SLIDER

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

My Thoughts on "ME-ternity" Leave

You can't take a shit without exposure to myriad of ignorant commentary these days (note to self: don't use an iPhone in the bathroom; rather, take a poop in peace, or, relative peace, as I do still have a 4-year-old, and anyone with kids knows there is no such thing as privacy) - from the Target/transgender bathroom "issue," to any and every thing Donald Trump, to the latest Internet virus from the New York Post.

So, ahem, allow me to take a turn on the soapbox.

I think most of us can agree that new author Meghann Foye's piece about maternity leave as "me time" is ri-DICK-ulous. Seriously, she sounds like such a dick. "I want all the perks of maternity leave without having kids." But at least she will likely be able to credit herself with coining 2016's (already) most-hated word, meternity.

Sure, Foye's comments to her friend about being envious of her female coworkers' maternity leave were likely tongue-in-cheek and might even be considered cute. The idea of a grown-ass woman's jealousy spurring a white lie that snowballs into a faked pregnancy is a creative premise for her novel. And really, this headline-grabbing media stunt might very well be a brilliant marketing/PR move. Well played, Foye, well played. There are now tens of thousands of people who know that you and your book exist. (Except that half of them already hate you and have no intention of reading such bullshit, fiction or not).

But her reported stance on the matter of "unfairness" of maternity leave? Like I said, ri-DICK-ulous. Laughable. Wildly ignorant. Offensive. And, most surprisingly to me, not unique.

When I first read the interview, I was appalled. Then I realized the media frenzy on the heels of such a piece, and became aware of the likelihood of a publicity stunt. As I often do when I find myself flabbergasted, I thought, No one actually thinks these things. That's too crazy. And too ignorant. Yeah, there are certainly a lot of dumbasses in the world, but nobody is that dumb. In fact ... maybe she's the opposite? At least, her publicist is. Her comments are beyond ludicrous, but she's garnering SO MUCH attention, therefore she's, dare I say, brilliant?!?

Then I read the comments on the New York Post piece. And I read a Jezebel article about the piece, and then those comments, and then the Facebook comments ... and I got lost in the rabbit hole that is anonymous online commenting (who actually comments on articles anyway?!?).

While there are a whole slew of offended working mothers out there, there are practically as many self-righteous childless folks who agree with Foye's sentiments about the "discrimination" individuals without children face, and the "unfairness" that is maternity leave.

The following are ACTUAL quotes from Foye's interview in the New York Post, and my thoughtful (passive aggressive) response ...

Foye: "The more I came to believe in the value of a "meternity" leave - which is, to me, a sabbatical-like break that allows women, and, to a lesser degree, men, to shift their focus to the part of their lives that doesn't revolve around their jobs."

Me: My dear, ignorant, woman, the good news is that "meternity" leave already exists - it is called "vacation!" Or maybe "PTO," "leave," "annual leave," or even "sabbatical." Although I believe the origin of the sabbatical had more to do with time set aside for academics and their research, rather than a "break."

I think you might be really fucking confused about"MAternity leave," which can hardly be considered a break of any kind, other than the fact it is an absence from the workplace. Just like when a colleague gets in a car accident and is required to undergo rehabilitation. Or when your boss takes a few weeks or even months off to care for her mother who is on hospice. Or the administrative assistant who is in the court process of adopting her otherwise-neglected niece and nephew.

Maternity leave, for starters, is hardly guaranteed, typically unpaid, and serves essentially as a placeholder for a specific position at a specific company. In the US, a new parent MAY qualify for up to 12 weeks of (maternity/paternity) leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). FMLA is a federal law enacted to provide job protection and UNPAID LEAVE for medical/family reasons including illness, military leave, and pregnancy/adoption/foster care. The bill was intended to "balance the demands of the workplace with the needs of families," and signed into law in 1993 (thanks, Bill). It allows ELIGIBLE employees (those who have been at the business at least 12 months PLUS worked more than 1,250 hours in the last year PLUS work in a location where the company employs 50+ people within 75 mile radius) to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period.

I, for example, am a highly educated, employed, professional woman - a speech-language pathologist with a Master's degree, professional licensure that requires annual review/renewal, and in a public service providing cognitive rehabilitation to veterans with brain injuries - who, following the birth of my daughter, took three months UNPAID LEAVE that I was not even entitled to by law, thanks to the (surprising) support of my supervisors. I did not qualify for FMLA because I had not been at my workplace for more than a year. Even in my current work setting, where I have been for over three years, I would still not qualify for FMLA; I work part-time and therefore have not worked 1,250 hours in the last year. Let's assume I worked in my current position fulltime and was thus eligible for FMLA - I would STILL forfeit all income during my maternity leave, aside from the VACATION or SICK TIME I might have accrued/saved and then been required to use for such a purpose. In other words, by definition, my employer would first consider me sick, and then on vacation, and then absent without formal "leave," and therefore I would be unpaid during a three month maternity leave. As for short-term disability - depending, yet again, upon specifics of the workplace and various eligibility requirements - if this benefit is even available, it MAY provide a percentage of your pay for a short portion of time, about 6-8 weeks.

As someone who has, in fact, pushed a tiny human the size of a watermelon out of a hole the size of a clementine, and then cared for said tiny human - ensuring that she could physiologically survive in a world she was not yet equipped to manage independently, while also providing the  necessary social-emotional bonding to ensure she develops into a contributing member of society rather than a blood-sucking narcissistic sociopath - comparing maternity leave to a sabbatical or vacation or time for self-reflection is downright OFFENSIVE. It's kinda like calling a colonoscopy a day at the spa, or calling a hysterectomy a cleanse.

Bear in mind that labor and delivery require actual medical attention/management/recovery time. For vaginal births, a woman doesn't even follow up with her doctor until 6 weeks after the birth. SIX WEEKS! My husband returned to his surgeon and initiated physical therapy in less than a week after his ACL repair surgery. After my Bean was born I couldn't pee without crying for at least a week (it's the vagina-equivalent of 'rubbing salt on a wound'), let alone wipe my own ass (instead using a plastic squeeze bottle to gently rinse the area) for at least another week or two. And the blood. Oh the blood! No one tells you how.much.blood. Like a goat was slaughtered in the hospital room. Like all of my periods added together and endured consecutively. Like soaking through even the thickest of pads you've every worn. And then there was the hairline-fractured tailbone; I could not comfortably sit in any upright position - let alone hover over the toilet for said painful peeing. There's the swollen, sore, and lactating breasts. The hair that just keeps falling out in clumps. The hormonal mood swings. The unfamiliar physical body ... And I had it easy. There could also have been hemorrhoids, constipation, post-partum depression or anxiety, skin changes, chronic vaginal soreness, etc. And that's in a healthy birth, where mama and baby are more or less doing just fine.

As for Caesarian/C-sections, healing is an even different ballgame. It's major abdominal surgery. Like, they slice you open, juggle a whole bunch of your internal organs around and out of the way, retrieve your newborn baby through your now-exposed tummy, remove an actual human organ (the placenta), then stitch your insides and your outsides back together and tell you not to lift even a finger. And that you can't leave the hospital until you fart. Then there's the risk of infection. There's post-surgery pain. There's still the post-partum bleeding and hormonal changes and breast tenderness. And then there's the terror that is your first poop. That is, if you ever get over what I hear feels like eternal constipation.

And remember, in addition to your own body's healing, you are now tasked with the enormous responsibility that is sustaining the life of this tiny human, which requires learning to use your boobs to feed a baby, and an insane level of sleep-deprivation. Your newborn, too, is adjusting to life on the outside, learning to eat and sleep and cry. All the while both of you are working on developing social connections and emotional bonds that are required for this tiny human not only to survive, but also to meet developmental milestones and learn and grow and evolve into an actual person with thoughts and feelings. Ideally, an actual person who will be an important, contributing member of society.

This is all science. Like, research. Granted, "science" and "research" are unlikely to be convincing arguments for someone who LITERALLY doesn't understand "maternity leave." Just like "scientific studies" or "evidence" render few results with the folks who continue to be anti-vax, anti-global warming, and anti-evolution.


Foye: "It seemed that parenthood was the only path that provided a modicum of flexibility ..."

Me: Clearly, CLEARLY, Foye is clueless about the actual, real-life responsibilities and day-today-tasks required in parenting. There are SO FEW THINGS about raising children that entail flexibility. Parenting itself is more like a (unrelenting) lesson in how to become more flexible (and patient and self-compassionate) because of how little control you really do have. Flexible is being able to go to bed and wake up when you and your body feel like it. Flexible is deciding when, where, and what to eat on a whim. Flexible is stopping at Target on the way home just because you want to, and then wandering the aisles because you have nowhere to be and no one to answer to, let alone pick up/feed/bathe/clothe/read to/and lull to sleep.

Nothing, NOTHING, about parenthood provides EVEN A MODICUM of flexibility. Parenthood, however, does teach a person how to become more flexible - learning to bend without breaking, to easily modify or adapt, to change or compromise - and it's a lesson most of us first-worlders could stand to learn.


Foye: "And as I watched my friends take their real maternity leaves, I saw that spending three months detached from their desks made them much more sure of themselves."

Me: For starters, I have nary a girlfriend whose sense of self increased following the birth of her child, at least, not her first child. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Want to feel really unsure about yourself? Gain 30 pounds, be responsible for yet another (very most) important thing (a tiny human), endure the ebb and flow of inconsistent hormonal changes, be pulled in too many directions, bend without breaking, try to nurture your romantic relationship while also rehabbing your wounded sexy parts and ALSO sustaining life (yours PLUS said tiny human), maybe experience feelings of isolation, endure some guilt about being away from work, and question how you will ever have enough time/energy/support to fulfill all of your old roles and responsibilities PLUS this new, very beautiful, wholly dependent, and epically life-changing one. I guarantee you will not feel "much more sure of yourself," whether or not you you have that time away from your desk.


Foye: "From the outside, it seemed like those few weeks of them shifting their focus to something other than their jobs gave them a whole new lens through which to see their lives."

Me: I'll give you this one, Foye. During maternity leave a woman's focus does absolutely shift away from her job and onto something much more significant. That is one of the many pleasures of becoming a parent.


Foye: "Bottom line: Women are bad at putting ourselves first. But when you have a child, you learn how to self-advocate to put the needs of your family first."

Me: The simple act of producing a tiny human does NOT, in fact, teach you how to self-advocate. I would argue this is yet another (unrelenting) lesson, and a very difficult one for many, that becoming a mother requires you to learn and learn quickly. Rather than reducing the amount on your hypothetical plate, having a child adds to the heaping servings, requiring that parents learn how to triage and manage that over-loaded plate. When you have a family and a job and a home and .... you are expected to put the needs of your children/family first, just (every so slightly) ahead of the demands of work, and then there's just life in general (eating, sleeping, basic hygiene, let alone laundry, cleaning, paying bills ...) where's the room for just you?!?

And also, why women? I know plenty of men, my husband included, who struggle to prioritize their own needs and desires amidst the many hats they are required to wear in one day. My husband, for example, juggles being a loving spouse, devoted daddy, passionate high school teacher, and responsible homeowner, among so much more. He's no better than I at putting himself first.


Foye: "And yet, after 10 years of working in a job where I was always on deadline, I couldn't help but feel envious when parents on staff left the office at 6 p.m. to tend to their children, while it was assumed co-workers without kids would stay behind to pick up the slack."

Me: You chose your particular profession, requiring that you always work on deadline. Don't like deadlines? Don't work in news/media. And definitely don't have kids. There's no deadline as stressful as the one imposed by the crankiest of bosses - your starving infant anxiously awaiting her dinner while you are stuck on the bridge in traffic after rushing out of work and being the last parent to pick up your child from daycare.

You are responsible for whether or not you stay or leave at 6 p.m. Don't put that on your colleagues, kids or no kids. It's not their job to tell you if and when it's time for you to leave. If there is some validity to your complaint that the childless are working harder/longer than those employees with children, consider having an actual dialogue with your supervisor and/or your colleagues, and get explicit understanding about everyone's expectations.


Although obtuse and self-important, at least Foye's arguments were well-crafted. The Internet trolls, on the other hand, left the following actual comments. And if I were someone who commented on media articles and Facebook posts, these are the kinds of things I'd say to them (that's what my blog is for):

"YES motherhood is hard work but IT's A PERSONAL CHOICE to decide to bring a kid into the world! It's also a personal choice NOT to... We should get the SAME benefits as workers at a company! ... We don't have a CHOICE when we get sick; therefore we there is sick leave for everyone;  we HAVE a choice taking vacations; therefore there is PTO for everyone---> having KIDS is a CHOICE and where are my benefits for choosing NOT to have kids. I should be able to sign an agreement saying i will not use my maternity leave benefits and be able to take off 3-4 month because I made a personal choice TO or NOT To have kids... "

This isn't even a discourse about "hard" or "easy."

Of course we are all (mostly) empowered to choose whether or not to have kids. I relish the fact that I have that choice, a woman living here in the United States in the 21st Century.

You're right, unfortunately, we (mostly) don't have a choice if and when and how we get sick ... Then again, if we're really going to nail the "choice" thing, in the name of "same benefits" ... I choose not to smoke. I choose to eat well and exercise and minimize alcohol consumption. I aim to meditate regularly. I have a good social support system and keep my mental health in check with the help of a therapist. I choose to regularly schedule well-visits with my doctor, I brush and floss daily, and I take overall good care of my own body and the health of my family. Therefore, I don't get sick very often. And how am I rewarded for my "good choices"?!? 

It's not "fair" that someone with a lesser immune system "gets" more time off (aka sick time) than I do. It's not fair, because I happen to know that person doesn't exercise and drinks more than four alcoholic beverages in one sitting. That's their "choice." And now they are sick and "getting more time off." Do I get a discount on my medical insurance benefits? Do I get to translate my sick time into vacation time? Do I have to "pick up the slack" for my colleagues who catch colds more often than I do?

Or better yet, it's not fair that the lady whose husband has lung cancer gets to use her FMLA to care for him during his incredibly taxing treatment. Smoking is a choice, and where are MY benefits from choosing not to smoke. I should be able to sign an agreement saying that I will not use much of my sick leave benefit and be able to take off all that time at once because "I made a personal choice" to not smoke (or to drink alcohol, or eat junk food, and to sleep well and exercise regularly).

Or how about the fact that military spouses and families "get" more "time off"?!? They "chose" to be married to someone in the armed forces. I "chose" not to be. I should be able to sign an agreement saying I will not use FMLA to spend time with a military spouse and instead be able to take off 3-4 months because I made a personal choice NOT to marry someone in the military.


"This book sounds great - can't wait to read it! and yes I do think its unfair that as a woman with no kids you are always expected to do the later shifts, cover for women with sick children etc.. hey we get paid the same why should I be doing your work as well as mine? and if you can't commit to all your hours don't sign the full time contract just because you want the pay day. Vent over."

It is "unfair" that you are expected to "do the later shifts, cover for women with sick children, etc." You're right. Sounds like maybe your employer or your entire workplace needs to have at least a discussion outlining explicit expectations. At my place of work, fortunately, when I call in sick (whether for myself or to care for my preschool daughter), no one is overtly required, nor covertly expected, to fulfill my day's work duties. In fact, the increased workload falls on my shoulders the next day I am able to return to the office. It's "not fair" that my daughter or I became ill, it's "not fair" that I now have 12 hours to do the 20 hours of work I have this week. It's not a matter of me "not being able to commit" to sign a fulltime or even part-time contract (FYI, I am 0.5 FTE and I STILL miss work occasionally to care for myself or my daughter related to illness). Just as you have minimal control over if and when you get sick, I, too, have minimal control over when anyone in my family gets hurt or ill. Maybe we should all just commit to being unlikely to having a 100% attendance record and create some kind of cushion to cover for those times we aren't able to be present, maybe call it "sick time" or something to that effect? Oh, that already exists? Great, I'll use that when I need to stay home with my sick child.

On that note, it's "not fair" that I only get 10 days of sick leave to cover myself and my daughter, when you get 10 days of sick leave for just yourself ...


"Becoming a parent is a lifestyle choice. Why should *you* be entitled to several weeks off for a lifestyle choice? If you want to have a baby, you're the one who should have to arrange for a sabbatical. Don't complain about the "sacrifices and drawbacks" of parenting---you chose it! And while *you* were on your maternity leave, *your* workload got dumped onto your coworkers, who didn't receive any extra compensation ..."

There's that "choice" business again. And I continue to be grateful for the independence and freedom to make the ("lifestyle"?) choice to have children (or not). And I don't so much view myself as "entitled" to "several weeks "off," any more so than I think you are "entitled" to time off to recover from your back surgery. Despite having the wonderful freedom to make choices about family planning, as with any choice, there are both costs and benefits, one drawback which might include forfeiting your independent spirit and having to ask your coworkers for their help with some parts of your job duties in your absence. But also, if your colleagues are easily able to absorb all your work responsibilities, you get to worry about the prospect that you are no longer needed there and maybe your job will be eliminated in the future. For example, when there aren't either enough speech paths and the OTs can't cover my patients in my absence, this shows my employer that my position and my expertise are essential, and that my job needs to continue to exist to better serve our veterans.


"Pregnancy and childbirth is a choice, not an illness, and we don't have a shortage of humans."

I was hoping someone might say something to this effect. That our world is already over-populated, and why should we be rewarding someone for just making more people to destroy the earth? To which I would first respond: FMLA and "maternity leave" also apply in the case of adoption and foster care. But maybe you'd offer kindness and generosity to someone who didn't purposely perpetuate their own biology, and that you'd have no trouble allowing them to "take several weeks off" because they are practically saints and deserve to have a job to come back to? I don't disagree.

As for those of us who are propagating the species via our own sex organs, I would argue that it is in the interest of society at large that a portion of all demographics do so, within reason. Just as each individual who does NOT have children serves an important and vital role in our social ecosystem, so too do the individuals who DO raise children.

At the risk of sounding pro-eugenics, I would posit that a lot of you Internet trolls would actually prefer that employed, professional women - the ones who offend you with the unfairness of their maternity leave - do the conceiving, carrying, delivering, and raising of our nation's children. The children who, with the proper love, support, and education, will be the future - our future healers, our future lawmakers, our future teachers. The generation that we will someday rely on to help care for us physically and fiscally. I imagine that, in only very general terms, many of the women requiring maternity leave - your doctor, your nurse, the county clerk, your son's 3rd grade teacher, the flight attendant, your car mechanic, the mail delivery person, the city planner, your physical therapist - play an important if not vital role in your life, and if not directly, absolutely indirectly.

Without the protection of FMLA and even a brief period of (likely unpaid) maternity leave for women in the workplace who CHOOSE to have children, we create social and occupational environments with their own risks. For one, a lack of job protection means that either, A) women in the workplace choose not to have children, for fear of losing their employment; or B) women in the workplace have children, but return to work before they: B1) have physically/emotionally recovered (risking increased costs related to illness/injury, reduced productivity, job dissatisfaction and thus a higher turnover rate, etc.); or B2) sufficiently nurtured/bonded/supported their new babies (risking poor attachment relationships, which can lead to myriad of disastrous social consequences including reduced academic success, increased drug use/abuse, increased criminal behaviors, poorer coping and social/emotional skills, unstable relationships, etc.; increasing likelihood of shortened or absent breastfeeding, which can be associated with higher rates of illness, for example, which could lead to a higher need for parental time off to care for the sick child); or C) women who choose to have children no longer have jobs (without job protection we essentially eliminate an entire segment of the workplace population).

Bottom line is, no, there's not shortage of humans on this planet. But without the (very paltry) job protection/maternity leave that FMLA provides for those eligible, the only people with the ability/means to have children are the very poor or the very rich. Do you want to live in a country where all the folks in the (ever-squeezed) middle class can no longer accommodate a family, and therefore our future generations are comprised only of the very poor (typically - lower education, lower employment, and higher crime rates) and the very wealthy (the Paris Hiltons, Kim Kardashians, and Trumps of the world)?!?


"(Preface: I am a mother, and happily so) I am so OVER the worship expected by new parents over the past several years. Congratulations, you bred, now get over it. Humans have been breeding for thousands of years; it's the fulfillment of a biological imperative and essentially selfish to want a mini-me; they sap resources on a planet that has plenty of suckage already. We don't get to complain about how hard it is, and how wonderful we are for keeping our mini-mes alive. I pity my co-workers who don't have kids ONLY when they have to pick up the slack--and let's be brutally honest here, they absolutely do--at work when the rest of us 'just have to get home to the kids.' We aren't working any less hard at home tasks but that doesn't benefit our colleagues. The sour grapes in this thread seem to come from people who want to be treated like deities because they made the very self-centered decision to perpetuate their genetic lines. This article *could* start an important discussion about how both life paths are equally legitimate but that perhaps our workplaces currently don't support either particularly well."

This Internet mother/troll presents a few truths: new parents should not "expect to be worshipped"; humans have been breeding for years; humans sap planetary resources; and that workplaces don't support the personal lives of their employees very well in this society.

Apparently I should consider myself lucky that I don't know any of these self-involved and entitled expectant parents. I, do, however, think new parents and their newborn baby "deserve" every ounce of love and support that their friends, family, colleagues, neighbors and community at large has to offer. Just as a coworker caring for her ailing father "deserves" the same respect and kindness. As does the neighbor who was recently diagnosed with MS. Or the friend who started their OB/GYN residency and needs help with their dog. Or the guy in the front of the line at the grocery store, whose life experiences you know nothing about.

Compassion feeds and fuels us all, and our workplace culture could stand to make some MAJOR improvements on this front.


"Having children should be a well thought out PLANNED decision.  Personally, professionally and financially.  The system is slanted in favor of people with children.  I think it's time that people without children get a break.  We don't get extra tax deductions, we don't get child care credits, but we are required to pay for public services like schools for our entire lives, that we NEVER use.  I worked for a company that gave every employee a month off with pay after every 6 years of service. (great company) We all need to re-generate ourselves, whether we have kids or not.  Bottom line, if you want kids that's great.... but put a plan together to cover all the areas of your life that will be effected.... don't expect me to work longer hours because of your responsibilities to your kids, don't expect employers to pay you to be off work because of your personal decision to have kids, and don't penalize me financially through taxes, etc. because I don't have kids.  We all need some Me Time..."

With all due respect, I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE that our "system is slanted in favor of people with children." I'd be curious what your evidence for this is.

On what front should people without children "get a break"?!?! Like a lunch break? A holiday break? A tax break? A commercial break?

The tax deductions are related to the cost of childcare (remember, only the very poor and the very wealthy have easy access, can stay home, or can actually afford to provide care for their young children).

As for publics schools - we are all required to pay for many, many public services, including the systems which educate our children, whether or not we directly use them. But on the school front, I'm going to go ahead and assume you went to at least 8 years of schooling, of which you did not directly pay for. So maybe think about it like you are just now paying back the money it cost to put you through school, and without any increased interest rate or penalization!

I "choose" to drive a car, and I very directly benefit when my tax dollars fund basic road repair. But I don't (directly) benefit from the tax dollars used to fund public transportation. I now live several miles from a state park that I love, so rarely go running there, yet still contribute to public access at Mary S. Young. My house has (knock on wood) never caught fire, but I help fund Portland Fire. I support he de-criminalization related to many kinds of drug charges, but still have to pay to house and feed these "criminals" in jail/prison. I don't agree with our involvement in Iraq/Afghanistan, but a large proportion of our tax dollars, including my contributions, have been used to train more soldiers, to make more bombs, and to generally wage war (and increase the wealth of a certain few who shall remain nameless) in the Middle East. I contribute to entities such as social security, and am unlikely to ever see a penny of that money in my retirement.


"A woman makes a choice to have a kid. Why does everyone act like everything must be done for them and give them special treatment? if you don't want to go through all the crap, don't have a kid. Giving tons of time off is crazy, you made the decision, deal with it."

"Just because you choose to breed doesn't mean everyone else's life is forfeit to your schedule and whims."

"Why do you get a paid leave of abscence just because you want to be pregnant? Why shouldn't everybody get a paid leave of abscence. This is the start of everybody else paying for your kid. and something that none of you are thankful for, you just expect it. We are supposed to be grateful because you had a kid. I want to be thanked for everything that you expect as your right. And I think that those who chose not to burden us with their progeny should get a paid leave also."

Yet again. And again and again and again -  "choose," "choice," "decision."

If you break your arm, is it then fair to say you made the "choice" to go snowboarding, and thus you shouldn't get time off to heal? Would you think it "fair" for us to say, "well, you made the decision, deal with it." Maybe you're not sold that breaking your arm is a "choice" on par with pregnancy. What if one doctor recommends surgery and a second doctor tells you that your arm will heal just fine on its own? Now do we agree that there's a "choice" to be made? So if you opt for the surgery, should you risk losing the "benefit" of returning to your job? It was your "choice," after all. Even though it's made a bit more work for your colleagues. All because you chose to go skiing. You chose to keep skiing even though you were tired and hungry and the light was flat. And then you fell and broke your arm. And then you "chose" to get surgery, even though one doctor said you didn't really need it. And now you're being told that you are no longer employed because you were gone three weeks when you only had two weeks of vacation and sick time saved up, and there were no regulations in place to protect your employment. Therefore, on a grand scale, we can say that all people who "choose" to partake in risky sports activities and thus get injured "chose" to take the risk and are therefore not "entitled" to "benefits" such as job protection during recovery time.

Instead, I'd rather argue for MORE flexibility for all kinds of people and situations in the workplace, rather than rallying to restrict regulations even further.

Yes, breeding is a choice. Some women choose to have babies with their husbands, some women choose to go it alone, some men opt for a surrogate or adoption, some people never meant to get pregnant in the first place, some individuals are desperate to be parents and are unable to. Our bodies were more or less designed to procreate, and it is essential for our species' survival that some number of us "choose" to do so.

I could take the line, "it's not FAIR that you choose not to have kids and now you're burdening me with the responsibility of producing and raising educated, middle class children. Why do I have to do the extra work? Why can't I get compensated for making this sacrifice in the interest of our human race? Why do I have to work AND raise kids?!?"

Yes, having a baby impacts others. So does your broken arm. So does your negative, whiny attitude. All of the things each of us "choose" to do as individuals effects all of those around us, both on an individual basis and as a group. In both positive and negative ways. That's the nature of being social animals. So I beg you to "choose" to get along better with everyone, or figure out some way to not just behave like you're an island, but to actually live on one.


In a quick Google search of "meternity," I get more than 13 million hits in less than a half-second, the first and second pages all related to Foye's piece. She clearly struck a nerve, both of parents and non-parents alike. To which I say to you, Meghann, yet again, well played. And enjoy your five minutes of fame because it is unlikely you will ever again elicit such a national response. And because I'm a wannabe writer, an avid reader, and an otherwise mostly open and supportive individual, I do wish you good luck with your book. I hope - but can't imagine - that the outcry will translate into book sales.

These are my major takeaways from the New York Post piece and the nation-wide response:
- Foye is a little old and in the wrong stereotypical generation to be throwing a public "that's not fair!" tantrum, even if she's eloquent or creative about it, and even if it helps with book sales
- there are a lot of outspoken Internet trolls who apparently hate children, or at least hate the adults that are producing the children
- a lot of people are feeling the pressure from a vice-like squeeze that is our culture's (misplaced?) values on productivity, multitasking, and general busyness
- parents and non-parents alike are struggling with that elusive "work-life balance"
- there's a lot of judgment from both sides of the parenting fence, rendering us unable to recognize the unique and vital roles that moms/dads AND the childfree fulfill on our society
-  the one thing it seems we can all agree on is an unmet need for more "me time," whether in the form of vacation, sabbatical, or simply an unexplained leave of absence with the job security and sincere intent to return to work more energized and better equipped to fulfill job-related responsibilities
- maternity leave, however, fulfills no such need; neither does any other scenario eligible under FMLA
- we need a dramatic increase in respect for the very many people in this country who serve as caregivers, whether stay-at-home mothers of newborn babies, those employed in skilled nursing facilities, aids for those living with disabilities, or family members providing care and comfort for a loved one recovering from illness or injury; most of these caregivers are women, most are either unpaid or underpaid, and the least we could do, THE VERY LEAST, is give them our respect and gratitude for providing day-to-day care for our society's neediest, young and old

2 comments:

  1. YESSSS! give yourself a mental high five (or a literal one if you prefer) for that essay. and submit it to salon, the atlantic, daily beast, and huffpo. couldn't have said it better myself:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kim, I am SOOOO impressed if you actually read this. I would have looked at it, balked at the length, and called it a day. Apparently I had a lot to say on the matter! Blogs are nice for when no one really wants to listen, but you've still got the need to speak ;)

      Delete

Hover to Pin

 
Designed with ♥ by Nudge Media Design