FMLA and Men
Posted on 13. Apr, 2006 by Brian Reid in General
So family leave is apparently a hot topic of late … with fathers. This is, as I’ve argued before, a good thing. We’re not going to do any serious damage to the idea that the best possible worker is a clock-punching nine-to-fiver until fathers *and* mothers start demanding a little more flexibility.
But when Paul over at Family Man said a new Details mag article dealt with the issue, I was intrigued. I haven’t trekked to the 7-Eleven to grab my copy yet, but I did dig up the press release for one of the more troubling findings mentioned in the story: the continued widespread assumption that guys who take FMLA leave are radioactive. The research was dated 2003, and I hope against hope that this will be laughably outdated by the end of the decade. I’m certainly doing my part.
I’m not alone. Dan from “dad random” posted about his plea to Barack Obama regarding the paltry nature of FMLA. Dan received a response back from Obama, and while I don’t expect to see this as a major Democratic campaign plank (yet), it was nice to see Obama take the time.
Takedowns: I’m not sure I have the time or energy to continue fighting the fight against fighting the mommy wars, but there’s some great reading if you’re interested. Becky from I’d Like to Buy a Vowel points to this long and elegant trashing of Leslie Morgan Steiner’s “Mommy Wars” by Sandra Tsing Loh in The Atlantic. And while we’re speaking of The Atlantic and book reviews, Atlantic golden girl Caitlin Flanagan (soon-to-be-everywhere author of “To Hell with All That”) gets taken to task in a wonderful Salon essay. Both are well worth the read, and far more thoughtful than the usual quick hits here.
pdo
13. Apr, 2006
Keep fighting the fight against fighting, Brian! As your performance on the Parent Blogger Face-Off demonstrated, you’re doing an excellent job of setting a standard of respectful conversation. In just the past year, at least in the blogs, there seem to glimmers of a more robust and respectful conversation about parenting between the different constituencies, especially men and women.
…Now all this movement needs is a political focal point!
chip
13. Apr, 2006
Brian, thanks for the links to the Steiner and Flanagan take-downs, they are excellent. Now if only they could manage to work into their critiques something about us dads…
Stephen
13. Apr, 2006
I re-read the Steiner takedown today for laughs!
I think it’s pretty easy to criticize SAHMs who have a nanny/babysitter for not representing your average mom.
But the beauty of the Atlantic piece is that she takes equal aim at the wealthy working moms. And she hits the nail on the head. Many of these second income parents do fall into the “elective employment” category. They don’t really need the money, except to support high-flying lifestyle choices. Which is why the “staying home is such a luxury” comment always ruffles my feathers when it comes from these afflufemza types.
The problem is that people’s financial situations are usually “hidden”. So it’s relatively easy for these elective employment parents to pass themselves off as “I have to work” parents.
Of course they may be contributing to “college savings”, which I respect as their choice, (even if I think it’s more of an excuse.) But don’t pass it off as being about the electric bill when it isn’t.
amy
13. Apr, 2006
Interesting Obama letter. As someone who used to write those form replies from a congressman, I was impressed. I think it was probably a template letter with room for personal touches, but that’s still pretty good; it means someone in that office, possibly even Obama, did more than note the general subject of the letter. (The giveaways are the sentences that can be dropped in under the general subject heading “FMLA”.)
Re Flanagan: I think I need an acronym for “oh, for Christ’s sake.” OFCS sounds kind of computery, unfortunately. Look, can’t these reviewers just cut to the chase and tell her the breast cancer was a punishment from God?
amy
13. Apr, 2006
Almost forgot: I’m delighted beyond imagining by the fact that Flanagan spells her son Conor’s name correctly. So I’m willing to forgive her almost anything. Even breast cancer. Which was a punishment from God.
Brian, thanks for the graciousness. I wonder two things: first, whether it’s realistic to expect an end to significant blame division; and second, how to start stirring current policy initiatives into the mass-media debate mix.
amy
13. Apr, 2006
eh..and Stephen, I don’t regard college savings as less important than the electric bill, even if there are some months when we have to skip. To me, that’s a fixed overhead that means we need more income. Skipping the monthly contribution and saying it’s not necessary is like skipping the dentist visit and saying it’s not necessary. Not in a way you can see today, maybe. In 20 years when the kid needs a mouthful of root canals, then you see why it was necessary.
I knew when I had the kid that college would likely be necessary, and that leaving it on the kid’s shoulders would mean she starts adulthood deep in debt, doors closed to her because she’s got to get busy paying it off. College costs ain’t what they were. WSJ had a story not long ago about how even uptown college grads are moonlighting from their entry-level professional jobs in order to pay down student loans, thus shooting themselves in the foot professionally. I don’t want to leave the kid desperate to pay off heavy debt, and I don’t want her to give up on work she loves, but which doesn’t pay well, just because she’s got loans to pay. Nor do I want her choosing between student loans & homeownership. To me, setting a kid up for a heavy burden of debt right out of the gate is not responsible parenting if you can avoid it.
The real solution is to fix the college costs, of course, not to have parents rabbitting away to save for college. I see no earthly reason why college should cost $15-30K/yr in tuition alone. The state v. private undergrad snobbery is also wildly expensive.
Stephen
13. Apr, 2006
That may be true. Though for all we know college prices may be fixed by the time today’s preschoolers graduate high school (globalization?, internet?). And how do we know our kids will want to go to college? (I didn’t, but my folks pushed me… ha ha-jokes on them.)
Not to mention that some moms clearly have husbands whose salaries could buy a small college.
Once you extrapolate “needs” to include far future unpredictable expenses, I think it becomes a bit of a gamble. And even if a parent is working to save for college, I think it’s possible to intuit how much of their discretionary spending goes to more superficial expenses. And working for status does seem like a trade off for time you could spend with your kids.
Still, like I said, paying for college is a perfectly reasonable rationale, that I have no strong objections to. What I do object to is the hypocrisy of attacking a stay at home parent with the notion of “luxury” when the attacker is clearly someone who is obsessed with luxury, and blind to the financial sacrifices some parents may make to stay home.