. But asking if we should subsidise groceries, free transport or free funerals, that’s a bit of a straw-man argument. Welfare is tricky, it does cause dependency and waste. My position is, if we’re going to encourage women into the workplace, for whatever reason, and we want a secure, healthy, educated society then somehow we have to fill in the gaps where needed. Maternity leave occurs once only with each child. It can’t be a bad thing for mother and child. Nor does it have to be the same amount and time as private business offers. Other countries do it and somehow it doesn’t have a detrimental affect. Maybe it’s an investment. Not having it contributes in some ways to the idea the mother and child and the health and bonding therein is not essential, that children can be raised under different non-traditional ways. As you say, it’s not an unalienable right, it’s a privilege to be cared for by a caring society, it means you’re important.
That’s the wrong question.
Rather we should ask, why should it?
We’ve gone for 200+ years without providing paid maternity leave as a ‘unalienable right’…why on earth should we do so now? Because it would be nice to do? Because it would help people? Because we have the billions of dollars simply sitting idle, waiting for a spending opportunity?
Paying for someone’s maternity leave is not a function of the federal government. Indeed it is not an unalienable right. And definitely not a spending need which justifies jumping even further into national debt.
But if we’re asking why not… we might as well ask, why not have the government simply send everyone a monthly check? Why not have all our groceries subsidized? Why not have free college…free transportation….and free funeral expenses?
The fact that paying for stuff is onerous is not an argument for having the State pay for it instead.
Despite the comments I still haven’t seen any clear reason as to why maternity leave shouldn’t be covered by the government.
As the infamous Helen Gurley Brown insisted- “You can have it all, but not all at once”.
As the infamous Helen Gurley Brown insisted- “You can have it all, but not all at once”.
PS. I don’t understand the hostility of some of the regular posters here. It really does seem that as soon as they see that it’s a woman writing about her own or other women’s experience, a bunch of weirdly resentful guys weigh in with weird, unfounded “points” from left field, which because of their obvious irrelevance automatically suggest other motivations for posting.
Thanks to the author for putting up with this. I find this kind of hostility has silenced me publicly (in publishing) my whole life, so appreciate the author’s willingness to put herself out there anyway because she wants to help other people.
Amen. I think many of the female subscribers also refrain or “self-segregate” on these boards. Couldn’t this website remain an open forum without being such a dude/bloke club that isn’t very welcoming to women?
Neither of these two comments make sense to me. There are plenty of interesting comments by men and women on this article. If you object to something someone has said be brave and reply with a challenge, don’t snipe from the sidelines, it’s not a good look.
On this article, I agree. The lack of female presence across many other articles is why I suggested “self-segregation” into certain topical streams. Not a major issue or world injustice, but I think I’m welcome to agree with another commenter’s opinion on what happens on some of these boards, whether or not it makes sense or “looks good” to you. And you’re welcome to snipe back, as you’ve done.
I made a longish independent comment and several replies to this article elsewhere. You can go and find fault, or possibly some agreement, with those if you like too.
No, I have not sniped, to “snipe” in this instance means to make a sly, devious attack from a hidden position. I have openly criticised your comment and the one you were replying to, to the two people responsible, there is nothing sly or hidden about what I have done.
Wow. I’m not hiding either. My comment may have had an edge or lacked validity from your perspective, but it was well-intentioned. What substantive or constructive purpose is served by your assumption of devious or “sly” or other sneaky intent on my part?
In any case, I hope you have a good day or evening depending on your location.
I think you have taken on more than your fair share for the behaviour I was criticising in the first instance, which is to your credit, good for you.
I think you have taken on more than your fair share for the behaviour I was criticising in the first instance, which is to your credit, good for you.
Wow. I’m not hiding either. My comment may have had an edge or lacked validity from your perspective, but it was well-intentioned. What substantive or constructive purpose is served by your assumption of devious or “sly” or other sneaky intent on my part?
In any case, I hope you have a good day or evening depending on your location.
No, I have not sniped, to “snipe” in this instance means to make a sly, devious attack from a hidden position. I have openly criticised your comment and the one you were replying to, to the two people responsible, there is nothing sly or hidden about what I have done.
On this article, I agree. The lack of female presence across many other articles is why I suggested “self-segregation” into certain topical streams. Not a major issue or world injustice, but I think I’m welcome to agree with another commenter’s opinion on what happens on some of these boards, whether or not it makes sense or “looks good” to you. And you’re welcome to snipe back, as you’ve done.
I made a longish independent comment and several replies to this article elsewhere. You can go and find fault, or possibly some agreement, with those if you like too.
Neither of these two comments make sense to me. There are plenty of interesting comments by men and women on this article. If you object to something someone has said be brave and reply with a challenge, don’t snipe from the sidelines, it’s not a good look.
Amen. I think many of the female subscribers also refrain or “self-segregate” on these boards. Couldn’t this website remain an open forum without being such a dude/bloke club that isn’t very welcoming to women?
PS. I don’t understand the hostility of some of the regular posters here. It really does seem that as soon as they see that it’s a woman writing about her own or other women’s experience, a bunch of weirdly resentful guys weigh in with weird, unfounded “points” from left field, which because of their obvious irrelevance automatically suggest other motivations for posting.
Thanks to the author for putting up with this. I find this kind of hostility has silenced me publicly (in publishing) my whole life, so appreciate the author’s willingness to put herself out there anyway because she wants to help other people.
I had to come back to this article and thread as I was sitting there somewhat open-mouthed in surprise. From this European side of the Pond it is truly astonishing the lack of US societal respect for child-bearing. No paid maternity leave, never mind paternity leave, and an eye-watering cost of simply giving birth normally, never mind is something goes amiss, in the American health ‘care’ system.
Do you think that there is somehow a connection to infant mortality rates being at the bottom of the table for comparable countries, and by a long way? And for society in general more people in prison and more murders per capita than almost anyone else?
Oh well, at least they are saved from the taint of socialism in the system, eh!
i just looked in at my fave youtube channel where the influencer was stating she had to wait weeks to see a doctor; she was in england. as another poster stated many businesses offer leave and many others would if they could afford it. we are in the land of small business as you may or may not know. not everyone can afford accommodation in this regard, however most people who work jobs have something called ‘insurance’ that pays a majority of the cost of hospitalization. very poor people may not have it but then they probably should be the ones waiting until they get a better job before popping out a few. however, most people do have it or they have something called ‘medicaid’ that is government funded-otherwise known as ‘taxpayer funded’. more people are in prison because we have a 330 million population that is rich in diversity and poor in social cohesion and it is growing ever more so at a rapid pace thanks to whomever is controlling our commander in chief who is welcoming about 2.5 million illegal crossers a year. but never fear friend for we have many woke district attorneys who have vowed to not convict any criminality no matter how egregious or violent so that prison population is coming down quickly. so perhaps you could refrain from your lofty judgement until you have lived in our wonderful democrat run cities for a full year or two?
I’m not sure that you properly considered what I was saying. Re small businesses, I think that if you dig around you will find that the %age of GDP contributed by small businesses in the EU is much the same as in the USA, and quite possibly larger, so maternity/paternity leave entitlements are not relevant there.
Health insurance in the USA does indeed pay the majority of the cost of treatment, but that cost is so high (and the stats say so relatively ineffective) that the ‘minority’ of that cost is still a serious burden. My anecdotal evidence from friends who have had the misfortune to require medical help in the USA is truly unbelievable to anyone living in Europe.
Anyway, if you wish to think that the societal problems, and infant mortality shame, you have in the USA are not related in any way to the lack of consideration for maternal care then you are free to do so. I suspect that you would be in the minority and that investment in such care would be an economic no-brainer.
I’m not sure that you properly considered what I was saying. Re small businesses, I think that if you dig around you will find that the %age of GDP contributed by small businesses in the EU is much the same as in the USA, and quite possibly larger, so maternity/paternity leave entitlements are not relevant there.
Health insurance in the USA does indeed pay the majority of the cost of treatment, but that cost is so high (and the stats say so relatively ineffective) that the ‘minority’ of that cost is still a serious burden. My anecdotal evidence from friends who have had the misfortune to require medical help in the USA is truly unbelievable to anyone living in Europe.
Anyway, if you wish to think that the societal problems, and infant mortality shame, you have in the USA are not related in any way to the lack of consideration for maternal care then you are free to do so. I suspect that you would be in the minority and that investment in such care would be an economic no-brainer.
i just looked in at my fave youtube channel where the influencer was stating she had to wait weeks to see a doctor; she was in england. as another poster stated many businesses offer leave and many others would if they could afford it. we are in the land of small business as you may or may not know. not everyone can afford accommodation in this regard, however most people who work jobs have something called ‘insurance’ that pays a majority of the cost of hospitalization. very poor people may not have it but then they probably should be the ones waiting until they get a better job before popping out a few. however, most people do have it or they have something called ‘medicaid’ that is government funded-otherwise known as ‘taxpayer funded’. more people are in prison because we have a 330 million population that is rich in diversity and poor in social cohesion and it is growing ever more so at a rapid pace thanks to whomever is controlling our commander in chief who is welcoming about 2.5 million illegal crossers a year. but never fear friend for we have many woke district attorneys who have vowed to not convict any criminality no matter how egregious or violent so that prison population is coming down quickly. so perhaps you could refrain from your lofty judgement until you have lived in our wonderful democrat run cities for a full year or two?
I had to come back to this article and thread as I was sitting there somewhat open-mouthed in surprise. From this European side of the Pond it is truly astonishing the lack of US societal respect for child-bearing. No paid maternity leave, never mind paternity leave, and an eye-watering cost of simply giving birth normally, never mind is something goes amiss, in the American health ‘care’ system.
Do you think that there is somehow a connection to infant mortality rates being at the bottom of the table for comparable countries, and by a long way? And for society in general more people in prison and more murders per capita than almost anyone else?
Oh well, at least they are saved from the taint of socialism in the system, eh!
From the European side of the Pond I am gobsmacked by the US disdain for child bearing and rearing, surely the bedrock of a civilised and sane society. And that is without the crushing expense of actually giving birth in the US health system.
Could this be related to the infant mortality stats being by far the worst in comparable countries, or the per capita incarceration and murder numbers being worse than just about anywhere else?
I’m from the other side of the pond, a US-Canadian dual citizen living in the States. and I agree with your comment, including your concluding interrogative statement or comment in question form.
In my view, Americans who aren’t appalled by the conditions you’ve listed ought to be. I don’t want to participate in–and wouldn’t agree with–a wholesale anti-American rant (I don’t suggest that you’ve made one), but the violence, poverty, and weakness of the social “safety net” overall are a bigger, more unnecessary problem than many Americans will acknowledge.
It’s easy to find comments here that characterize any claim of homegrown American hardship as whiny victimhood, laziness, or the Price of Freedom (which seems to include year-round mass shootings). While I admit that laziness and victimology contribute to some of the suffering, all of it in certain individual cases, to shrug off these major societal problems so dismissively seems ignorant and cruel to me. Or at least a bit heart-starved.
I’m from the other side of the pond, a US-Canadian dual citizen living in the States. and I agree with your comment, including your concluding interrogative statement or comment in question form.
In my view, Americans who aren’t appalled by the conditions you’ve listed ought to be. I don’t want to participate in–and wouldn’t agree with–a wholesale anti-American rant (I don’t suggest that you’ve made one), but the violence, poverty, and weakness of the social “safety net” overall are a bigger, more unnecessary problem than many Americans will acknowledge.
It’s easy to find comments here that characterize any claim of homegrown American hardship as whiny victimhood, laziness, or the Price of Freedom (which seems to include year-round mass shootings). While I admit that laziness and victimology contribute to some of the suffering, all of it in certain individual cases, to shrug off these major societal problems so dismissively seems ignorant and cruel to me. Or at least a bit heart-starved.
From the European side of the Pond I am gobsmacked by the US disdain for child bearing and rearing, surely the bedrock of a civilised and sane society. And that is without the crushing expense of actually giving birth in the US health system.
Could this be related to the infant mortality stats being by far the worst in comparable countries, or the per capita incarceration and murder numbers being worse than just about anywhere else?
Good article and I love the literate informality of the author’s style. Spot on concerning the prevalence of American exceptionalism, which also manifests as self-hating anti-American exceptionalism: as long as we’re either best or worse–nothing in between though.
Another reason that basics like guaranteed maternity leave are very hard to accomplish here in the US is that many regard anything federal as a net-negative, if not an evil plot. Some voters (and non-voters) prefer a mutually-gerrymandered, gridlocked Congress to one that would actually pass laws and protections that might dishonor the purity of our sacred Lady Liberty. I sympathize with a certain strain of this libertarianism, but not without a stronger safety net.
Most of the British and European commenters here seem quite knowledgeable about American society and politics. I wish I could claim the same thing in reverse for Americans, but of course I can’t. However, I’m not sure that some realize just how severe and widespread homelessness and working poverty/indebtedness are in the US. While it’s true that opportunities exist for most who have the will to help themselves, the services for those who’ve fallen through the cracks are sparse and meager in many cities.
And there are an appalling number of Americans who have a contempt for the poor, overworked (many of them single moms) and unraveled (addiction, mental problems, isolation, etc.) that rivals the pre-visitation Ebenezer Scrooge: let ’em die to “reduce the surplus population”. This slightly exaggerates most of the forget-your-neighbor, hardcore cowboy-capitalist attitudes that are common here–but only slightly.
That attitude has always seemed strange to me in a country that proclaims it’s Christian ethos much more loudly than it’s British/European/Australian counterparts. Large parts of the New Testament to me seem a complete contradiction to how Americans view their “every man for himself” society
I totally agree. I think I can hear the cognitive dissonance from indoors on this rainy day.
churches do a lot for people, you just don’t hear about it. the Bible teaches about repentance and self-responsibility, not simply sitting around singing kumbaya. but don’t worry, we are catching up to europe in the lack of belief; can’t wait to see what that will bring if people actually have no special value.
Yes, churches do more good than many admit. Deep belief will eventually manifest itself in action: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me”. Goodness and sincerity of faith in individual people are known by their fruits.
Yes, churches do more good than many admit. Deep belief will eventually manifest itself in action: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me”. Goodness and sincerity of faith in individual people are known by their fruits.
I totally agree. I think I can hear the cognitive dissonance from indoors on this rainy day.
churches do a lot for people, you just don’t hear about it. the Bible teaches about repentance and self-responsibility, not simply sitting around singing kumbaya. but don’t worry, we are catching up to europe in the lack of belief; can’t wait to see what that will bring if people actually have no special value.
i don’t think any of you have realistic views of poor people, unmarried mothers, addicts or criminals. most conservatives understand that people pay a price for bad decisions; it’s the only way to avoid continuing making those bad decisions and even then some never learn. you act as if a vast majority have come to their plights through no fault of their own. most of us, i believe, think that there should be a safety net that is temporary until they can become self sufficient.
I agree with a portion of that, apart from your general denial of “realistic views” to “any of us”, but me in particular. It makes sense that a traditionalist or socially conservative perspective (using your self-identification) would be more about “tough love” and deserved consequences. I don’t deny the validity of that approach, within reason.
But there is also a tradition of helping the poor, mistreated, or downhearted and extending forgiveness and compassion to those who have wronged us (or Society), since we have needed or may one day need a similar kindness. That doesn’t mean giving the same help over and over, or enabling stubborn bad behavior, but it can mean erring on the side of generosity and second chances. Only some will make real use of that grace, but I’d rather get burned 9 times out of 10 than write people off left and right.
I don’t believe that 2 million incarcerated people, plus so many homeless and hopeless, broken and alienated people as I observe across the US today can be chalked up to the natural and fair consequences for bad decisions (a sizable portion of it can be, of course). Most human beings are not truly self-sufficient: We need each other and we need a measure of grace, both in giving and receiving.
I agree with a portion of that, apart from your general denial of “realistic views” to “any of us”, but me in particular. It makes sense that a traditionalist or socially conservative perspective (using your self-identification) would be more about “tough love” and deserved consequences. I don’t deny the validity of that approach, within reason.
But there is also a tradition of helping the poor, mistreated, or downhearted and extending forgiveness and compassion to those who have wronged us (or Society), since we have needed or may one day need a similar kindness. That doesn’t mean giving the same help over and over, or enabling stubborn bad behavior, but it can mean erring on the side of generosity and second chances. Only some will make real use of that grace, but I’d rather get burned 9 times out of 10 than write people off left and right.
I don’t believe that 2 million incarcerated people, plus so many homeless and hopeless, broken and alienated people as I observe across the US today can be chalked up to the natural and fair consequences for bad decisions (a sizable portion of it can be, of course). Most human beings are not truly self-sufficient: We need each other and we need a measure of grace, both in giving and receiving.
That attitude has always seemed strange to me in a country that proclaims it’s Christian ethos much more loudly than it’s British/European/Australian counterparts. Large parts of the New Testament to me seem a complete contradiction to how Americans view their “every man for himself” society
i don’t think any of you have realistic views of poor people, unmarried mothers, addicts or criminals. most conservatives understand that people pay a price for bad decisions; it’s the only way to avoid continuing making those bad decisions and even then some never learn. you act as if a vast majority have come to their plights through no fault of their own. most of us, i believe, think that there should be a safety net that is temporary until they can become self sufficient.
Good article and I love the literate informality of the author’s style. Spot on concerning the prevalence of American exceptionalism, which also manifests as self-hating anti-American exceptionalism: as long as we’re either best or worse–nothing in between though.
Another reason that basics like guaranteed maternity leave are very hard to accomplish here in the US is that many regard anything federal as a net-negative, if not an evil plot. Some voters (and non-voters) prefer a mutually-gerrymandered, gridlocked Congress to one that would actually pass laws and protections that might dishonor the purity of our sacred Lady Liberty. I sympathize with a certain strain of this libertarianism, but not without a stronger safety net.
Most of the British and European commenters here seem quite knowledgeable about American society and politics. I wish I could claim the same thing in reverse for Americans, but of course I can’t. However, I’m not sure that some realize just how severe and widespread homelessness and working poverty/indebtedness are in the US. While it’s true that opportunities exist for most who have the will to help themselves, the services for those who’ve fallen through the cracks are sparse and meager in many cities.
And there are an appalling number of Americans who have a contempt for the poor, overworked (many of them single moms) and unraveled (addiction, mental problems, isolation, etc.) that rivals the pre-visitation Ebenezer Scrooge: let ’em die to “reduce the surplus population”. This slightly exaggerates most of the forget-your-neighbor, hardcore cowboy-capitalist attitudes that are common here–but only slightly.
Interesting that the most capitalist nation on planet earth invokes the most anti family policies that are then attributed to communism via feminist demands.