Reality Show for Stay-at-Home Moms

[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?

[skylark]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

So what's your point?

I was wondering what yours was...

This is what you said initially... which has nothing to do with being small or large:

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

It was only after I corrected you that being "progressive" has nothing to do with it... (it is about following the law) that you changed your story into one about small versus large employers. I'm sorry that when I corrected your perception that it was a matter of being progressive, I didn't mention the exceptions to the general rule. I didn't realize you were going to pretend that by "progressive" you meant "employers larger than 15 people."

Okay... to try to bring the thread back home:

I see working and having a productive career as being a necessary element of my future children's lives because it is really important for me that they see that women can have serious careers. I think too often girls hear that they can reach for the stars, but don't see concrete examples in their own lives.

[ISUKappa]

I work for a very small company (10 people total). When my son was born, I took 6 weeks paid maternity leave. Now, my company is extremely good about working with me, and I could have taken more either unpaid or half-time, but I felt comfortable with 6 weeks. Because we are so small, there is a huge impact when even one person is missing for an extended amount of time. They had the daughter of a coworker come in and do some of my work part-time to help take the load off my manager, but everyone was happy I was back when my leave was over (or so they tell me ).

Most of the husbands in our circle of friends here work for the same, large employer and it's not unusual for the fathers to take a week or two off for "paternity leave." Now, how that is arranged with their company, I'm not positive. If it's counted against vacation or not; the husband only took three days off after our son was born.

As far as the show goes, I've only caught bits of it, but I think it's a good idea. I think many SAHMs are concerned about having viable, employable skills in the chance they should need to go to work due to necessity or want to go back to work after their children get older. I know part of the show is based in fantasy (high-end fashion designer! Gourmet chef!) but, IMO, it's still a legitimate issue.

[Fawn Liebowitz]

I see working and having a productive career as being a necessary element of my future children's lives because it is really important for me that they see that women can have serious careers. I think too often girls hear that they can reach for the stars, but don't see concrete examples in their own lives.

Agreed. I don't see why women have to choose.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by skylark

I was wondering what yours was...

My point is that not every employer has to comply with FMLA and that not every employer has to grant paternity leave. And that's true.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

I work for a very small company (10 people total). When my son was born, I took 6 weeks paid maternity leave. Now, my company is extremely good about working with me, and I could have taken more either unpaid or half-time, but I felt comfortable with 6 weeks. Because we are so small, there is a huge impact when even one person is missing for an extended amount of time. They had the daughter of a coworker come in and do some of my work part-time to help take the load off my manager, but everyone was happy I was back when my leave was over (or so they tell me ).

Most of the husbands in our circle of friends here work for the same, large employer and it's not unusual for the fathers to take a week or two off for "paternity leave." Now, how that is arranged with their company, I'm not positive. If it's counted against vacation or not; the husband only took three days off after our son was born.

This is great. I read something about paternity leave that asks whether it is a fad or the future. I think it's a fad until more men and women demand that their employers comply with family leaves. Then they need to determine whether there will be paid or unpaid leaves.

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

As far as the show goes, I've only caught bits of it, but I think it's a good idea. I think many SAHMs are concerned about having viable, employable skills in the chance they should need to go to work due to necessity or want to go back to work after their children get older. I know part of the show is based in fantasy (high-end fashion designer! Gourmet chef!) but, IMO, it's still a legitimate issue.

I think it's legitimate, too. The MSN photo for the story that I posted showed a father holding the children while a smiling mother is working or about to work. That photo made me because it an image of working mothers as neglecting their family. As if a father caring for his kids is out of the question even if they had initially agreed that one parent would stay at home.

ETA: Another thing that gets me is that people say "the husband is babysitting because his wife is at work." He's not babysitting the kids...he's a PARENT.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I think it's legitimate, too. The MSN photo for the story that I posted showed a father holding the children while a smiling mother is working or about to work. That photo made me because it an image of working mothers as neglecting their family. As if a father caring for his kids is out of the question even if they had initially agreed that one parent would stay at home.

ETA: Another thing that gets me is that people say "the husband is babysitting because his wife is at work." He's not babysitting the kids...he's a PARENT.

Not long after I started at this company, my manager's husband decided to quit his job and go back to school part-time. He stayed home during the day with their kids (who weren't quite school-age at the time) and took on two additional kids for daycare to help offset the costs of school. Their kids are in school now and he's graduated and has had a full-time job for a few years. That's definitely not the norm, but I thought it was really cool he did that and showed a nice alternative.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

Not long after I started at this company, my manager's husband decided to quit his job and go back to school part-time. He stayed home during the day with their kids (who weren't quite school-age at the time) and took on two additional kids for daycare to help offset the costs of school. Their kids are in school now and he's graduated and has had a full-time job for a few years. That's definitely not the norm, but I thought it was really cool he did that and showed a nice alternative.

He did what a lot of women have done. A lot of men would've told him that he sucks and isn't masculine.

But real men do real things.

[nittanyalum]

I had an employee that definitely out-earned her husband by a long shot (even though he had an MBA and good job in his own right). He opted to stay home with their kids and has done an amazing job with them. I'm sure there's some level of self-consciousness he has in some situations (their holiday newsletters talk about her promotions and the company going public, his volunteer work and participation in the PTA), and she expresses some guilt and feels some loss about not being the one with the kids all day and seeing all the "firsts" and getting all the hugs and kisses. But they also like their really big house and lifestyle and her career is the one who can fund that.

I know people who get red in the face arguing on both sides of this issue and it just wears me out. It will always be an issue. People's economic circumstances will always come in to play. People's values will always come in to play. I have friends who will flat out tell you that even if they could, they wouldn't choose to stay at home because they just "couldn't take it". And if that's the case, the kids probably are better off in another care situation. Other friends can't imagine someone else hugging their kids, seeing their "firsts", etc., and can't imagine those who do miss all that.

And unfortunately, I believe never the twain shall meet.

[ForeverRoses]

I stayed home for 2 years with my first son. With my second son, he went to daycare when he was 6 weeks old (a traditional daycare center) with my third, he (and his older brother) went to an in-home sitter at 6 weeks. One of the reasons we switched from a center to in-home was because I wanted the SAME person to give my kids the hugs and kisses and to see their firsts if I wasn't there (I saw the difficult adjustments that #1 had when he had to switch rooms every 6 months-year).
Do I feel Mommy guilt for working? Yes. but working makes me a better person and therefore a better Mommy. I lost several "friends" when I went back to work (mainly from my Moms Playgroup) because they were offended that I went back to work (hello, our bank account was going backward, I have to work).

Anyway, I have watched this show, and thought it was great premise. I don't think staying home versus going to work can ever be resolved, because one shoe doesn't fit all.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I had an employee that definitely out-earned her husband by a long shot (even though he had an MBA and good job in his own right). He opted to stay home with their kids and has done an amazing job with them. I'm sure there's some level of self-consciousness he has in some situations (their holiday newsletters talk about her promotions and the company going public, his volunteer work and participation in the PTA), and she expresses some guilt and feels some loss about not being the one with the kids all day and seeing all the "firsts" and getting all the hugs and kisses. But they also like their really big house and lifestyle and her career is the one who can fund that.

I know people who get red in the face arguing on both sides of this issue and it just wears me out. It will always be an issue. People's economic circumstances will always come in to play. People's values will always come in to play. I have friends who will flat out tell you that even if they could, they wouldn't choose to stay at home because they just "couldn't take it". And if that's the case, the kids probably are better off in another care situation. Other friends can't imagine someone else hugging their kids, seeing their "firsts", etc., and can't imagine those who do miss all that.

And unfortunately, I believe never the twain shall meet.

For all of that, I say, we don't live in 'traditional' America any more.

We have to learn to adapt to what suits us best to get our children on their way.

What is good about what you said is AT LEAST the father is in the picture. How many can even attest to that....?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

What is good about what you said is AT LEAST the father is in the picture. How many can even attest to that....?

Well married couples have unfortunately become the minority in this country.

But I don't know the stats on father abandonment for the general population. I just know that the black community, in general, suffers from an absence of male role models and fathers.