I discussed this issue before on this blog: how men have been attempting to undermine women’s unique contribution and bond with their infants in order to reward men with time off from work and many other benefits. These benefits rightfully belong to the person who has contributed, risked, suffered and simply invested the most in the birth of a child and that person is called a ‘mother’. This benefits our society overall, as well as the individual mother and any children SHE alone bears, as it ensures women get good health care and nutrition prior, during and for some time after pregnancy.
The article below is a good example of the sort of political correctness that has been creeping into public policy over the last few decades or so. I first noticed it when Bill Clinton issued an executive order to his cabinet-level officers that ALL governmental programs begin enforcing strict gender neutral participation. Even programs such as Women Infant Children (WIC) were expected to ensure exact 50/50 representation of men and women.
Can someone please tell me WHY men should be getting free milk, eggs, cheese, etc., paid for by our government?
Do they carry life within their bodies that draws calcium and other minerals from them?
Do they breast feed?
Do they suffer any pain, discomfort or disfigurement during the 9 months pregnancy or actual birth process?
I think we all know the answer to that already, a resounding NO.
Yet they wish to give themselves benefits on a par with women when they contribute little or nothing to the entire process of bringing life forth…
I can tell you where this is heading if women do NOT start taking a strong stand on this issue and soon. One, custody battles taking place BEFORE birth just to decide who has the right to take the maternity leave. That’s one thing.
Secondly, this business of trying to make the gender neutral Family Leave paid and substitute it for Maternity Leave can have a decidely negative impact on mothers and children. As what’s to stop any family member from fighting to use your baby in order to stay home for an entire year WITH PAY?
Absolutely nothing!!!
Women are slowly but surely handing over our naturally bestowed rights as mother to the legal system, a system invented by men for their OWN benefit…Remember we don’t need to sit around with hat in hand waiting for a Judge to tell us we can be home with our babies. That’s our right, not something we get as a gift from men for being ‘good girls’.
Giving Birth to a Good Policy
Here's what to consider in drafting a sound maternity-leave plan for faculty members
By JOSEPH UNTENER
Search the Web and you'll find no shortage of articles on the need for sound policies to help faculty members balance family life with career issues. Why, then, is there such a dearth of solid maternity-leave policies for faculty members?
At the University of Dayton, where I am an associate provost, several years passed between the clear need for a campuswide maternity-leave policy and its going into effect, and even now we continue to refine it.
What took so long? As Beth Schwartz, a benefits manager at our university, points out, many human-resource policies — for example, those governing conflicts of interest — can be developed almost independently of other policies and have a high degree of transferability from one campus to the next. But "a faculty maternity-leave policy," she says, "is much more of a challenge. Its interdependence with so many other policies, and the need for an institution-specific solution, requires substantial effort to properly draft."
If your institution is looking to adopt a campuswide policy — or update an inadequate one — you can find some guidance online. For starters, read the American Association of University Professors' "Statement of Principles on Family Responsibilities and Academic Work" and check out the Web site of the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (http://www.cupahr.org.
But as you start down the path to a new or more-consistent policy, be prepared to face both legal and political considerations. It is a difficult process, one with many baby steps and hurdles along the way.
Members of the committee writing the policy will need guidance and support. An institution committed to adopting a sound maternity-leave policy must set the right foundation for that panel from the outset:
Acknowledge the difficulties ahead. Serious discussions on maternity leave lead to sensitive topics, like people's views about family and their understanding of women's issues. A maternity-leave policy has a price tag — not only in terms of financial costs, but also faculty time and course-coverage needs, both of which are constraints at all institutions.
The breadth of the policy means it very likely will have to go through a lengthy and repetitive approval process, requiring votes from bodies as diverse as faculty senates, benefits committees, and boards of trustees.
Unless the committee understands those difficulties and is supported through all of the political impediments, frustration will result from a seeming lack of progress, which can result in a loss of momentum, which in turn can leave the institution with no policy or bad policy.
A good policy is detailed, but not too. Settling for a policy that lacks any real substance and essentially says "maternity leaves will be accommodated within departments working through deans" is unacceptable, but, regrettably, all too common.
A lack of detail in written policy is not helpful to faculty members trying to make plans, nor to those involved in administering the details. Remember that professors will look at the policy well ahead of making family-planning decisions. Even if all cases are, ultimately, handled well under a vague policy, a mother making family decisions deserves to be able to predict the way her case will be handed within some reasonable range of outcomes. The negative effects of having to "negotiate" a maternity leave are well documented but often underestimated.
On the other hand, if the group responsible for drafting a policy begins with an implicit assumption that the policy will completely remove the need to apply judgment, the committee is headed for much frustration and, probably, failure. The myriad due dates, teaching schedules, contracts, and childbirth experiences simply preclude an exact formulaic answer for all scenarios.
A committee must push hard for a real policy, with some specificity of details, that is helpful to faculty members who may be starting families and to department heads who must respond to pregnancy announcements. At the same time, both parties should recognize that no policy will answer every question.
Be clear about the premise. Setting the committee into motion without an explicit statement of the premise for the policy can lead to wasted time and frustration. That may seem like a small detail, but it is actually a difficult step that is necessary and primary in the timeline of the work. A policy that is geared to provide time and support for child rearing will be quite different from one that is viewed as a special case of medical leave, for example.
A group that begins with divergent views on the premise will not agree on paternity, adoption, paid or unpaid leave, or other crucial components. A clear charge will direct the approach, scale, and nature of the policy.
Imperfect policy can be good policy. The initial outcome of a committee's work may be a policy with a few faults, but with the stipulation that it will be revisited at set intervals. Too often good policy is never put into effect, because of the lack of focus that results from waiting for perfect policy. Acknowledging that the policy might have a few kinks to work out can lead to approval on a provisional basis and permit progress to be made, while the institution gains experience and identifies potential refinements and improvements.
With those provisos, your committee is ready to begin work. So, what are the fundamental features of a sound maternity-leave policy for faculty members? What types of issues will the group have to consider? Here are some questions that policy writers will need to weigh.
Does the policy match our institution? The transferability of maternity-leave policy from institution to institution is limited, and for good reason. Financial capacity, availability of part-time faculty replacements, policies on medical and family leaves, and many other issues are critical, requiring a tailored policy that is appropriate for your institution.
Is the policy legal? You may be surprised to learn that many maternity-leave policies do not meet that standard. A fair-minded policy is a great start, but consistency with the Family and Medical Leave Act is a requirement, not an option. Also, if female faculty members receive substantially more benefit than their male counterparts — for example, in terms of time off to spend raising children — then the institution is open to legal challenges. They can be avoided by involving campus lawyers as the policy takes shape.
Are students well served by the policy? Discontinuity or poor planning can disrupt the educational process for students. It is imperative that maternity-leave policies be looked at from the perspective not only of faculty members and their department heads but also of our students, who deserve full course offerings, qualified faculty members, and uninterrupted courses.
Does the policy mention the tenure clock? Faculty leaves can have serious implications in terms of tenure. Maternity leaves, in particular, tend to be taken more by junior faculty members than by senior ones, making this a crucial issue for tenure. Many senior female professors made family-planning decisions based on the tenure clock. Junior faculty members often sense a stigma associated with a request to temporarily stop the tenure clock for maternity leave. The best practice is probably to delay the tenure clock by default, unless otherwise requested. At a minimum, a sound policy must explicitly address the tenure-clock question.
Have we considered the related issues? All sorts of ancillary topics crop up in the drafting of a maternity-leave policy. Paternity, adoption-policy, and faculty-replacement issues are likely to arise, to name just a few. The key to success may be to keep an inventory of those issues and be deliberate about which ones should be a part of the maternity-leave policy as it is developed, and which should be kept separate so as not to impede its approval and use.
My institution is a Roman Catholic, doctoral-intensive university of about 10,000 students in Ohio. Like most institutions, we operated without an explicit policy for many years. The majority of leave requests that came before we had a policy seemed to have been addressed reasonably, but our initial attempts to codify the practices were not successful.
In 2002 the Academic Senate developed a progressive policy, which automatically delayed the tenure clock by a year for faculty members who qualified for FMLA leave, whether they took the leave or not. The idea was that, even if a faculty member was unable to take the leave, the institution recognized the potential delay in research or other work required for tenure.
That policy was a natural starting point for our Faculty Maternity Leave Policy, and a small group took on that issue specifically. A clear, fair, legal, and yet imperfect policy was passed by the Academic Senate in late 2004.
Built into the policy, however, was a stipulation that it be reviewed after a certain point and then continued, improved, or rescinded.
"It's important to look at the policy after a couple of years and get a sense of how it is used and how it can be improved," says Lisa Rismiller, director of the university's Women's Center, who is leading that review process. "There are some adjustments that we'll make as a result of our experience. Some of the points of contention during initial implementation didn't turn out to be a problem, but some that we did not foresee now need to be addressed."
Among those issues are better coverage for faculty members whose due dates fall in the summer, when they are not working under contract; inclusion of additional coverage for adoptive parents; and the possibility of a standing panel to review new maternity-leave provisions and ensure consistency and clear communication.
Developing an effective policy is a challenging goal. But it's also an attainable one, and the positive results will come in many ways, including supporting families, recruiting and retaining faculty members, and serving the educational process.
Joseph Untener is associate provost for faculty and administrative affairs at the University of Dayton.
________________________________________
http://chronicle.com
Section: The Academic Workplace
Volume 54, Issue 45, Page B30
42 comments:
I am sorry that you have been mistreated by males at some point in your life - guys can be jerks, but you have to realize what you are saying. I hesitate to even respond, knowing you have such an extreme view.
The only thing I would like to say is... have hope. Not all guys try to manipulate women. I've been thinking a lot lately about what it means to be a 'man,' and what I have realized is in order to be a real 'man,' you need to be completely selfless and willing to do things that no one else would do for the ones you love. I know this is a fairly general comment, but once you really start to dive deeper into that statement, you realize it's not easy to be a 'man.' Complete selflessness is no easy task. Everyone likes to indulge here and there, but when abnormal/extreme situations arise, a real 'man' should be ready to give everything he has to protect his family, even if it costs him everything he has - emotionally or physically.
To quote you, "men have been attempting to undermine women’s unique contribution and bond with their infants in order to reward men with time off from work and many other benefits." ... really? Guys that try to undermine women's bond with their child aren't men, nor should they be having children.
I agree that maternity leave should be for birth mothers only. They need time to heal from the birth and bond with their new babies. In Sweden, where they have generous maternity leaves at full pay for one year, they also have some form of paternity leave at least for a few weeks. I read that they were thinking of expanding the paternity leaves, but they were having trouble with the fathers not taking the paternity leave they are already given. I guess bonding with your new baby doesn't rate up there with a fishing trip with the guys. Seriously, I wouldn't be against some kind of (limited) paternity leave as long as the fathers were actually spending time with their new babies and actually doing a lot of the childcare. However, this shouldn't be at the expense of the mother's maternity leave. That said, we still need to work on decent maternity leave at full pay for mothers in this country before we even think about paternity leaves for fathers.
"I agree that maternity leave should be for mothers only."
Well right now 'maternity leave' IS for mothers only. It's under the aegis of disability and is available for pregnant mothers for three months starting from the seventh month of pregnancy on...Most mothers wait to use it until AFTER the birth of their babies, so that they can spend the entire three months at home with baby...
However many are now trying to replace maternity leave with 'family leave'. Which is nothing but another of the ongoing attempts to usurp the rights of women while empowering men
So I just wanted to make women aware of this agenda as it happens. It's an insidious and underhanded attempt to undermine the rights of mothers. Just another attempt by men to use our children for gain for themselves: this time a paid vacation from work for a year or so...
Also I just want to be clear: I have nothing against male involvement in parenting. As long as it's clear that they are not the captain of the enterprise; but the crew, back-up and support to mothers.
The basic problem is anything you do with men they want to assume full control of and the next thing you know women are pushed into the background with men trying to act like they are in charge of everything. When,in fact, they are bit players here, as they should be...
Hi there NYMOM. I half didn't expect this site to still be going. LTNS eh though?
I am Jessica from dnet. How have you been?
Yes, eventually mothers will lose more and more authority over their children. It isn't just about breaking the bond as it is an attack on the family unit itself. Pitting families against each other as well as breaking family bonds.
Well, email me sometime. I've lost your email addy.
Hi Jessica.
I'm happy to hear from you.
How is the nuthouse going over at dnet?
How is your daughter? I hope everything is well with your family.
I can be reached at nymom750@gmail.com
Take care.
The Facts of Live
Hello NYMOM. It's been a while and this site is kind of like the twilight zone: You argue that women birth babies "alone" and then in the next breath argue that state and fellow workers should pay for her to stay home all by herself at their expense and access to government milk and cheese. There's a real simple solution to this: Let the liberated ladies pay for such benefits themselves or shut up and go back to the kitchen and do what we say. Kapish?
That's the main problem with women's "equality" and independence: The problem that the world doesn't owe her and her child a living and money doesn't grow on trees.
Your emotive hyperbole about carrying life in your own body and giving babies calcium is touching. Granted, men don't do this but men don't birth crack babies or abandon them in trash dumpsters either. It's ironic that your illusion of feminine sainthood via welfare queen programs is only possible due to your unspoken assumption that men will support them. Amazing.
First what has to be done clarify what a woman is :wom·an (wmn)
n. pl. wom·en (wmn)
1. An adult female human.
2. Women considered as a group; womankind: "Woman feels the invidious distinctions of sex exactly as the black man does those of color" Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
3. An adult female human belonging to a specified occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in combination: an Englishwoman; congresswoman; a saleswoman.
4. Feminine quality or aspect; womanliness Now how many of you man hating feminazi's are a woman??
wifather2000 what are you talking about????
Polish Knight I don't automatically assume individual men are going to support individual women.
But I do assume that as a society we would wish to support mothers and children collectively, common good and all that.
Okay...
If you individually don't wish to have any kids or support any, then fine with me.
I truly don't care.
"Granted, men don't do this but men don't birth crack babies or abandon them in trash dumpsters either."
No, men just cause birth defects and miscarriages by beating up their pregnant wives and girlfriends, or they simply murder their pregnant wives and girlfriends. That way, they feel they are getting rid of two problems at once.
"There's a real simple solution to this: Let the liberated ladies pay for such benefits themselves or shut up and go back to the kitchen and do what we say. Kapish?"
The biggest investment we can make in economic terms is in human capital. The quality of hands on care and education a child receives is extremely important in terms of making qualified productive workers who will grow up and continue benefiting our country economically. After all, your future social security benefits are going to paid by the children of today. And who provides most of this hands on care and education for little or no pay at their own economic expense? Mothers specifically and women in general. It doesn't matter if the mother is employed full-time, part-time, or not at all. It doesn't matter if she is single or married. Mothers still do the majority of the childcare in the home. A working mother usually loses out economically because SHE is the one who usually has to take off of work when a child is sick, or to take a child to doctor appointments, etc, or may have to stick to lower paying flexible work because it doesn't conflict with the care her child needs, and a lot of time, women end up staying home because they can't find decent affordable childcare. After all, the lowest paid jobs are in the primarily female-dominated daycare and teaching industries. Again, anything that benefits children as the future productive economic workers of our country is given low pay, little respect, and is done by women. And because employed mothers have to meet their childcare demands, they have to stick to lower paying flexible jobs that usually have little or no benefits, lower social security investments for their own retirements, and little or no career advancement. A stay-at-home mom gives this up all together as well as a salary so that they can devote themselves full-time to raising their children who will grow up to pay your social security benefits. And in the end, what is her social security at retirement? The poorest people in the economy are usually older women. A lot of these women were full-time mothers during the fifties, and they get to retire on half the benefits their husbands received. In fact, husbands who make the most money at their careers are usually husbands who have stay at home wives. Their wives shouldered all the domestic and childcare duties so that their husbands could concentrate full-time on their careers. These wives usually did the social networking and hosting dinner parties, etc, to help their husbands retain their business contacts. In a divorce, these women are usually the ones at a financial loss even though their efforts helped increase the family income during the marriage. Unfortunately, career women do not get the same kind of support from their husbands to advance their careers because they are stuck with the majority of the childcare. Despite the media's fondness for Mr. Mom, stay-at-home dads are rare, and these men get more respect and help from their working wives than stay-at-home moms get from their husbands. Anyway, the foundations for a child to excell academically and develop the skills to become future qualified economic workers is laid out in the early years. It's not for nothing, that child psychologists say the most important year is the first year of a child's life. And the quality of the childcare and the bond between the child and the PRIMARY CARETAKER is usually the foundation for the early years. And the primary caretaker is usually the mother. And as the child grows up, his or her mother is usually the one who continues to direct the education and development of said child suppplemented by usually FEMALE childcare workers and teachers. And it's mothers and women as a group who contribute the most economically as the primary caretakers of children, and who receive the least economic resources. There's something wrong with a system that exploits the free or underpaid labor of WOMEN in terms of human capital, but yet, gives the most economic resources and control of said economic resources to the group that contributes the least-MEN. The entire foundation of our economy is based on the exploitation of the free and underpaid labor of women. Women and children are given the least economic resources and the least respect. If women didn't do this work, the whole economy would collapse. After all, you need educated, qualified, and skilled workers to run the economy. And in order to get those qualified, educated, and skilled workers depends entirely on the quality of the care that children receive from the time they are in utero. And any financial investment made to benefit women and children will benefit our entire economy. If this is in the form of free daycare, healthcare, or any kind of "welfare", so be it. Right now, the way things are, our entire system is a welfare system, and it's main beneficiaries are MEN. So before you make snide comments about sending women back to the kitchen to do work that benefits our entire country's economic future, maybe assholes like you should do what women say. Kapish?
"That's the main problem with women's "equality" and independence: The problem that the world doesn't owe her and her child a living and money doesn't grow on trees."
Yeah, asshole, remember that when your sitting in the nursing home collecting social security benefits that a woman's child is going to be paying for you because of the hands on care that that woman provided to benefit our entire economy. And because of that, said woman is probably going to get less social security than you BECAUSE she provided that hands on childcare. After all, you think that exploitation of free and underpaid labor of women owes you a living and children just magically morph into economically productive adults without any work to get them there in the first place.
"Feminine quality or aspect; womanliness Now how many of you man hating feminazi's are a woman??"
As defined by who? A bunch of men in a male-dominated patriarchy? The losers in the MRA/FRA movement who are so insecure about their own masculinity that they have to buy into the macho image to feel like a "real man"? Ha! None of you are qualified to tell a woman what is "feminine" or "womanly". Women define themselves on their OWN terms based on their OWN experiences. You, idiots, have too many issues of your own to work out before you start telling other people (and yes, women are PEOPLE the one definition you don't seem to understand) how they should define themselves.
Also, Polish Knight, when your sitting in the nursing home, remember that most of the nurses and nursing assistants who are providing your hands-on care are primarily FEMALE. After all, one of the most underpaid and least respected professions (next to childcare and teaching) is the female dominated nursing field. And for elderly people who are cared for at home, it's usually done primarily by a FEMALE RELATIVE. And if you think that caring for an aged relative at home doesn't have economic consequences on female relatives, think again. Who usually has to take off work to take an elderly parent to the doctor, or take a leave of absence (usually unpaid) from work to care for a dying parent. Most likely it won't be a male relative. It's just like caring for kids all over again, and the economic consequences can be bad. But hey, don't you worry because your a MAN. You have the male entitlement to be taken care of from cradle to grave by the hands on care of a female relative, or unpaid female worker at her own economic peril. But hey, the world doesn't owe her a living, and money doesn't grow on trees. After all, women are expected to sacrifice everything and get little or nothing in return while men get the majority of the economic resources, respect, and praise for being such wonderful hands on fathers (because they spent 20 minutes in the backyard throwing junior a ball while waiting for mom to get home from work so that she can spend the rest of her evening making dinner, doing dishes, picking up after dad and junior, helping junior with his homework, doing the bed and bath routine, etc, while falling into bed exhausted from the double shift while dad is complaining that mom is always too tired for sex). Yeah, women really have an unspoken assumption that men will "support" them. What a laugh.
"After all, you need educated, qualified, and skilled workers to run the economy. And in order to get those qualified, educated, and skilled workers depends entirely on the quality of the care that children receive from the time they are in utero. And any financial investment made to benefit women and children will benefit our entire economy. If this is in the form of free daycare, healthcare, or any kind of "welfare", so be it."
Do you actually think that the way to get more of those "qualified, educated and skilled" workers is more welfare?
You forget that we've already been there and done that. This was the whole assumption upon which the welfare system was built. That more resources would give poor mothers a hand and help her turn out more educated and productive children.
Instead, what we got was an explosion of poor, single and unprepared females having kids with little thought because they knew a safety net was there. And they weren't kids who grew up into assets to society. They grew up to fill jails and welfare offices themselves.
This was NOT an investment in women and children that benefitted our entire economy. It helped to destroy the sense of connection between marriage and childbearing, creating even more poverty and social unrest.
And it created an economic drain that left government desperate to put the genie back into the bottle and get people taking care of themselves again. Hence the big push for child-support enforcement and subsequently the push for marriage promotion and fatherhood initiatives. None of which had jack to do with concern for fathers or their kids but everything to do with reducing the mothers' ever-increasing demands on the welfare system.
I wouldn't be opposed to increasing government funding for daycare. This would encourage productive middle and upper-class women, who are mostly married, to have more children, and it is their children who grow up to generate wealth. It would keep underclass women at work and also benefit underclass children who, unfortunately, have been shown to do better in formal daycare than at home during their early years.
"Any" financial investment won't help and could very well cause more harm. Certain specific investments might help.
Richard
"I wouldn't be opposed to increasing government funding for daycare."
Well, Dick, as usual I disagree with you on most things, but funding for daycare is where we can find agreement. This one thing alone would make it a lot easier for women to combine work and family. And it would encourage more married women to have more children. As for the other things you pointed out, we can agree to disagree.
What rights do human females with children have that Fathers don't?? Or am I missing something in the United states Constitution???
"What rights do human females with children have that Father don't??"
Well none actually...although women should have more rights since they invest more in children then the recreational sperm donors who are running around our streets now talking about 'fathers rights'...it has NOTHING to do with any Constitution but with evolution. The male of the species invests very little in the young, risks absolutely nothing, contributes little YET is always seeking HIS rights...
Typical.
AND Polish Knight that is total bs that the US government increased social benefits for single mothers and children out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it to calm the civil unrest that was taking place in our urban areas...probably a form of reparations which was too little too late...
That was me, not Polish Knight, NY.
I didn't say welfare came out of the goodness of anybody's hearts. Maybe you're right that the gov threw welfare money at the inner city hoping to reduce civil unrest by reducing poverty. That's the liberal response to almost everything.
The point is the same. It did more harm than good in the long run.
Having seen this, it's important to carefully consider and limit any future "investment in women and children" to that which will actually aid responsible families and encourage the rearing of productive children. Increased funding for daycare is one of these. Modest extension of maternity leave might be another, if the economic climate improves enough that we can afford it. Right now the greater worry for most is not having a job at all.
But I completely disagree with your original conclusion. It is not your "right" to be at home with your babies for any extended period of time. It is not so in the animal world that you like to reference and it has not been so in human society. It is a luxury you may enjoy only at your own or someone else's expense. In other words, "a gift."
You may not need to "wait for a judge" to tell you you can be home but generally you very much need to wait for someone to agree to finance it.
Richard
"I didn't say welfare came out of the goodness of anybody's hearts. Maybe you're right that the gov threw welfare money at the inner city hoping to reduce civil unrest by reducing poverty. That's the liberal response to almost everything."
It was "liberal" Bill Clinton who signed the bill on "Welfare Reform" to end AFDC. In Wisconsin that piloted the "Work not Welfare" W-2 crap, the poverty level for women and children actually increased, homelessness among women with children actually increased, and more children were abandoned to the foster home system. So much for Dads coming to the rescue to take those kids in. And don't tell me this is a bunch of b.s. because I lived and worked as a Milwaukee County employee for many years. While daycare funding for QUALITY DAYCARE would be great so that ALL women can combine work and family along with GENEROUS maternity leaves, W-2 recipients were expected to leave their kids with just anyone they could find because of the lack of affordable quality daycare. Also, W-2 actually kept low income women trapped in minimum wage jobs with no benefits and no upward mobility. It actually keeps them in poverty. Under the old welfare system, the average welfare recipient had 2 kids and was usually on welfare 2 years. The so-called "Welfare Queens" might have existed, but they were NOT the majority of welfare recipients. Also, the old welfare system made it easier for welfare recipients to get some sort of job training to help keep them off welfare. W-2 does very little to help women receive any kind of training. Things got so bad in Milwaukee county under W-2 that homeless resources that were originally for HOMELESS AND UNEMPLOYED MEN WERE FORCED TO GIVE MOST OF THEIR RESOURCES TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN SO THAT THEY COULD MEET THEIR DAILY NEEDS. Also, a lot of W-2 recipients are victims of domestic violence. In order to get any kind of benefits at all, these women have to tell where the father of their children is, and it doesn't matter if these women are in fear for their lives. This gives their abuser access to where the women are working so that they can harass them at their jobs (further putting their jobs in jeopardy), threaten their physical safety, and make it harder for these women to function in their role as an employee or a single parent. A lot of victims of domestic violence try to make it on their own because of the W-2 restrictions, and it makes it worse.
"Right now the greater worry for most is not having a job at all."
Yeah, tell that to the W-2 recipients. They know it better than most people do.
First of all Richard I was talking about the three months of disability leave every mother who bears a child is entitled to versus this generic parental leave which can extend by up to six months to a year any relative's time at home with a child...
That was the comparison I was making...
So once again you have twisted the whole point and made it appear that I was arguing for women to have as many kids as they wish and stay home with them as long as they wish, all at taxpayer's expense...
You are trying to compare apples and oranges here.
Regarding the previous poster's comments about how mothers can be intimidated into NOT seeking needed benefits due to fear of a child's father, I agree with this statement 100%...
Actually I believe it was Pennsylvania that started a policy of mandatory naming of a child's father on state-sponsored daycare applications which led to many women not being able to use their daycare services...
Probably many custody fights ensued when men got hit with a tab to help pay for daycare so their childrens' mothers could work...
These are attempts to have these benefits on paper; but virtually impossible for women to actually use due to fear of a vicious custody fight ensuing...
What are You talking about? Breastfeeding, pregnacy? I know mothers who leaved their children, and fathers who did care bout them. Do you think that those fathers doesen't deserve for custody because they are not mothers? You are completely wrong in this case. Woman should receive a custody only becasue she can care for children better than father. Not because she was pregnant. But if father is more responsible than mother(and some of them are), hi should get the custody.
Rights of the child should be main factor for judges when they grant the custody. Not a woman's worth. Mothers do great thing when they bring new life. They should receive mans grattidtude. But care for the children is not a payment.
"But care for the children is not a payment."
No, care for the children is hard work, and the majority of it done by mothers. It doesn't matter if the mother is single, married, or living with the father. The children are being cared more than half the time by their mother.
"Rights of the child should be main factor for judges when they grant the custody."
The child's best interest is to BE with the parent who provided the majority of the care, and who KNOWS WHAT IS IN the children's BEST INTEREST BECAUSE THEY PROVIDED MOST OF THAT CARE.
"I know mothers who leaved their children, and fathers who did care bout them"
Well, great, these fathers should have custody than, but mothers who leave their children are not the majority of mothers. And fathers who get custody because mom was unfit are the exception not the rule. A lot of fathers who get custody are abusive assholes who never did any childcare in their lives, but get custody because they harass and financially drain their ex-wives by taking them to court all the time on baseless accusations of Parental Alienation Syndrome. It's all about control and NOT the best interests of the child.
"Mothers do great thing when they bring new life. They should receive mans grattidtude"
That will be a cold day in hell. Men like the MRAs think that the health risks and possible physical and emotional abuse (most likely from said father of child) a woman may endure while she is pregnant is irrevelant. They think that a woman just spits the kid out, and right away, the kid has two equal parents (in name only of course), but they don't want to DO ANYTHING to become an equal parent. They dump everything on mom, and than they think they should get custody in a divorce? What a fucking joke! A so-called father who never even so much as changed a diaper probably wouldn't even know what end to put the diaper on. The poor kid would probably suffoate if an MRA got custody. Oh wait, they have grandma, girlfriend, or second wife to do all the childcare said children's mother did, so they got it covered! What a joke. Father custody my ass!
"The children are being cared more than half the time by their mother."
This statement is too simple. Some fathers do nothing. Some do 30% child care work. Some even more, especially young fathers. During first month after birth men may do less, but som get more involved when child is older.
"A lot of fathers who get custody are abusive assholes who never did any childcare in their lives, but get custody because they harass and financially drain their ex-wives by taking them to court all the time on baseless accusations of Parental Alienation Syndrome. It's all about control and NOT the best interests of the childlren"
According to researches most fathers who get the custody are not abusive, and do the child care work. They get custody not by judges but by agreement with ex wifes (not all women possess maternal instinct!). Right now after divorce majority of children stay with mother (and this is thanks to agreement too).
You have descrived cases which are very rare (but sad).
"er probably wouldn't even know what end to put the diaper on. The poor kid would probably suffoate if an MRA got custody. Oh wait, they have grandma, girlfriend, or second wife to do all the childcare said children's mother did, so they got it covered! What a joke. Father custody my ass!"
You react to aggressive. Maybe MRA fathers are selfish fanatics, but i don't think they are good example of mens behavior. Male personalities are very diverse.
Lukasz
According to research, most fathers spend on average a half hour a day with their children, and this is usually spent playing with them. Mothers usually spend the most time in HANDS ON CARE AND THEY USUALLY PLAY WITH THEIR CHILDREN MORE THAN FATHERS.
"According to researches most fathers who get the custody are not abusive, and do the child care work. They get custody not by judges but by agreement with ex wifes (not all women possess maternal instinct!). Right now after divorce majority of children stay with mother (and this is thanks to agreement too)."
Your right that a lot of fathers get custody by mutual agreement with ex-wife. And your also right that most mothers get custody by mutual agreement as well. In fact, most men know that the best thing for their children is to be with the parent who spent the most time with them, and that is their MOTHER. In fact, 90% of divorces are settled out of court with both parents MUTUALLY AGREEING that the MOTHER should have custody. However, I am talking about CONTESTED CUSTODY CASES where 70% of fathers get custody AND THEY USUALLY HAVE A HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. These are the cases are causing the problems, and these are the cases that the MRAs want to support. Why? Because the majority of MRAs have a hsitory of domestic violence. I was married to an MRA, and I lived within their movement for six years. Also, a woman who agrees to let her ex-husband have custody does not lack "maternal instinct." I know non-custodial mothers who put non-custodial fathers to shame. They actually take care of their OWN CHILDREN when they have visitation, and they don't pawn them off on grandma, boyfriend, or second husband. They show up for visitation when they are sceduled, and they don't disappoint their kids with empty promises that they never fulfill. OTOH, there are non-custodial fathers who are great fathers as well. Again, I'm not talking about GOOD PARENTS custodial or non custodial. I am talking about CONTESTED CUSTODY CASES, AND MOST OF THE MEN WHO FIGHT FOR CUSTODY ARE NOT GOOD FATHERS, AND THEY ARE THE ONES IN THE MRA MOVEMENT.
"You react to aggressive. Maybe MRA fathers are selfish fanatics, but i don't think they are good example of mens behavior. Male personalities are very diverse"
I'm talking from experience. However, I can agree with the rest of your statement.
"According to research, most fathers spend on average a half hour a day with their children, and this is usually spent playing with them. Mothers usually spend the most time in HANDS ON CARE AND THEY USUALLY PLAY WITH THEIR CHILDREN MORE THAN FATHERS."
This situation is very diverse in many families. Some fathers spend time not only playing with children but also bathe, feed, change diapers or drees young children. This situation become more common in young families where both parents are working outside home. It's a family culture factor. Men whose fathers, older brothers, oncles were taking care fold choldren are more liklely to be involved. But those who never seen a man playing with infant, may have problem to accept caregiving as a male role. I know some men who never moce close to their children.
In USA there are about 2 million sngle fathers, but only 40% are divorced. But not all men who contest mothers custody are abusers.
I said according to research ON AVERAGE most fathers spend half hour a day playing with children according to research.
"But not all men who contest mothers custody are abusers"
Again, I didn't say ALL MEN who contest custody are abusers. However, it's ABUSIVE MEN WHO ARE MOST LIKELY TO CONTEST CUSTODY AND RESEARCH SUPPORTS THAT.
"I said according to research ON AVERAGE most fathers spend half hour a day playing with children according to research."
In "typical two parent family" this is time spent by father exclusively with children. You must add time spending with mothers, and financial support for faily (when mother don't earn money). But those fathers rather accept custody for mother.
"Again, I didn't say ALL MEN who contest custody are abusers. However, it's ABUSIVE MEN WHO ARE MOST LIKELY TO CONTEST CUSTODY AND RESEARCH SUPPORTS THAT."
Check this: "The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services data on child abuse shows that over twice as many children are battered by their mothers (40.8%) as by their fathers (18.8%), excluding cases in which both parents are abusive (16.9%) Likewise the number of children killed by their mothers without the father's involvement is double the number killed by their fathers without the mother's involvemen (...) "Research" that fails to distinguish between accusations of abuse and actual abuse is unworthy of the name "research". [b]Using such a trick to conclude that nearly all fathers who contest custody are batterers, amounts to libel against all fathers who love their children enough to fight for their welfare.[/b]
Those who play this ugly little game in order to stampede politicians into passing ill-considered laws that will make it virtually impossible for any father to ever be granted custody, show a callous disregard for the welfare of two-thirds of abused children - those children abused by their mothers."
full text: http://www.mediaradar.org/mr_breaking_the_science.php
So conlcusiosn is that mothers who mistreat own children receive a custody more often than abusive fathers.
Majority single mothers of are not abuser. But sometimes fathers who don't fight for custody don't know than children were beatten by mothers. I was battered by mother very often . She did this sometimes with strong fury. My father didn't discover that.
I already know the "facts" from the source you've provided. I was married to an MRA/FRA, and I lived within the movements for six years. I know these facts (read lies) inside and out. However, after my divorce, I became interested in feminism, and I can tell you that's where the truth really is. Your source is from an MRA/FRA website. Here is the real face of the MRA/FRA movement:
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/new.html
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/rachel-alexander-intellectual-conservative.html
The facts as they really are:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071205190835.htm
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/statistics.html
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/018.htm
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/020.htm
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/017.htm
Those statistics given here: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/statistics.html are wrong. They didn't quoted a source. They compared percentages, which is metodologicaly wrong. (They should compare the numbers of abuse act done by single mothers and by single fathers to numbers of single mothers and numbers of single fathers - i don't see this numbers in text).
The statement: "men are 12 times as likely as women to perpetrate abuse against children, or put another way, they are 1100% more dangerous to children than are women." is unproven. I can agree that mothers spent more time withw childre, and this is a reason why they abuse children more often. But the statement that men are 12 times more danger is a lie.
You cannot do simple arithmetics. Most men never maltreat children. Some do this very often. If you are comparing the number of aggresive act done by men to the number of living men, you are supposing tha all me are equal dangerous. This is completely unthruth. Men who are aggresive have personality disorder. (women too). Small percentage of men is responsible for large majority of aggresive behavior. So there are men who are not dangeaours ande men who are extremaly dangerous (thy can be diagnosed by tests and brain scanning).
According to this site http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ in 2006 373,114 men in USA were preparators of child maltreatement. 905,000 children were victims (of both male and female preparators). This means that the victim rate is 12.1 per 1,000 children. So the dangeour is thankfully small.
So showing the average number says nothing. There are two separate populations of men, and they differ very much.
A "typical man" in USA is not dangeourus to children. Writting that men are 12 times more dangeurus than women, make the site: www.thelizlibrary.org unreliable. I think they have prejudices.
"They should compare the numbers of abuse act done by single mothers and by single fathers to numbers of single mothers and numbers of single fathers - i don't see this numbers in text)."
She said directly:
Compare the above two calculations with the National Clearinghouse statistics that "[a]mong children in single-parent households, those living with only their fathers were approximately one and two-thirds times more likely to be physically abused than those living with only their mothers."
You can find a summary on the findings from the National Clearinghouse that states exactly that:
http://www.healthieryou.com/cabuse.html
Also, her other source is the first link I gave you:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071205190835.htm
Direct quote from the article "Dads Break Bones of Children More Often than Moms":
"ScienceDaily (Dec. 6, 2007) — Dads break or fracture the bones of their children far more often than moms, and they tend to inflict their abusive rage on infants younger than five months old, according to a study in Child Abuse & Neglect."
and this:
"Broken and fractured bones rank as the second most common presentation of child abuse in the United States, after inflicted brain trauma. More than 30 percent of children evaluated in emergency rooms for suspected child abuse have either acute or healing fractures.
Earlier studies of inflicted brain trauma had identified biological fathers as the most common perpetrator. This study adds to the evidence that biological fathers, and males in general, pose the gravest risk to children."
"You cannot do simple arithmetics"
I'm not doing the arithmetic Einstein. These calculations come from the website I posted, and those calculations make more sense than what you come up with.
And you have no reading comphrehension, and from the way you write, obviously, you can't do simple grammar or spellig either. Your either very uneducated or your an MRA/FRA who is trying to pose as someone who is. Well, I've got news for you. Your not very educated either way.
"Writting that men are 12 times more dangeurus than women, make the site: www.thelizlibrary.org unreliable. I think they have prejudices"
Oh, yeah, the lizlibrary is so unreliable especially when she quotes what some of the leaders of the MRA/FRA movement are nothing but a bunch of child molesters and wife beaters. In fact, here's a debate between Liz Kates (author of Lizlibrary) ande one of the FRA assholes. It's quite entertaining to read how Liz Kates runs circles around this guy:
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/010.htm
"Compare the above two calculations with the National Clearinghouse statistics that "[a]mong children in single-parent households, those living with only their fathers were approximately one and two-thirds times more likely to be physically abused than those living with only their mothers.""
First they undeestimeted the number of single father. In USA single fathers are 20% of single parents not 10% as the text said.
Second i cannot see the number. They show risk and percentages. The statement "two-thirds times more likely " can mean that 4% or 40% single fatheters are abuser. In USA live above 2 mln single fathers. How many of them are dangeourus for their children. This number i would know.
"These calculations come from the website I posted, and those calculations make more sense than what you come up with."
The callculations are based on presumption that every man is dangeour on the same level. You can callculate risk ONLY when deciding factor is chance. But male aggression is not a random accident. There are psychological factors in male personality which decide if he would meltreat own children. I'm not telling that callculations were arithmeticaly wrong. I think this is bad metodology!
And for broken bones - father who beat own child use more fisical strenght. But maltreatement done by mother cam be equale tramumatic even if she didn't broke legs.
I'm not a male activist. I've seen they have symptons of psychopathy. This is case in man who discuss with Liz Kates. This man is obbssed on control and power - typical for psychopaths. Young men who have sych personality are sometimes very attractive to women. But they tend to be preparators of domestic violence, addicted to alcohol or gambilng, sometimes the are criminalist.
English is not my first or even secon languge so excuse me. I find this site when i was searching another meterial.
Well, I have to disagree with you. However, I think if the father is the more responsible parent, he should get custody, but most fathers are not.
"I'm not a male activist. I've seen they have symptons of psychopathy. This is case in man who discuss with Liz Kates. This man is obbssed on control and power - typical for psychopaths"
Well, these are the kind of men who make up the MRA/FRAs, and they are the ones who want to make it so that all fathers get custody even if they are unfit. They don't care about the best interests of the children. Websites like lizlibrary refer mainly to these types of men.
"English is not my first or even secon languge so excuse me. I find this site when i was searching another meterial."
Well, I'm sorry I referred to you as uneducated. It did cross my mind that maybe english wasn't your first language. However, there is always some MRA/FRA popping up trying to pretend like they are some uneducated person or whatever. I wasn't sure if you fit this category or not.
"Women should receive a custody only becasue she can care for children better than father."
Don't you see where this can lead??? It's actually can morph into the criminalization of poor people even having children. That's what this debate is really about...
Wake up...
I'm not going to get into another debate about people abusing children and somehow managing to get custody anyway. MOST people do not abuse children, so this is a red herring. We are talking about allowing the legal system to decide who has the right to raise our children...and it frequently turns into a totally dollars and cents equation where women are at a disadvantage.
Well some of this discussion (which I missed, sorry) could be used to make a case for a babysitter to file a custody case and this has happened.
Unfortunately due to modern day circumstances women have to work and frequently leave their children with either babysitters or daycare center while they do so...so a strict interpretation of time spent with child = custody doesn't make sense for society under this scenario.
It's outdated due to changes in the way we live today...what hasn't changed is the mother/child bonding that takes place during nine months of carrying fetus to term...and the assumption that (until proven otherwise) mother is person best suited to make decisions in best interest of her child. UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE...and I mean "proven" not some politically correct research done on a clownfish or a penguin somewhere...
"The entire foundation of our economy is based upon the exploitation of the free and underpaid labor of women."
I found this comment interesting. I wish people would post under a name here sometimes because I like to respond to people, not just unknowns. But anyway I was just thinking about this the other day when it came to my attention at a PTA meeting (for my granddaughter) how few parents actually attended, everyone was either working or prepping for returning to work the next morning. They now need a paid parent coordinator to do the work that someone's mother used to do in her child's school.
Many of the professions that are experiencing growth involve fields that didn't exist years ago because women did all this work for free. Volunteering at schools to fundraise, at hospitals, nursing homes etc.,...this was free work that women provided in the past, that is now a job. Childcare for young children, maids for cleaning, most women did this work in the home themselves. The only portion of that job that women kept was cooking and this has even been 'outsourced' to Pizza Hut, McDonald's, etc.,
So it's an interesting comment...
"In the USA there are about 2 million single father but only about 40% are divorced."
This is a very worrisome statistic which shows me that even men who don't make the slightly commitment whatsoever to the child or it's mother pre-bith are given undeserved legal recognition after the fact...
It's outrageous really as a recreational sperm donor merits no recognition or rights.
According to the US Dept. of Justice, men committ 99% of all violent crimes in society. The 1% of violent crimes committed by women usualy involved protecting a child from a male, as in divorce or custody issues.
8 PhD's published a study defining white european descendant males as: toxic, violent and disagreeable. The Bill Gates foundation on global health report 2003, found that in countries where women are economically empowered and administratively empowered in health care, the std rate is near 0%. In countries where men are empowered economically and run health care, the std rate is 98%-100%.
Men cheat, men spread std birth defects to unborn children and deadly stds to women. Women are less prone to cheat biologically. Gates study found men misappropriate monies directed to help children. Woman administrators do not. In other words sweat shop padrone capice, a male will steal a little kids milk and cookie money and use the money to buy a prostitute, a female will not. Bill Gates solution is to empower all women economically in finance and administratively in health care and this will end global disease, which is spread by sick promiscuous std infested males.
Ciao at McDonalds Capic eafter you finish serving your pimp and misappropriation prison term.
We have over 150 prisons in Texas for men and over 128 prisons in Florida, all filled to the brim with women and child haters like capice.A prison cage awaits men who abuse women and rob little childrens milk and cookie money.
The mediterainean model vs. the Northern model. The mediteranean model seeks to create a slave class of prostitutes that will serve many low class poor men who otherwise can not and will not afford and support one wife. The northern model creates a system where men earn enough money to pay for one wife and not have to share a prostitute with many other men.
The mediterranean model is disease filled, the northern model failed because greedy and selfish men refused to use thier money to provide for one wife and children. We have laws that force men to pay child support and men skip state and run out of the country every day to evade paying child support. These non provider men are not good husbands, not good fathers, they create generations of illigitimate basterd devil children that lie rob and murder. Non provider men must be chemically castrated and removed from society, by comprehensive planned parenthood laws.
I never heard of this "Mediterainean vs. the Northern model"...
Frankly I think some situations just naturally evolve due to the fact that women have to do all the child bearing...it's a physical and emotional nine month drain on a woman each time she produces another child.
Nothing much we can do about that situation...
Post a Comment