regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (07/11/85)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics,net.social >A matter of practical concern: Several have suggested that after a >woman has interrupted her career to have a child, she should return to >work and the husband should now interrupt his career to care for the >child for a while. This sounds good on the surface and in a utopian >world, it probably would be. Certainly it would be fair but would it >be practical? In this competitive world of ever rising cost of >living, does it make sense to interrupt *both* careers? Think about >it before you start flaming at my "male arrogance" and remember that >neither I nor any other male designed the "plumbing" of either sex. >(:-}) >Charlie Sorsby Some years back, there was concern that shortening the work day to 8 hours in some industries would make certain jobs less "productive" and put the employers at an economic disadvantage (and therefore, they would not agree to an 8 hour day). Ah....how "impractical". The fact that many parents of both sexes may interrupt their careers for a short period to deal with small children would help to reduce the stigma of leaving for short periods of time for personal reasons -- regardless of sex or the reason itself. We, the actual workers in the market, are as much the molders of this "competitive world" of rising cost (and of work expectations, which is what you are really dealing with, since cost is just a translation of the worth of a certain body of work). Afterall, it is by our actions, expectations, beliefs, vote, lobbying, insistance that we create our own environment. Women have historically "chosen" to take time off to deal with children. I submit that men have historically "chosen" NOT to. If the former chooses to do so less, and the latter chooses to do so more often, the workplace will adjust to include the notion of "time off" for kids as a universal benefit for workers, regardless of sex. Time-share jobs started out just that way, and haven't created massive binds in the market, either. Yes, I know you can give me a negative example. I can give positive examples. Do we need to go through that exercise?) Of course, men can continue to chose NOT to, but what is their gain? 'course, so many men don't think of it thatta way.
crs@lanl.ARPA (07/15/85)
> > Women have historically "chosen" to take time off to deal with children. > I submit that men have historically "chosen" NOT to. If the former chooses > to do so less, and the latter chooses to do so more often, the workplace > will adjust to include the notion of "time off" for kids as a universal > benefit for workers, regardless of sex. Unfortuneately, by the time the market adjusts to allow me to do so, my children will have grown to adulthood so I am unlikely to benefit, though they may. > Time-share jobs started out > just that way, and haven't created massive binds in the market, either. I didn't mean that the market (if by market, you mean the employers) would suffer; I meant that in todays world the careers of *both* employees rather than just of one, would suffer and the family as a whole would be at a disadvantage with respect to income. > Yes, I know you can give me a negative example. I can give positive > examples. Do we need to go through that exercise?) No. > Of course, men can > continue to chose NOT to, but what is their gain? Beats me; I'm on your side. I was just calling some practical considerations to your attention (collective form of "your"). > 'course, so many men don't think of it thatta way. -- Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (07/22/85)
>>> Unfortunately, MOST OF US can't take a year or two off and not >>> risk spending another year obtaining another job. (Women too!) So what!? >>Today none of us men or women can afford to take a year or two off >>either for economic or profesional reasons. >Is it me, or does no one else realize that most states and employers >*allow* a women time off for "maternity leave" and are *forbidden* to >discriminate against these women when they return to their place >of employment? >Men, of course, don't have the same rights. So if a man takes time >off to raise, or to help raise, his child, it hurts him more >professionally than the women. --Ross Greenberg Yes, Ross, but why does it "hurt him more"? Could it be because men, on the whole, haven't lobbied for their "rights" to take a full part in the first few months responsibility of raising kids? Could it be because men are subject to unfair expectations as to their "commitment" to a work effort, and that expectation doesn't allow for external commitments without punishing them in the workplace? If you are speaking of "greater hurt" in an economic sense (a woman gets her $200/wk paycheck when she is on leave, a man doesn't get his $400/wk paycheck, for example) might it not be because men are being _overpaid_, their wives are being _underpaid_ and therefore the men are not able to take the time off because their wives cannot get paid enough to "allow" _him_ to stay home, if he so chooses? Or are men just abdicating, and leaving it up to the women (which is a whole set of prejudicial assumptions that does affect women and their work image MUCH MORE than men)? >>Any man who can use this kind of arguement or who allows this reasoning to >>shrug off a responsibility he voluntarily created is guilty of working to >>maintain the very discrimination which has kept women ** in the kitchen ** >>for so many years (generations). >Hogwash! So if *we* decide that *we* wish for *our* family to have >the highest possible standard of living and (for whatever reason) I make more >than my spouse, then by *our* deciding who quits the job to raise *our* >kid, then *I* am guilt of some foul deed? Yes, no and maybe. As long as you don't really have a choice (i.e., men in general do make more and women, in general do get maternity benefits) you can't really be held up for blame -- except for the fact that you haven't done a damn thing to change this arbitrary set of assumptions. Nobody in this context is really acting from CHOICE, but instead choosing the only logical outcome in a skewed workplace. Come the day when you REALLY have a choice (i.e., both women and men make the same money, so who works and who doesn't is a matter of personal choice rather than economics, and that both men and women have "family leave" from their work, without prejudice) then it will not be at all remarkable that one may make personal choices based on personal preferences. We have not yet reached that date. >further comments of a more personal and flammable nature. . . O.K., let's not get personal about "horrendous" mothers, and irresponsible fathers. There are plenty of great and lousy people in both sexes. The point is, women and men in the workplace are not acting out of free choice because the workplace does not yet recognise their contributions in an equal sense, does not recognise their level of commitment in an objective way, and does not allow them the same rights and recognise the same res- ponsibilities toward familial obligations. There are numerous women who have fought for their benefits. There is a significantly smaller number of men who have done the same. But it's a little silly to get all hot under the collar about "what choice does a man have faced with the ruination of his career" when the men insist on working under a different set of rules. The same question applies to women, in every case, and the altera- tions to the workplace have addressed these complaints. Personally, I think that the repurcussions of "maternity leave" are incredibly ruinous to women -- but what's the option, presently, if men don't take a hand in their own destinies, continuing to buy the old assumptions? Personally, I think every woman in the world ought to demand their husband/ child's father take off two months (after her maternity leave, for instance) each time she has a child just out of a righteous notion of social engineering; however, I don't believe in social engineering myself, so I'm not going to get on a soap box about it. But I'll certainly encourage my friends, and my co-workers, and anybody whose interested. If I were a man, I'd be as furious about the inequality of "maternity" (Parental) benefits as I currently am (being a woman) about discrimination against women in the workplace. So, get furious, Ross, but don't bother with getting furious at Jeanette -- get furious about the people who are making assumptions about you and your fellow men where it counts -- at the office. Adrienne Regard
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/26/85)
In article <580@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > >Yes, Ross, but why does it "hurt him more"? Could it be because men, on >the whole, haven't lobbied for their "rights" to take a full part in the >first few months responsibility of raising kids? Probably --- men really don't have any kind of organization behind them. Do you remember the ridicule directed at someone in net.women about a year ago when he suggested starting a "National Org. of Men"? The basic flame directed at this poor individual was:"Men already have all the advantage. Why would you need some _sexist_ group like that?" This was about the same time, BTW, that the "Association for Women in Computing" was considered *not* to be sexist in anyway by some members of this group. (Talking about joint responsibility in deciding who works and who stays home based on men making more money than women. Anger at this being called sexist): > >Yes, no and maybe. As long as you don't really have a choice (i.e., men in >general do make more and women, in general do get maternity benefits) you >can't really be held up for blame -- except for the fact that you haven't >done a damn thing to change this arbitrary set of assumptions. You're right -- we (men) haven't. You (women) have: the issue of pregnancy is now a special case. It used to be considered a "disability". This was changed, and now maternity leave is a benefit. Certainly pregancy is not a disability, but the benefit of maternity leave comes with a certain cost. Maybe a cost that wasn't thought about, and now the rules should be changed a little? I would love to take the time off to raise a child. But women MUST have time off due to the simple idea that she gives birth to the child. I would hope that the pregnancy didn't just happen: that it was planned, and the family decided whether they could afford it on one person's salary for a while. Okay, this is not the case in single mother households, I agree. But I'm only discussing the traditional family here. >.... Personally, I >think that the repurcussions of "maternity leave" are incredibly ruinous >to women -- but what's the option, presently, if men don't take a hand in >their own destinies, continuing to buy the old assumptions? > I tend to agree with you: women fought long and hard for something that can and is used against them. But the repurcussions are not totally in the man's lap: women were demanding special treatment that was solely based upon their sex and upon their capability of having children. I don't deny the right to special treatment. But is it fair to say: I want special treatment that benefits me due to my sex, and how dare you~r discriminate against me due to my sex? I, too, would love to have my cake, and eat it also. >.... If I were a man, >I'd be as furious about the inequality of "maternity" (Parental) benefits >as I currently am (being a woman) about discrimination against women in >the workplace. > >So, get furious, Ross, but don't bother with getting furious at Jeanette -- >get furious about the people who are making assumptions about you and your >fellow men where it counts -- at the office. > I am furious. I want the ability to take time off to raise my child. My Dad did an extraordinary job of raising me while still working. I would love to have the same strength, but would rather be able to work at raising my child on a full-time basis. But you're right, of course. I shouldn't get angry at Jeanette (Hi, Jeanette!). She is responding to the situation as she sees/feels it, just as I am. Sigh.... Thank you, Adrienne! Now the question exists: How do men get equal right???? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I saw _Lassie_. It took me four shows to figure out why the hairy kid never spoke. I mean, he could roll over and all that, but did that deserve a series?"
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/29/85)
> I am furious. I want the ability to take time off to raise my child. > My Dad did an extraordinary job of raising me while still working. I > would love to have the same strength, but would rather be able to > work at raising my child on a full-time basis. > > Thank you, Adrienne! Now the question exists: How do men get > equal right???? > > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York I guess you lobby for them, just like women did. Surely men as a group can find a way to accomplish this since women managed to. And if it is not presented as a way to "get back at women", there is a great chance that women's group would also support equal paternity and maternity leaves (I think most feminists do). After all, such equality is in the best interest of everybody involved except corporations. Therefore it is against business that your fight will be directed, not women. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
friedman@h-sc1.UUCP (dawn friedman) (08/01/85)
Single >: Ross Greenberg > I would love to take the time off to raise a child. But women MUST have > time off due to the simple idea that she gives birth to the child. > I would hope that the pregnancy didn't just happen: that it was planned, > and the family decided whether they could afford it on one person's > salary for a while. Okay, this is not the case in single mother > households, I agree. But I'm only discussing the traditional > family here. It seems to me that this describes a family, starting with two adults, which intends to create a child. They make their plans to absorb the monetary, emotional and sheer time costs that childrearing entails, because having a child is a personal good for them, a goal worthy of some sacrifices. One then hopes that, as two humans who are on equal terms and respect each other, they will try to share these costs in a fair way. But this describes the interaction solely *within* the family, in analogy to a person buying an apple. There is some feeling that *society* has, as a group goal, the promotion of people's ability to buy apples at a non-prohibitive cost -- or at least to buy some reasonable substitute at non-prohibitive cost. There is no close substitute for children. Is it a goal of society, or should it be, to promote conditions that make childrearing NOT prohibitively costly to a couple? > > But the repurcussions are not totally in the man's lap: women were > demanding special treatment that was solely based upon their sex and > upon their capability of having children. I don't deny the right > to special treatment. > > But is it fair to say: I want special treatment that benefits me > due to my sex, and how dare you~r discriminate against me due to my > sex? I, too, would love to have my cake, and eat it also. The point I want to make is that maternity leave is *not* a benefit to the female sex alone! Are women the only people who care if babies are born in a comfortable and safe environment chosen ahead of time, or in a taxi in a midtown traffic jam? How can maternity leave -- and by extension, any "special treatment" received by the pregnant partner which furthers the bearing of a healthy child, or makes pregnancy and childbirth easier on the mother (who will then be less reluctant to entail these costs) -- be discriminatory against men? It cannot, unless men don't care whether women can have babies safely. Paternity leave should, I think, also be seen as a benefit to the *couple* raising a child, rather than to MEN as opposed to women. This leaves us asking whether it is fair to discriminate, not on the basis of sex, but in favor of *childrearers* (couples, or single men or women, who choose to give birth to or adopt, and then care for, children) as opposed to nonchildrearers. Which brings me back to my original question: Is, or should be, the furtherance of the choice to rear children rather than doing without, a societal goal? If it is, then we'll have to come to terms with the (blessed, from my point of view at least!) transformation of child raising from an operation carried out by a woman, supported by a man, into something for which the couple shares the responsibilities of actual child-work and financial support in proportions they determine (ideally) for themselves. And with the phenomenon of the single parent (I am thinking mostly of poor single mothers) who *must* take both these responsibilities on hirself. If society is not to be concerned with this goal, then employers will be left free to decide whether *they* are, and what they'd like to do about it. But it seems clear to me that, unless I badly misinterpret men's feelings about having kids, maternity leave is not a discriminatory benefit to women, nor paternity leave to men; they both discriminate in favor of childraising families. dsf (dina ansieri)
moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (08/05/85)
In article <357@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > >Probably --- men really don't have any kind of organization behind them. >Do you remember the ridicule directed at someone in net.women about a >year ago when he suggested starting a "National Org. of Men"? > >The basic flame directed at this poor individual was:"Men already have >all the advantage. Why would you need some _sexist_ group like >that?" > >This was about the same time, BTW, that the "Association for Women in >Computing" was considered *not* to be sexist in anyway by some members >of this group. > Ross, unless the flamers are the same people who consider AWC to not be sexist, NO inconsistency exists. Just a difference of opinion. If men really don't have any kind of organization behind them, whose fault is that? What, a little ridicule stopped you? Do you think that NOW just materialized out of thin air, and that it continues to exist through inertia? Don't be silly. Women have these groups because people perceive a need, and care enough about it to donate time and money to make it happen. LOTS and LOTS of time and money. Back to the trenches.... Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (08/08/85)
Ross Greenberg >>"disability". This was changed, and now maternity leave is a benefit. >>Certainly pregancy is not a disability, but the benefit of >>maternity leave comes with a certain cost. Moira Mallison >Is this really true? As I posted before, there is no "maternity >leave" as such here at Tek. There is a short term *disability* >available for a period of about six weeks; it is under the same >terms as elective surgery: the woman is expected to return to >work when the physician certifies that she is physically capable. >Is this significantly different from other large corporations? At the company I work for, "maternity leave" is treated as any other "disability leave". Short term, up to 6 weeks, the doctor must verify your availability to return to work, and your job must be held for that period. You don't automatically get 6 weeks -- that's the max. If your doctor says o.k., you can be back on the job the day after. It is not a "benefit". If you suffer severe health problems from child-birth, you may end up on extended disability, similar to suffering an extensive disability as a result of injury/illness. I don't believe the company is obliged to hold your job. Personal leave is also available (as Moira noted), but it's terms are the same for men or women -- unpaid, and they don't have to hold your job, though they typically agree to for a 2 month period. This may differ state to state. Adrienne Regard