Reality Show for Stay-at-Home Moms - Page 2

skylark · #16 03-13-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Oh...I was serious...

Furthermore, when you think about the glut of oxymoronic reality shows that are on now, one does have to wonder...why is there ANOTHER one coming out?

Whose reality are they basing 'reality' TV on anyways?

Well, I think that this show really isn't just another reality show. I think it addresses an important issue that I think will be at the forefront of our generations' public policy decisions. How do we (as a society) expect women to succeed equally in careers if they are forced to do 70-80% of the at-home work as well? Biology isn't really an excuse for the dilemma, since a relatively small portion of our lives are actually spent so pregnant or post-delivery that working is a really bad option.

I think it is a conversation that women and men need to have with eachother not only at home but in businesses. We have to make career paths that do not penalize for having a balance -- for both women and men. Otherwise, we will simply be a society of couples where one is the breadwinner and the other is at home (or has a low-priority career). Because of cultural influences, that will usually mean the woman puts her career on hold or on a backburner for a significant portion of her life.

To me, this show is anything but just another reality TV show.

DSTCHAOS · #17 03-13-2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Skylark...that there is a perfect example...

What 2 families will get together and 'swap' members...let them go to each other's homes and try to tell another family what to do?

The only time people wifeswap is when they are swinging

(which when first heard of the show, I thought that was the premise...hehe)

Yeah...that's obvious.

The real reason the show is popular is because people often believe "the grass is greener on the other side" and want to complain about their life and envy others'. Wife Swap is good in that in the end the couples usually say "while I appreciate some of the new things I've learned and been exposed to, and perhaps will implement some changes, I appreciate what I have even more and will work harder to make it work."

Senusret I · #18 03-13-2008, 02:05 PM

I think this is related.....

Has anyone ever heard of a new father being given "paternity leave?"

That happened when I worked for a university.

DSTCHAOS · #19 03-13-2008, 02:11 PM

That is related.

I have heard of paternity leave at socially progressive places of employment.

These are typically the same places that also do not penalize parents of any gender who have parenting and family responsibilities. They know that workers who are allowed to have a healthy balance will have a greater interest in their careers and be able to advance their company profit.

For instance, therefore, women and men do not need to pretend that they are unconcerned mothers and fathers to get ahead in that environment. Single fathers and mothers do not need to pretend that they aren't single parents (i.e. "oh, nooooo, I just have visitation on the weekends. Sure, I can work late and travel and kiss your asses and pretend like this company is my family so I can become partner and make 100+K.") to climb the career ladder.

skylark · #20 03-13-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senusret I

I think this is related.....

Has anyone ever heard of a new father being given "paternity leave?"

That happened when I worked for a university.

Not only have I heard of it, my husband is planning on taking some when our kids our born. (Our plan is about 3 weeks off for me then 3-6 months off for him.)

Under the FMLA, all employees get leave regardless of gender for medical-family situations... extends not just in parenting situations but also for taking care of another adult family member.

Allowing for paternity leave is required under the law, if you're giving maternity leave, as well. Many do not realize this, though, because unfortunately there are few fathers that ask to take extensive leave.

ETA:
However, getting leave is only part of the issue because what happens after the leave is over? Who takes care of the kids then? Should kids be in day care until 6pm every weekday, because in order for both parents to have professional careers in which they are not being penalized for rearing their children.

DaemonSeid · #21 03-13-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark

Well, I think that this show really isn't just another reality show. I think it addresses an important issue that I think will be at the forefront of our generations' public policy decisions. How do we (as a society) expect women to succeed equally in careers if they are forced to do 70-80% of the at-home work as well? Biology isn't really an excuse for the dilemma, since a relatively small portion of our lives are actually spent so pregnant or post-delivery that working is a really bad option.

I think it is a conversation that women and men need to have with eachother not only at home but in businesses. We have to make career paths that do not penalize for having a balance -- for both women and men. Otherwise, we will simply be a society of couples where one is the breadwinner and the other is at home (or has a low-priority career). Because of cultural influences, that will usually mean the woman puts her career on hold or on a backburner for a significant portion of her life.

To me, this show is anything but just another reality TV show.

If that is the case, then there needs to be more programs made like this where serious issues will be raised that make people THINK rather than these trainwrecks that pass for 'reality TV' come on.

This is why when I see articles for 'new' reality shows, it turns me off...

I mean, let's face it....when Moment of Truth came out...it may have been a dumb premise, but think about the underlying question...how much are you willing to hold in or tell about your life to get some money.

How much are you worth?

I digress...

But ok...if you guys think this show actually has some relevancy, keep this thread going.

DSTCHAOS · #22 03-13-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

But ok...if you all think this show actually has some relevancy, keep this thread going.

Fixed that for you.

And thanks for ordering us to keep this thread going.

DaemonSeid · #23 03-13-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Fixed that for you.

And thanks for ordering us to keep this thread going.

No problem, I do my best to be forceful...some of you people get off on that type of treatment.

heh.

DSTCHAOS · #24 03-13-2008, 03:03 PM

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/

Not every employer is required to comply with this act. Even those that are required to comply find formal and informal ways to go around this act and/or "punish" employees for taking leaves. One example of a "punishment" is the fact that women with family responsibilities have an extremely difficult time getting promotions and climbing company ladders. Men with family responsibilities are also "punished" because having family responsibilities is seen as "women's work." Men who prioritize family are sometimes made fun of and not given certain opportunities because they "aren't go-getters who take their career seriously."

skylark · #25 03-13-2008, 03:09 PM

^^ Most employers are required to comply. (ETA: My last post wasn't clear on that point, but I was coming at it with the premise that the employer is already providing maternity leave under the act... pointing out that gender is irrelevant under the FMLA. Honestly, I was trying to keep my post simple and not like a treatise on employment law.)

There are exclusions, mostly for smaller employers that cannot afford to hold a job for someone regardless of gender or circumstances.

If you're giving leave to women, then you have to give it to men, regardless. At that point, even if the FMLA doesn't require it, it becomes a Title VII issue.

DSTCHAOS · #26 03-13-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark

^^ Most employers are required to comply. (ETA: My last post wasn't clear on that point, but I was coming at it from the point of an employer who is providing maternity leave already under the act... pointing out that gender is irrelevant under the FMLA)

There are exclusions, mostly for smaller employers that cannot afford to hold a job for someone regardless of gender or circumstances.

If you're giving leave to women, then you have to give it to men, regardless. At that point, even if the FMLA doesn't require it, it becomes a Title VII issue.

Right. Smaller employers aren't required and many people work for smaller employers.

More than that, gender will always matter for many companies and taking a leave for some companies can negatively impact the employee. As I said, there are formal and informal ways that some employers can get around this act. Just as every law can be buffered by the adjustments that companies make in response to them. This is the distinction between tehnical and practical. And a lot of employees won't challenge their employers under the law or contact HR, etc. They know there may be backlash somewhere.

skylark · #27 03-13-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Right. Smaller employers aren't required and many people work for smaller employers.

More than that, gender will always matter for many companies and taking a leave for some companies can negatively impact the employee. As I said, there are formal and informal ways that some employers can get around this act. Just as every law can be buffered by the adjustments that companies make in response to them.

Most small employers (over 15 employees) still have to comply with Title VII, which is the issue of paternity leave (which I thought was the subject we were discussing).

FMLA regards the issue of giving leave at all... which is the reason why MOST employers do allow for post-pregnancy leave. FMLA is gender neutral, so if FMLA applies to your employer, you HAVE to allow leave, regardless of gender. Yeah, okay, there are always examples of employers getting around laws... but that is an equivalent criticism of any law.

ETA: I think we should redirect this whole discussion back to the point before we get too off track. In order to not seem like a big douche I purposely simplify my posts in order to not write like I'm giving some kind of legal treatise. If you thought you were trying to "catch me" in an error or something, you're wrong. Most laws have exclusions for this or that (small employers, public employers, etc.) but it seems a little ridiculous if you think I should be citing to them every time I post. I am pretty well-educated on employment law and I doubt you're going to find yourself running circles around me on the subject. Post away, if you want. I don't think it is a great idea to turn this into a hedging match over the FMLA. I liked the original focus of your thread and I think we should get back to it.

DSTCHAOS · #28 03-13-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark

Yeah, okay, there are always examples of employers getting around laws... but that is an equivalent criticism of any law.

Yes, that's what I said.

DSTCHAOS · #29 03-13-2008, 03:32 PM

I was talking about FMLA, in general, which is why I included the link to the FMLA.

Anyway, here is one condition in which paternity leave can depend for some companies:

http://hr.cch.com/hhrlib/issues-answ...ebruary-2-2004

Fawn Liebowitz · #30 03-13-2008, 03:34 PM

It appears that larger companies (employing 50 or more) have to comply with FMLA; Title VII compliance is required for companies employing 15 or more. What "protections" do employees have at even smaller companies? There are MANY companies that employ less than 15.