Reality Show for Stay-at-Home Moms

[DSTCHAOS]

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."

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by skylark

I think that the backlash is defensive... like maybe the stay-at-home moms view the show as a criticism of their own lives. Trying to look from their perspective... I've often felt a little patronized and defensive when watching a Wife Swap show where one of the wives is telling the other that she isn't a good mom for not cooking, cleaning, etc. everything around the house because the other mom has a job she is trying to balance.

I can see their perspective. But I didn't see the purpose of the show as saying that being a stay at home parent isn't a real job (although, many feel that it isn't so that's also the basis for the backlash). I see the show as saying that some stay at home parents dream to have a paid career and this show will get them that on a trial basis.


As Wife Swap and stuff, the mothers do get criticized a lot. In traditional gender role families, instead of criticizing the men for not stepping up and making it more 50/50, the moms are criticized for not doing "a woman's job." (, btw)

[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.

[skylark]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

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]

^^ 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[skylark]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

And my point was that if you're only analyzing the issue of paternity leave under the FMLA, then you're wrong.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by skylark

And my point was that if you're only analyzing the issue of paternity leave under the FMLA, then you're wrong.

I don't know what you're talking about. I wasn't just talking about paternity leave.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

When it comes to those kinds of uncited, legal answers on websites (including GC)... take them with a grain of salt. They are doing the best they can (as I try to do most of the time on GC) without making the answer undecipherable to a non-legal reader. That website is one answer to a very complicated question... the answer of which is not known because the issue hasn't been before SCOTUS. Different results for different circuits... there just isn't a good answer.

HOWEVER... if you are giving an employment benefit to one gender and not another you better have a really good explanation for it. And the medical problems that come with pregnancy is only an explanation for a short leave in most pregnancy situations. If you give a 6 month leave to women (ALL women, regardless of pregnancy complications) and nothing to men... you're going to have a hell of a time explaining it in court and I sure as hell wouldn't advise a client to have that sort of policy.

Honestly... I think I'm going to cry if this thread doesn't get back on track. I thought it was really worthwhile and I certainly didn't want to spend my lunch hour writing about crap I do during the rest of my workday.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by skylark

When it comes to those kinds of uncited, legal answers on websites (including GC)... take them with a grain of salt.

No. I provided it only as a visual. An HR illustration, regardless of where the illustration came from.

Look, you and I are basically saying the same thing as far as I'm concerned. So what's your point?