Community > Parenting Talk

Topic: Society does not respect mothers..
Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48916	Thu 02/26/15 06:23 AM
Me: The first post in this thread simply says, "U.S. does not respect mothers." When people challenged Estelle to support her claim, she posted the following: This page has a list, see where the U.S. falls on that list...it's a big zero.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave The best place for families in the world: "Central European countries have the longest parental leave regulations in the world. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, it is standard that mothers stay at home for 3 years after a child's birth.Mothers can decide to take 2, 3, or 4 years of maternity leave." Estelle79: Do you have an opinion about that example of disrespect for mothers in the US? What we have here is an example of "begging the question". A lack of federally-mandated paid maternity leave in the USA isn't necessarily an example of disrespect for mothers. Do you think other countries are wrong or do you agree that the US should offer some kind of paid parental leave? (Sick leave is not maternity leave, as pregnant women are not ill) In order to have equal protection under the law, new fathers would have to be granted paid paternity leave so that they could stay home to help take care of their babies and to bond with their babies. Now, are you advocating equal protection, or are you advocating disrespect of fathers?

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Thu 02/26/15 06:42 AM
The first post in this thread simply says, "U.S. does not respect mothers." When people challenged Estelle to support her claim, she posted the following: This page has a list, see where the U.S. falls on that list...it's a big zero.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave The best place for families in the world: "Central European countries have the longest parental leave regulations in the world. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, it is standard that mothers stay at home for 3 years after a child's birth.Mothers can decide to take 2, 3, or 4 years of maternity leave." thats kind of stupid, really, IMO... your there to do a job, not to take a four year vacation... if a person liked and wanted their job, they wouldn't do this, very irresponsible... three or four moths seems good, and the company can help pay for child care expenses... 4 years is just ludicrous...

devildog123 Joined Mon 09/08/14 Posts: 3902	Thu 02/26/15 10:32 AM
I don't know how it works in Europe so I really can't comment on that, but I do know business in the U.S.. and if business's were mandated to allow up to 3-4 years of maturity leave a few things would happen. With the exception of maybe huge corporations business would not hire women in their 20's - 30's ( child bearing years) As they would not want to train and hire someone only to have them go out on a 4 year leave. You can call that discrimination or whatever you want, but that is what would happen.. we all know it. Is it right?..no, but that is what would happen. And there is nothing the Government can do about it. Normal Business's can not be forced to hire someone. In business every employee has to add to the bottom line. To contribute.. every day. So, that person who went on a 3-4 year leave has to be replaced. Somebody has to do their job? What do you do when she comes back... fire the person who has been doing the job for 4 years?.. is that fair? And then give the person who came back a "grace period" to get caught up with what has changed in the industry in the last 4 years?.. business does not stand still. And as a businessman what do you then do.. hope that she does not decide to have another child.. and go back out for 3-4 more years. Starting the cycle all over again. It that fair to the business? In my opinion it would have a negative employment effect on all women. I think 3-4 months is sufficient and fair. And anything over 6 months you then runs the risk of the company not holding the job.

luvmeforlife Joined Wed 11/06/13 Posts: 700	Thu 02/26/15 10:44 AM
Right as 4 years leave = Jobless. lol But we do have fair *** rules here as the husbands can also take 1 month maternity leave if they felt like it (paid or not).

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Thu 02/26/15 02:36 PM
Right as 4 years leave = Jobless. lol But we do have fair *** rules here as the husbands can also take 1 month maternity leave if they felt like it (paid or not). thats fine too, the mother needs the help as well...babies in the first few months are the hardest to deal with, a very sudden change for the parents

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48916	Thu 02/26/15 02:51 PM
Right as 4 years leave = Jobless. lol But we do have fair *** rules here as the husbands can also take 1 month maternity leave if they felt like it (paid or not). thats fine too, the mother needs the help as well...babies in the first few months are the hardest to deal with, a very sudden change for the parents I wish I could have had paid paternity leave after my son was born, because I was working full-time, attending college part-time and taking care of my son at night while his mother worked an overnight shift. Alas, society has no respect for fathers, not even the societies in European nations.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 02/26/15 06:33 PM
I don't know how it works in Europe so I really can't comment on that, but I do know business in the U.S.. and if business's were mandated to allow up to 3-4 years of maturity leave a few things would happen. With the exception of maybe huge corporations business would not hire women in their 20's - 30's ( child bearing years) As they would not want to train and hire someone only to have them go out on a 4 year leave. You can call that discrimination or whatever you want, but that is what would happen.. we all know it. Is it right?..no, but that is what would happen. And there is nothing the Government can do about it. Normal Business's can not be forced to hire someone. In business every employee has to add to the bottom line. To contribute.. every day. So, that person who went on a 3-4 year leave has to be replaced. Somebody has to do their job? What do you do when she comes back... fire the person who has been doing the job for 4 years?.. is that fair? And then give the person who came back a "grace period" to get caught up with what has changed in the industry in the last 4 years?.. business does not stand still. And as a businessman what do you then do.. hope that she does not decide to have another child.. and go back out for 3-4 more years. Starting the cycle all over again. It that fair to the business? In my opinion it would have a negative employment effect on all women. I think 3-4 months is sufficient and fair. And anything over 6 months you then runs the risk of the company not holding the job. these countries budget better and its MOSTLY a government compensation,, like our unemployment or workers comp

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 02/26/15 06:34 PM
Right as 4 years leave = Jobless. lol But we do have fair *** rules here as the husbands can also take 1 month maternity leave if they felt like it (paid or not). thats fine too, the mother needs the help as well...babies in the first few months are the hardest to deal with, a very sudden change for the parents I wish I could have had paid paternity leave after my son was born, because I was working full-time, attending college part-time and taking care of my son at night while his mother worked an overnight shift. Alas, society has no respect for fathers, not even the societies in European nations. sure they do,, society generally doesn't put much stigma on them if they decide to walk away,,, even while they are still 'in the relationship' its mostly the expectations on the mother,, and father only has to earn a check,,,

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48916	Thu 02/26/15 07:13 PM
Alas, society has no respect for fathers, not even the societies in European nations. sure they do,, society generally doesn't put much stigma on them if they decide to walk away,,, Are you kidding? Where I live, any man who abandons his own child is considered to be scum. When I was in the military, that opinion was very common among the military personnel I knew. When I was moving about the USA (going from one corner of the nation to the opposite corner), every social group that I was in thought the same way. Granted, it is possible that a certain subculture might turn a blind eye to a man abandoning his child.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 02/26/15 07:26 PM
Alas, society has no respect for fathers, not even the societies in European nations. sure they do,, society generally doesn't put much stigma on them if they decide to walk away,,, Are you kidding? Where I live, any man who abandons his own child is considered to be scum. When I was in the military, that opinion was very common among the military personnel I knew. When I was moving about the USA (going from one corner of the nation to the opposite corner), every social group that I was in thought the same way. Granted, it is possible that a certain subculture might turn a blind eye to a man abandoning his child. yep when its known, when the individual man is known to have walked away,,,there will be a feigned stigma but in the big picture, the 'general' discussion and complaint I here when women need financial help is more about their lack of character for being on assistance, than about the absent fathers lack of character for not providing for their kids,,,

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48916	Thu 02/26/15 08:43 PM
but in the big picture, the 'general' discussion and complaint I here when women need financial help is more about their lack of character for being on assistance, than about the absent fathers lack of character for not providing for their kids,,, Perhaps you are just listening to the wrong people.

devildog123 Joined Mon 09/08/14 Posts: 3902	Fri 02/27/15 03:54 AM
I don't know how it works in Europe so I really can't comment on that, but I do know business in the U.S.. and if business's were mandated to allow up to 3-4 years of maturity leave a few things would happen. With the exception of maybe huge corporations business would not hire women in their 20's - 30's ( child bearing years) As they would not want to train and hire someone only to have them go out on a 4 year leave. You can call that discrimination or whatever you want, but that is what would happen.. we all know it. Is it right?..no, but that is what would happen. And there is nothing the Government can do about it. Normal Business's can not be forced to hire someone. In business every employee has to add to the bottom line. To contribute.. every day. So, that person who went on a 3-4 year leave has to be replaced. Somebody has to do their job? What do you do when she comes back... fire the person who has been doing the job for 4 years?.. is that fair? And then give the person who came back a "grace period" to get caught up with what has changed in the industry in the last 4 years?.. business does not stand still. And as a businessman what do you then do.. hope that she does not decide to have another child.. and go back out for 3-4 more years. Starting the cycle all over again. It that fair to the business? In my opinion it would have a negative employment effect on all women. I think 3-4 months is sufficient and fair. And anything over 6 months you then runs the risk of the company not holding the job. these countries budget better and its MOSTLY a government compensation,, like our unemployment or workers comp that does not address the effect it will have on business in general or the question of multiple leaves per person. Or what does a company do with the " fill in person".. fire him/ her? Plus unemployment does not last for 4 years and workers comp. is a valid service for people who were hurt.. on the job. And what does mostly paid for the government mean?. Does that mean the company has to pay a added expense for up to 4 years? times how many employees are out on a 4 year leave. When you say the government. You make it sound like a stand alone entity with their own funding.... we( taxpayers) fund the Government. So we ( Taxpayers) would pick up the tab. Even the tab that the companies would have to pay as that would then turn into a pass thru cost to the consumer. So taxpayers pay the entire amount. A paid 4 year paid absence from your job is incredibly excessive and In my opinion would lead to abuse of the program it was designed for. Any paid leave has to be fair to all involved. Mother, company and taxpayer. Up to 4 years is not fair.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48916	Fri 02/27/15 04:23 AM
Any paid leave has to be fair to all involved. Mother, company and taxpayer. Up to 4 years is not fair. Fairness also requires that fathers be allowed the same kind of leave.

MariahsFantasy Joined Mon 11/28/11 Posts: 6593	Fri 02/27/15 04:18 PM
wasn't being exiled.. who said exiled? Point is, if you are going to complain about it so much and its that bad.. that unfair..... then go where it is better. Go to a place that makes you happy.. if that is not the U.S, then like I said... don't let the door hit you on the way out. It's arrogance of the highest degree to suggest that people should leave the country because they express a point of view that doesn't chime with your own. People have a right to tell it like it is, in the hope that things might change one day, it's called free speech. Long may it continue. I'm surprised they didn't say just voting will fix everything. That Henry Fonda mentality scares me. Real change evokes more action beyond just words behind solutions. Such an ignorant way of thinking to the people that genuinely aren't bothered by anything in this country thinking a simple vote is all it takes. Everything is just fine, let's keep our heads firmly in the sand meantime. We can barely have adult discussions anymore without one getting hostile to the supposed "unpopular opinions." The same problems always exist, I wonder why?

Amelinng Joined Tue 08/12/14 Posts: 1547	Fri 02/27/15 07:21 PM
I don't know how it works in Europe so I really can't comment on that, but I do know business in the U.S.. and if business's were mandated to allow up to 3-4 years of maturity leave a few things would happen. With the exception of maybe huge corporations business would not hire women in their 20's - 30's ( child bearing years) As they would not want to train and hire someone only to have them go out on a 4 year leave. You can call that discrimination or whatever you want, but that is what would happen.. we all know it. Is it right?..no, but that is what would happen. And there is nothing the Government can do about it. Normal Business's can not be forced to hire someone. In business every employee has to add to the bottom line. To contribute.. every day. So, that person who went on a 3-4 year leave has to be replaced. Somebody has to do their job? What do you do when she comes back... fire the person who has been doing the job for 4 years?.. is that fair? And then give the person who came back a "grace period" to get caught up with what has changed in the industry in the last 4 years?.. business does not stand still. And as a businessman what do you then do.. hope that she does not decide to have another child.. and go back out for 3-4 more years. Starting the cycle all over again. It that fair to the business? In my opinion it would have a negative employment effect on all women. I think 3-4 months is sufficient and fair. And anything over 6 months you then runs the risk of the company not holding the job. these countries budget better and its MOSTLY a government compensation,, like our unemployment or workers comp that does not address the effect it will have on business in general or the question of multiple leaves per person. Or what does a company do with the " fill in person".. fire him/ her? Plus unemployment does not last for 4 years and workers comp. is a valid service for people who were hurt.. on the job. And what does mostly paid for the government mean?. Does that mean the company has to pay a added expense for up to 4 years? times how many employees are out on a 4 year leave. When you say the government. You make it sound like a stand alone entity with their own funding.... we( taxpayers) fund the Government. So we ( Taxpayers) would pick up the tab. Even the tab that the companies would have to pay as that would then turn into a pass thru cost to the consumer. So taxpayers pay the entire amount. A paid 4 year paid absence from your job is incredibly excessive and In my opinion would lead to abuse of the program it was designed for. Any paid leave has to be fair to all involved. Mother, company and taxpayer. Up to 4 years is not fair. Having been involved in the HR dept with a say with employment in my previous capacity, all these points raised by devildog are valid. We tried not to employ young married women then, with this view due to the disruption to the workflow in the company. And fathers were allowed 3 days to a week 'paternity' leave....paid, which was a fair deal then. Mothers are allowed from 1 month up to 2 months (or some instances 3 months) PAID maternity leave. If you wanted to extend this, you could go on 'unpaid' leave, if the company could afford to do without you for the period of time. Some companies even stipulate that paid maternity leave were limited to the first 2 kids, and no more. As a taxpayer myself, I would not want the government to pay our taxes to 'able-bodied' men/women who could work out alternative arrangements to spending time with their newborn. If you can choose to have kids, you have to choose to be able to provide and take care of them. Which is why most couples are now limiting themselves to fewer and fewer kids now due to the increasing costs of child care. In the most dire of circumstances, if a single mum is facing problem, she could always seek help from the welfare department, and get assistance in other forms.

devildog123 Joined Mon 09/08/14 Posts: 3902	Sat 02/28/15 05:50 AM
wasn't being exiled.. who said exiled? Point is, if you are going to complain about it so much and its that bad.. that unfair..... then go where it is better. Go to a place that makes you happy.. if that is not the U.S, then like I said... don't let the door hit you on the way out. It's arrogance of the highest degree to suggest that people should leave the country because they express a point of view that doesn't chime with your own. People have a right to tell it like it is, in the hope that things might change one day, it's called free speech. Long may it continue. Arrogance??. The "point of view" that was put forth was not a point of view.. at all. It was a series of complaints about the American Government not supplying such services as 4 years leave, free college education, free rent during college and free child care. All at the expense of the American taxpayer.. and all would serve the current situation of the ops very well. The U.S was then benchmarked against other countries that the ops stated does much better in these fields. The ops is living in another country, yet I heard no complaints from her about the country she is currently living in... none.. All complaints were directed at the U.S... and I find that offensive. There is no shortage of issues in the U.S. and as a country we have a long way to go to get better... a long way. We are far from perfect. But if you are going to complaint to that degree about the country and feel that others do a better job, then like I said... move there You may call that arrogance... I don't

messi_is_a_tim_1888 Joined Fri 11/28/14 Posts: 3309	Sat 02/28/15 07:24 AM
Over here in the UK, up to a year paid maternity leave for the mother and 3 months paid leave for the father! Works out different in other European countries though!

Estelle79 Joined Thu 09/11/14 Posts: 1452	Fri 03/06/15 02:35 PM Edited by Estelle79 on Fri 03/06/15 02:35 PM
Vodafone will be the first company to offer worldwide paid maternity leave for 16 weeks. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/company-gives-moms-16-weeks-112900093.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

messi_is_a_tim_1888 Joined Fri 11/28/14 Posts: 3309	Fri 03/06/15 03:42 PM
Vodafone will be the first company to offer worldwide paid maternity leave for 16 weeks. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/company-gives-moms-16-weeks-112900093.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma Aye and it's still the worst mobile phone provider in the UK! Wonder why, eh?