Social scientists who study families and work say that men like Mr. Bedrick, who take an early hands-on role in their children’s lives, are likely to be more involved for years to come and that their children will be healthier. Even their wives* could benefit, as women whose husbands take paternity leave have increased career earnings and have a decreased chance of depression in the nine months after childbirth. But researchers also have a more ominous message. Taking time off for family obligations, including paternity leave, could have long-term negative effects on a man’s career — like lower pay or being passed over for promotions.He took 6 weeks off. And he did it because he worked for a firm that gave paid childcare leave, which I don't think his wife had in her teaching job. It was obviously in the family's economic interest. But, maybe, the daring Mr. Bedrick suffered some stigma, even as he's presented to NYT readers as some kind of hero. Give me a break. Tell me about the man who takes years off to be a stay-at-home parent, who really shoulders the responsibility for the home-based side of a single-earner family and makes that work. For years. Not some paid 6-week gig. And spare me the absurdity — straight out of a Lucy-and-Ricky sitcom scenario — where the man, tasked with women's work, hands over the baby and collapses on the couch at the end of the day.
But I know why the NYT does it this way. It's because the liberal agenda is to change the workplace and make it "family-friendly," not to suggest that couples view the family as a single enterprise and give it the predominance in their life that children deserve.
________________________
* Heteronormativity alert! Come on, New York Times. Not good enough. Gay couples have children too. Stop the marginalization.
पोस्ट्स
३८ टिप्पण्या:
Give me a break.
I can't add anything to this commentary.
Wait, yes I can. So the guy thinks he's special because he did that for 6 weeks? or the NYT thinks he's special because hedid that?
I did as much as I could to help my wife, after work, but there is no question that she had the more draining job. She would argue it was the more satisfying as well. But lauding this guy is just the NYT's way of giving him a paarticipation ribbon.
But I know why the NYT does it this way. It's because the liberal agenda is to change the workplace and make it "family-friendly,"
Not only that, but they'd like all men to be beta hipsters as well.
I find that entire read incredibly patronizing and treacly at the same time.
I hope the daughter does not inherit the father's casual smug superiority.
And here's a clue why men don't take leave, if offered: Because they know that others will be doing work, and getting credit for it. Production at work is what drives advancement.
Men cannot have it all any more than women cannot. Somehow that basic fact of life hasn't reached the New York Times.
I've taken paid time off for all my children, but my wife has done 99% of the work.
And it makes me glad to be the bread winner. I couldn't do her job.
Beats Mr. Obama's magic wand.
I know plenty of couples where the man has taken off several weeks, either immediately after the birth or after the wife goes back to work - I don't think that this is anything like remarkable among young, professional couples.
Tell me about the man who takes years off to be a stay-at-home parent, who really shoulders the responsibility for the home-based side of a single-earner family and makes that work. For years.
My husband (2 years in December). He's amazing. I can't imagine that I would be able to accomplish what I do at my job without him.
What the heck is the NYT doing? Don't they know that fathers are not necessary? Of course they do! In fact, every few months they run an article asking if men are necessary at all, not just as fathers, but in society.
They'd best be careful, or people might say, "Gee, this bonding with Dads thing seems to work. Maybe we should stop encouraging women to go it alone."
They are going to ruin the narrative.
I mean, why have children at all, if you're not going to take care of them yourself?
It used to be that a child-free woman who'd been sterilized could announce that fact at the time of salary negotiations with a prospective employer and expect a salary bump-up for relieving the employer of all the insurance, sick leave, pregnancy leave and FMLA expenses that the breeding woman feels entitled to.
Now, unfortunately, it seems that the non-breeding male job applicant will have to follow the same path.
To paraphrase Obama:
"This is not a choice we want to make."
"This is not a choice we want men to make."
I've known both SAHMs, SAHDs, people who used daycare from day 1, people who had grandparents help.
If it works for them and their family, that's all that matters. (As far as I can tell, all the above examples have worked out fine) If a company wants to extend a benefit to a new parent, that's their choice, it's a great benefit.
However, doing anything one way, or another, does not make anyone a special snowflake. It probably doesn't even irrevocably change the path of your life, or your kid's life, however much you want to claim that it does, especially if it involves some so-called sacrifice.
Do what you want. Do it the best you can. Enjoy the results. That's my suggestion. Don't come to me -- or a reporter -- and say what a wonderful thing it is though. Because it's only one thing:
Normal.
I've been doing it for 11+ years... what's the big deal?
The NYT had to go all the way to Oregon to find this guy? I might have expected this story in 1994, but paternity leave has been around for a long time and it is not that big a deal. Why write a feature about it now?
Tell me about the man who takes years off to be a stay-at-home parent, who really shoulders the responsibility for the home-based side of a single-earner family and makes that work. For years.
Meet my husband, Mr. Smith. He has done it for 23 years and four kids. Just now doing some consulting work from home. Definitely a sacrifice and one I very much appreciated. But no one but me ever gives him praise for doing it.
"Tell me about the man who takes years off to be a stay-at-home parent, who really shoulders the responsibility for the home-based side of a single-earner family and makes that work. For years."
To elaborate, when my wife and I met, we agreed that it was important that a parent be home to raise the kids. She got her MBA while I was just starting the program, she got a great offer and that meant I was to be that person.
We have four kids, two with special issues, and I am in charge of the cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc. We make it work because my wife appreciates not having to do that stuff even if I do not do it all to the level she would like.
It is the 60-40 principle. The idea is we each give 60% and expect the other to give 40%, with overlap, there is happiness. There are times where I feel like I am skating by at only 40% but I try to make up for those times.
Is it perfect? No. The kids drive me crazy. But it is better than having other people raise our kids.
"husbands take paternity leave have increased career earnings"
"Taking time off for family obligations, including paternity leave, could have long-term negative effects on a man’s career — like lower pay or being passed over for promotions."
So, take the paid paternity leave. Come back and work for eight months, then quit.
The one time I worked for a company that provided paid maternity leave, the standard MO was for women employees to take their paid maternity leave, then immediately resign in order to stay at home. They wouldn't tell the employer or resign any earlier lest they lose the pay. We wouldn't know if we needed to recruit a replacement for sure until the resignation. I am sure there is better way, but at the time it seemed so oddly wrong.
Isn't this just the Althouse Rule again, re:comparing women and men?
Women raise lots of kids every day all over the world, and do it well.
But, if a man tries it, he collapses, because it's too hard. Ergo: women are better than men in yet another way.
Spare me. In our family, we both work and we both have taken time off to be with our young children. It's not some heroic feat to be featured in the news. It's what our parents called "normal life".
If he hadn't gotten the vapors and collapsed in a heap, he would not have made it to the NYT.
If you don't feed the kid till after 4pm, then the diaper change happens on the wife's shift. The kid gets a little cranky, but he generally cries himself out by mid morning.
"Why write a feature about it now?"
Preparing the battlefield for 2016.
Start noticing all the talk about forcing employers to be "family friendly."
I predict it will ramp up.
It's like the equal pay issue. The goal can never be reached. And that's what's so great about it as an issue.
The most family friendly thing about employers is the part where they pay you money that you can spend (or save.) Keep that in mind as we traverse the up ramp.
Tell me about the man who takes years off to be a stay-at-home parent, who really shoulders the responsibility for the home-based side of a single-earner family and makes that work. For years.
You do have the experience in this situation.
However, doing anything one way, or another, does not make anyone a special snowflake. It probably doesn't even irrevocably change the path of your life, or your kid's life, however much you want to claim that it does, especially if it involves some so-called sacrifice.
I agree. I think that many of the neurosis that comes from children and their working (or nonworking) parents comes from the parents' attitudes about their situations. You're doing what you're doing. Be happy with it. Stop second guessing. Stop over analyzing and stop whining for recognition!
Newborns are incredibly easy for new dads, it's not like they're recovering from birth!!!
The day my husband stayed home with our first child as an infant, he stayed in his bathrobe watching the StarWar Trilogy.....
That's not true. Womb banks and sperm depositors have made women, men, female and male couplets almost equal. And with pro-choice, human life really is just a commodity. Well, at least for people who enjoy creating moral hazards, deferred for future generations to reconcile.
Heteronormativity alert!
Heterosexuality IS what's normal.
When we had our youngest son, my wife took a cut in pay to switch from day court to night court. I took over with him when I got home from work for the first thirty months of his life. She and I pretty much saw each other on weekends.
Horrors! If only the NYT had been around to chronicle our suffering and the injustice of it all, things would have been ever so much better. We might even have noticed how put upon we were.
BTW: It is inconceivable that the NYT has any interest in promoting anything "family friendly" for traditional families. This article just portrays the utopian, somethin' for nothin' crap that renders lefties orgasmic.
Why are those two agendas incompatible? Doesn't the first support the second?
Why is it so important to identify "an agenda"? Don't you resist readers of your blog doing that?
The NYT is now a blog that also has a dead tree edition .
Meade said...
I mean, why have children at all, if you're not going to take care of them yourself?
Essentially it's insurance. You can't brag about yourself in a Christmas card. But even if you have failed so badly you can't hide it with euphemisms and lies, you get big success points if the nipper gets into a Highly Selective School. These bragging rights end when the nipper graduates, because then all he/she can do is make you look bad. You look bad if nipper falls behind in the race. You look bad by a different standard if nipper exceeds your accomplishments.
But the Highly Selective School? That was gold. For a while.
"Heterosexuality IS what's normal"
Perhaps it is just more usual? Anyway, usual or normal, don't get too proud about it. All you did was be born that way.
In our brave new world I think all parents- but especially gay parents - should have 18 years off at full pay to raise their offspring. People who will not or cannot have children will just have to work a little harder - or maybe a lot harder.
I have been home with the kids for six years. Our family's needs come first. End of story.
David said...
"Perhaps it is just more usual?"
Yes, David, in the English language, which we commonly employ here on Althouse' blog, that is what "normal" means. The situation most commonly encountered is the normal one. Less commonly encountered situations are referred to as "abnormal". Homosexuality in humans, for example, is abnormal.
In NYT-world, the only thing that matters is the first six, or twelve, weeks, because, after that, both parents are back at work, with their fulfilling careers, knowing their children are cared for by a cadre of professional care-givers. Or, at least, that's their ideal. Men who stay at home, long-term, no more fit into this picture than women do.
Around here, it seems that I notice men at the playground, or shopping with children, middday, more often than I used to. Maybe they're stay-at-homes. Maybe they work the night shift, or on weekends -- either because that's when the job opportunity was, or specifically in order to minimize daycare use. Maybe they're unemployed, or in that world of being involuntarily a SAHD. But none of that would exist in Obama's ideal world (that is, Norway).
http://janetheactuary.blogspot.com/2014/11/thats-not-choice-we-want-americans-to.html
"Heteronormativity alert!"
The progressive elites have already de-stigmatized child-rearing by homosexual parents. This is more along the lines of the New Feminist Imperative. Freeing women from raising their own children will enable them to continue making gains in the workplace.
My daughter and her husband got married shortly before the arrival of their twins. She made much more money than he, so he became the stay at home dad. Nine years and one more child later, her career is doing great, the kids are wonderful, and he's taking classes with an eye towards opening a business.
Along the way, I've noticed the house is always spotless, he does all the cooking, except on weekends, and the kids are mannerly, smart, well read, and happily doing all kinds of fun play and activities.
And Grandpa can always drop by because someone is always at home.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा