Hermenuetics

Comments

The tension between "family values" and economic gain is always an interesting battle, especially for more conservative politicians. Personally, I don't believe politicians truly support family values until they put their money where their mouths are - funding family leave, for example. Talk is cheap, but what you fund says a lot about what you believe in.

Funding guns: yes.
Funding moms: no.

???

Posted By: Melissa | April 13, 2009 7:23 PM

You beat me to it -- I was going to write on this same subject, and Jill Lepore's recent article "Baby Food" in the New Yorker.

At the moment I can't stop nodding my head long enough to form a coherent response, so just know that I am nodding along with you, and with Melissa!

I think the breast pump has become just another band-aid being slapped over a much bigger problem, (and one that puts the onus of responsibility right back on the mothers, of course) and I'm happy to see you braving the hornet's nest to talk about some of the bigger issues at stake.

Posted By: Elrena | April 14, 2009 9:04 AM

So the solution is to mandate an expensive policy to be a tax burden to everyone, including those who plan ahead for the birth of their children and make a way for the mother to stay home with her child for a time?

Don't get me wrong. I was a working mother who started working (only part-time at first) two days after my first child was born because I couldn't afford to not be paid for my mandatory FMLA leave. Fortunately since my employer couldn't mandate I work, and they desperately needed me, I was allowed to bring my baby with me part of the time and work from home the rest.

Mandating paid leave in this country would continue the economic decline and cause more lay-offs and closure of mid-small companies. (I assume the small companies would initially be exempt.)

Why can't women work with politicians to offer more creative ideas such as tax exemptions for companies that allow women to work less hours or when possible, work from home or take their babies with them? And perhaps families and churches could be communities of support that helped a family financially so the mother could stay home?

Part of the trouble is that we have left behind values of saving and thrift. Yes, things happen and babies don't always come when people are financially prepared. But does that mean we saddle employers, and our fellow taxpayers with our lack of preparedness? More government intervention is really not a responsible solution.

Posted By: Rachelle | April 14, 2009 12:24 PM

AMEN! to Rachelle's post.
From a former nursing mother.

Posted By: sally | April 14, 2009 8:28 PM

I appreciate Rachelle's comment, too. Our country is getting economically sicker and sicker through our troubles in differentiating between "a good or even great idea" and "something we should impose on all Americans everywhere, at taxpayer expense."

Some of the very same countries that have government-mandated ages-long maternity leave also have government-devised tax policies that make it all but impossible for one parent to stay home AFTER that one-year maternity leave, if s/he chooses to. I am thankful that married American couples are still taxed together--this makes it so that a couple can prioritize one member's career and still survive financially. Sweden's income tax system taxes each spouse separately, with astronomically higher rates as income ascends, so that a couple in which each person makes 30k euros does wonderfully well, but a couple in which one person makes 60k euros gets taxed to death and takes home much less than the other couple. The legislature specifically planned this in order to "get both parents out of the home, so that children are forced out as well." Because the government had decided that children were better of in nursery school.

You can read more about that at http://foxnews.proteus.com/content.html?contentId=32000¤tPage=0

I am a breastfeeding mom of a one-year-old, and work part-time from home. I just want the feds to leave me alone and stop taxing my husband and me to the verge of death so I can breastfeed, work, and raise my family in peace. I don't think taxpayer-subsidized maternity leave is the right answer to these problems.

Posted By: AC | April 14, 2009 9:43 PM

I'm weighing in here as a Canadian. I'm not sure whether or not the policy I'm about to describe applies to all of Canada, nor for how long it has been in place, but in the province (BC) in which we live, and for at least the last 8 years (the age of our eldest grand-daughter), if you are eligible for Employment Insurance, you are eligible for Maternity leave. For up to 12 months. That can be split between the parents, and there is no requirement to take all 12 months. It's do-able without increasing the tax burden. Canada is affected by the current recession too, and there are no plans to scrap maternity leave.

Posted By: Rose-Marie | April 15, 2009 9:49 AM

Continued. My comment was disjointed, but the point I was trying to make was that it scares me when the government gets into the business of making our life decisions for us by majority rule, the way the Swedish tax code does. And in my opinion, mandating that employers offer long maternity leave not only moves us farther toward a command economy (which history has shown again and again does not work), but also sets even more precedent that these decisions will happen from the top down, and not from the bottom up.

Single people, couples without children, and couples in which one parent stays home would all be the ones paying for two-income couples to take time off to stay home and breastfeed and bond. We have started to act like the money that the government uses is "the government's money." But it isn't; it's all of OUR money, all of us who pay taxes. (My husband and I made just enough money this year to qualify to pay income tax! Woo hoo. But since we're both self-employed, we've been giving 25% of what we make to Uncle Sam up to this point anyway). My heart aches for moms especially who don't get that time, but at the same time, I don't like the way right now it seems like we are all trying to grab control of each other's taxes to be able to afford to do what we want with our lives. It is a financial sacrifice to take time off and stay home with a baby. It is a sacrifice to go out to work and miss that extra time with your child, too, whether you're a mom or a dad. The decision on how to find this balance is difficult, but I just don't think it's reasonable to expect a publicly funded solution.

We are definitely moving in the direction of more and more publicly funded solutions to problems like these, whether I like it or not. But it does scare me to see that in countries that are farther along this road, the government is also making all kinds of other decisions for parents and children, and they're ones that I don't want my government making for me.

Posted By: AC | April 15, 2009 9:53 AM

I sympathize with your comments, AC, Sally, & Rachelle. I too stayed at home with my babies, and I too dislike taxes. But I'm interested in Rose-Marie's comment from Canada, and in a personal note from an American friend who had her babies in England and is thankful she didn't have them here. I am puzzled by the fact that nearly every other country in the world offers paid maternity leave, yet America thinks it cannot afford to. I'd like to hear more from mothers living in countries where maternal leave is given to all mothers. I'd like to ask them if they are happy with this government benefit.

Posted By: LaVonne Neff | April 15, 2009 1:18 PM

Well...the EU countries have it, and Canada has it. There may be a few other countries that do. I do know a number of women who have experienced paid government-subsidized maternity leave in various parts of the EU and in Canada--friends and acquaintances who are Iranian expats and have lived all over the western world. In my view, who wouldn't be happy with it? Who couldn't use a fully-paid year off (or less--any amount of time is nice) to bond with a new baby and focus on parenting? Men and women could greatly benefit. Bottle-feeding mothers, I think, would benefit just as much as BF mothers--time off makes BF easier, but the sheer quantity of time that you have helps with bonding for all mothers, and fathers. I would bet that almost everyone who has this benefit appreciates and enjoys it.

To me, the real question is whether we want the U.S. to be just another social democratic nation, or whether we want to try to preserve our distinctive tradition of limited government. A lot of people believe that that tradition has a lot to do with our incredible economy, and the distinctive spirit of entrepreneurship and hard work that we demonstrate as a nation. As a Christian I think limited government is crucial because it takes into account each person's bent toward sin and the abuse of power. As a parent, I see the trend toward more and more government mandates, including things I would greatly enjoy like paid time off, as a dangerous one because I don't want my future or the future of younger generations to be so much at the whim of this massive government power structure, controlling people's choices by giving or withholding money.

OK I will stop hogging the forum now. Thanks for your thought-provoking post, LaVonne.

Posted By: AC | April 15, 2009 3:37 PM

When I had my first child, we hardly had enough money to survive. Not only did I want to breast-feed, I wanted to be available to my baby all of the time. So we lived cheaply. I think women have every right to work and be paid at the same rate as men. But that, to me, means a choice not to have babies. My husband's income is taxed enough without paying for women to stay home with their children.

We were a one-car family for several years. I am intelligent, I have a college degree, but I made a choice to have children. Am I so old-fashioned? This whole dilemma is a confusing one to me.

Posted By: Marcia | April 15, 2009 5:53 PM

In 2007, the average tax freedom day in the U.S. (it varies by state) was Day 120. In Canada, it was Day 170. That means the average Canadian works a month and a half longer solely for the government.
The Founding Fathers believed in economic freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government. Sadly, it has been whittled away ever since. I think they were brilliant, and wish it were possible to send everyone who wants more government and higher taxes to Canada in exchange for the Canadians I know who would much prefer more economic freedom than more government services.
The information you might want to gain from women in other countries should include the percentage of families they know where a parent stays home with the child(ren) after the maternity leave is over. It is getting harder and harder to do here, but some of us still manage with blood, sweat, and tears. My family has made the decision to rent vs. own and have one car so I can stay home. If we pay more taxes, I will have to work to put food on the table.
In the pursuit of something that sounds really wonderful, don't forget to consider the freedom of others.

Posted By: Rachelle | April 16, 2009 5:08 PM

I am from India, and I am surprised that America does not grant paid leave for nursing mothers. In our country, all companies (private or government) grant 3 months paid leave plus the option of extending your leave by 3 months without pay. It is an employee benefit that every company must mandatorily offer as per the law. Even though our country is a growing economy, no one ever feels maternity leave as a tax payer's burden, and India has been growing financially sound despite these policies. Companies normally employ temporary staff when someone goes away for maternity. If it could work in India, I do not think it should be difficult for a developed economy like America to provite maternity leave.

Posted By: Annie Mariya | April 17, 2009 4:26 AM

I have a hard time believing that it is a "fact" that only 4 other countries outside of America don't offer such liberal compensation for nursing mothers - I just returned from 3 weeks in West Africa where women still literally carry their babies on their backs throughout the day while they do their household chores, go to work, to market, etc. etc. No one, the government or otherwise, offers to pay for them to stay at home with their babies because there is no formal "job" for them to go to - they work at whatever they can to get food on the table and some shred of clothes on their backs - with or without a man to help provide for them. Our American form of government has provided the best protection for women in which to raise children - without mandating how businesses use their resources - than any other country in the world - and our way of life reflects that. If we start mandating how businesses must use their monetary and personnel resources, we will end up with many fewer businesses and thus fewer opportunities for women to earn a living, even on a part-time basis - and become sisters in lifestyle to our much poorer counterparts around the world.

I applaud the comments above which encourage frugality and creativity on the part of couples who prioritize mother-child bonding. How did we get to this point in our culture that we pretend women never worked before? Women have always had to juggle agriculture, homemaking, children, hobbies, charity, etc. etc. Choosing priorities always leads to eliminating other possibilities. I highly support mother/child relationships as a foundational cultural/biblical value - but I also believe we as individuals and in community need to make those choices. I do not want the government making those choices for me.

Choosing and promoting certain values is a personal and community responsibility and I realize that when I "put my money where my mouth is" that I have definitely taken a stand - but allowing the government to manage my choices goes against the grain of many other values I hold dear.

Posted By: Carol C | April 18, 2009 9:41 AM

We are retired school speech pathologists and favoe the B's:
birth, breastfeeding, and being born again. Since breastfeeding babies have become more popular a dramatic reduction of lisping, round lip bottle mouth babies, and dental problems from sweet formula have resulted.

Posted By: Dick and Connie North | April 18, 2009 4:24 PM

first...as a man I admire and hold all women in great esteem for choosing life and selflessly breast feeding children, and the same goes for those who can't ..i'm sure they are loving, tender mothers none the less.

second, when I review all the needs I get in my inbox every week for funds....I don't believe the statement of the U.S. being one of only five who don't provide paid maternity leave. Somalia, China, Honduras, Haiti,Pakistan , Iraq, Iran, Mexico are just some of the countries clamoring for funds to simply feed and clothe...how then can they even begin to afford paid maternity leave???
The majority of writers here have identified the unseen demon here, that if we as leaders of our own families defer to the government for law or direct provision for paid maternity leave than we ourselves are feeding off of the breasts of government . does family size and gender control in China ring a bell for anyone ??......history has thousands of years of proof that government has ruined many civilizations. God created us with the great freedom of choice....no other of His creation has it....for good, wise choices or poor, short sighted ones...it is still a FREEDOM which should never surrendered to anyone... as the old saying goes"be careful of what you wish for, you just may get it"

Posted By: kevin burditt | April 19, 2009 9:34 PM

Before jumping back into this discussion, I'd like to say that I very much appreciate the tone of everybody who has commented so far. This week I'm going to be blogging about Christian courtesy on blogs, and all of you have been courteous, even though most of you disagree with what I posted. That's great, and I'm delighted you've been commenting!

For those who wonder about the statistics (that the US is one of only five nations who don't provide maternal leave), here's a chart from 2001: http://www.apesma.asn.au/women/maternity_leave_around_the_world.asp . As one commenter pointed out, maternity leave is not helpful in two-thirds-world countries where women don't even have jobs, so you can take some of the stats with a grain of salt. Also, Australia doesn't have paid maternity leave either, though it offers more unpaid leave than the US does, and I believe it also offers a baby bonus. To compare the US with other "developed" countries, check out http://workinprogress.blogs.time.com/2008/05/13/maternity_leave/ .

Freedom is certainly important, and yet most of us are willing for the federal government to pay for quite a few public services. The question is, which ones, and how much, and there we draw the lines in different places.

One of you wondered what percentage of women work in countries that offer maternity leave vs the US, which does not. Interestingly, it appears that more mothers work in America than in France and Germany. And now I'm going to link to an article that is completely counterintuitive: annazavaritt.blog.ilsole24ore.com/la_revolution_en_rose/files/myth_and_reality_newsweek.doc . Apparently women in the US, in spite of our lack of family-friendly policies, are more likely to work, and more likely to have really significant jobs, than women in Europe. I wonder what that means--do American women care less about spending time with our families? (I doubt that very much.) Are we willing to work insanely long hours? (Probably.) Is this good for our families? (I wonder.)

Posted By: LaVonne Neff | April 20, 2009 8:59 AM

I'm no economist, but I am a Christian, never-married, 62-year-old white working woman. I would much rather pay taxes for family leave than live in a society so greedy that a few people can sink everyone else and get away with it. That's US at the moment. Socialism has been the boogy-man that has been used to frighten us away from economic justice too long. The older I get, the more I find myself favoring the social-democratic system, whatever it costs.

Posted By: Sharyn Dowd | April 20, 2009 9:11 AM

Have you ever visited one? Have you ever lived in one or intimately known people who did? Visit almost any country on the continent of Africa and study their history. Socialism is not the answer. Capitolism, socialism, communism and theocracies don't work when love isn't the driving force behind the leadership. Any man-made system will be corrupted by the people in leadership if they are corrupt. Redemption comes through Christ and it will affect a society from the top down regardless of "the system" - and vice versa. Jesus is still the answer.

Posted By: Carol C | April 21, 2009 8:11 AM

Well, not to sound crushingly uncharitable, but no one has mentioned this. . . perhaps while we're searching for the perfect solution for women feeling trapped between mothering and a career (or job), we should start cautioning young women and teenagers to prepare themselves mentally and in all other ways for one day becoming a stay-at-home mom? I made that choice myself back in high school, in the 1980's when women were going to work full-time and girls my age were being prepped for spending their adult lives in paid careers. Surely, we could frankly speak about choices that are counter to the culture we live in -- doing so shouldn't be so unusual for Christians in general.

Posted By: Marmee March plus | April 28, 2009 8:54 PM

Why would we "caution" young women and teenagers to "prepare themselves... for one day becoming a stay-at-home mom"? As though that is the only legitimate choice for a woman? There's a great big world out there that NEEDS strong, Christian women to be active in it. Teaching our daughters that they should limit their dreams and life choices to that of "stay-at-home mother" underestimates the potential of girls to use their gifts in a myriad of ways. There's nothing wrong with choosing to be a "stay-at-home parent." Indeed, God calls some women to that exact vocation for a period of time in their lives. (And some men, as well.) However, there are countless ways to be a good parent (mother OR father) AND pursue other missions in life to which God may have called us.

Furthermore, fathers are rarely questioned or suspect in their ability to be fantastic parents while pursuing "paid careers." Yet, the dearth of fatherly influence and presence in children's lives because of "workaholic-ism" can be a serious problem.

And let's not forget that motherhood is not in God's plan for every woman. Should such a woman simply sit around "preparing" to be a "stay-at-home mother" all the while neglecting the gifts and challenges to which God HAS called her?

Finally, it is not for anyone to judge what one family has deemed appropriate with regard to childraising unless it constitutes a clear violation of scripture and/or child-welfare laws. Let's give our brothers and sisters in Christ the benefit of the doubt that they do the best they can to raise their children well in the Lord, regardless of whether or not their choices mirror our own.

Posted By: Robyn | May 13, 2009 11:57 AM

I am not into economics/politics/anything of that sort. Forgive me if I am way off base here. I just do not understand the American mentality that they cannot afford to have good health care and employee benefits. While Canada (the country I reside in now), has plenty of faults in those two categories, we are many steps ahead of the American system at this point and while our economy isn't great, it isn't horrible either. In fact, the recession has helped some business owners in Alberta because now they aren't having as large of employee shortage.

It also strikes me as odd that the Republicans are supposed to be the family-friendly party down there, yet never appear to provide family benefits and instead demonize anything that looks like socialism.

It should be a basic human right for women to be given time to breastfeed their babies, not pump or bottle feed, but actually breastfeed if they so choose to.

Posted By: Sara | May 29, 2009 2:27 AM