I remember a workplace rumor of several years ago — the company I worked for allegedly was considering more “personal” time for employees with children. Whereupon the single and childless among us put up a howl that the policy wouldn’t be fair.
At the time I was employed full time and raising two kids by myself, so I had some pretty strong opinions about what was fair.
An unmarried woman in the next cubicle was howling about how “some people” were going to get a special advantage.
You already have an advantage, I said. Your advantage is that you don’t have children.
She did a double take. What was I talking about?
I tried to explain that the responsibility of children could be crushing, and that their needs didn’t always neatly coincide with out-of-office hours, and that employees who are parents come with built-in time restraints and stresses that the childless don’t have to deal with.
You chose to have kids, she said. Yes, but somebody’s got to do it, I said. Perpetrating the species and all. Not to mention funding Social Security and raising a new generation of consumers. We’re serving a function necessary to the nation and to society. And the company probably figured the cost of the privilege would be made up by increased productivity, which would not be the case if extended to the childless.
You’ll feel differently after your kids have moved out, she said. No, I won’t, I said. They did, and I don’t.
The policy was never instituted, possibly because childless employees put up such a stink. In their next lives they will be brood sows. But my point is that not everything is equitable, and we’re not all playing with the same hand.
I bring this up because some poor deluded girl-child named Meghan Daum actually wrote an op ed in the Los Angeles Times that advocates “choice” for men.
I don’t know Ms. Daum, but I take it the twit-ette is young, childless, and has a boyfriend who spouts this crap.
Most people now accept that women, especially teenagers, often make decisions regarding abortion based on educational and career goals and whether the father of the unborn child is someone they want to hang around with for the next few decades. The “choice” in this equation is not only a matter of whether to carry an individual fetus to term but a question of what kind of life the woman wishes to lead. … If abortion is to remain legal and relatively unrestricted — and I believe it should — why shouldn’t men have the right during at least the first trimester of pregnancy to terminate their legal and financial rights and responsibilities to the child?
Daum acknowledges that this policy would leave to some unfortunate consequences, such as financially undersupported children, but she thinks it’s more important that we be fair.
News flash, toots: Some things can’t be made fair.
Pregnancy and childbirth are unique conditions that have no equivalence in males. Requiring the poor boy to pay child supports is not equivalent to pregnancy and childbirth, which are conditions of the female — and only the female — body. That’s why she gets to choose. But once there is a child, that child is owed the support of both parents.
Ampersand at Alas, a Blog has written about “choice for men” at some length. Ampersand is a lot nicer about it than I am, as I believe categorically that any male who argues in favor of this nonsense is no man. He is an emotional adolescent, a weenie. In the past whenever I’ve written on the topic of men, some weenie will drop by and say that I must not like men. Au contraire. I like men, a lot. It’s weenies I can’t stand.
Anyway, here Ampersand argues that “Both men and women should have every reproductive choice biologically possible.” But trying to balance the facts of biology with a non-biological “equivalent” in the interest of fairness is neither fair nor equitable. It cannot be made equitable.
Period. End of story. And don’t come whining to me about what’s “fair.” Life ain’t fair. Get used to it.
(1) I should not have to work harder for my paycheck than the person sitting next to me.
(2) People without kids have personal lives too. We take care of family, we go to school, we have second jobs, we have housework.
(3) Both men and women parent. Both parents and non-parents spend too much time at work. But men cannot get pregnant. You are mixing up issues that are not alike.
The refrain “life ain’t fair” doesn’t mean that you don’t try to be fair. Life is also nasty, brutish, and short — doesn’t mean we should all be nasty, short brutes.
If you want to help people with kids, make rules that help everyone.
PS — I can see it now — a workplace where people with kids officially get to work less than people without kids. The people who work more . . . leave. Now the business only has workers who work less. It dies.
Sarah, you don’t have children. Someday you might, and then you will be stunned at how clueless you were when you wrote this. Until you’be been a parent yourself you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
We already have a situation in which some workers work less than others. While you are on the phone with a client, the mother in the next cube is on the phone trying to find day care for school spring break, for example. Parents are put in the position of perpetually stealing time from one role to manage the other. It’s beyond hard.
“People without kids have personal lives too.” People with kids do without personal lives. You got the job live and the parent life. If you can squeeze in a few hours a month for an actual “personal life,” you have an unusually good support system.
It’s “me me me and only me” people like you who hold the rest of the world back. Thanks loads.
Goodness! Check yourself and that cross you’re hanging on.
You’re such a martyr that you can’t empathize with anybody else.
Your kids ARE your personal life. Duh!
Bye now.
(Note to self — mahablog off of bloglist — Maha’s mind is too closed.)
Sarah is a good example of why some things can’t be understood until they are experienced.
Sarah, gotta agree with Maha here. I myself have no young kids — inherited a teen-age step-daughter, which is a WHOLE nother kettle of fish — but two of my friends at work just had new babies about a year ago.
There is absolutely, utterly no comparison.
They don’t get to HAVE personal lives. The demands on their time placed there by kids means that damn near every personal day they’ve been allowed to take over the past year has been kid-related in some way.
Both of them rarely got to spend an entire night actually SLEEPING. Hearing what they’ve been going through has utterly humbled me when it comes to complaining about my own lack of time off. Oh, and combined with the teen-age step-daughter, convinced me never, ever, EVER to have kids.
Giving them more time off than me would be completely fair. And I think just about anybody with direct experience in the matter would agree here.
-me
Maha, we’ve been having a rollicking conversation over on Shakespeare’s Sister about the issue of men wanting proprietary rights over women’s uteri.
As for you, Sarah, my brother is a lot like you. He never had kids, always felt free to criticize how I raised mine, and howls endlessly about kids “being brats” in public (which is his way of whining that kids make noise and it disturbs his fine mind).
He doesn’t remember that he was a child once, and a noisy one too. He doesn’t remember all the times he was sick, or hurt, or tired, or hungry, and how our stupid parents managed somehow to take care of him and me too and didn’t just lock us up in a closet so they could get on with their lives.
Maha’s point is that, in the society that exists now, women are cast in the unsavory role of breadwinner and mother at the same time. Men don’t get pregnant, you say? Well, they don’t clean house, either, and like to watch football on Sundays while I’m doing laundry. Childless people are left holding the bag for those with children? Get over yourself. If your workplace is oppressing you for your childlessness (not to mention your mother), then you can find an environment where this does not occur, but good luck doing so, because having children and trying to raise them is what people do.
Your parents raised you, and did the best they could. That’s the purpose of society. Give us some slack for doing the best we can.
Real men respect choices and are responsible for their actions.
There was nothing like seeing a live human birth and living through the terror and trials of raising your own child to convince me to get a vasectomy.
Really guys, I understand the fear and revulsion to having anybody come near the scratum with a knife but I can truly attest that the sex did get better afterward for me personally.
copymark — I think of men with vasectomies as “custom models.”
I’m not sure how someone else taking personal time off makes Sarah work harder for her paycheck. Personal time off is usually unpaid, and most people work for a paycheck, not because it’s a fun place to hang out. The mother’s lifestyle is more expensive than the single woman’s, because she is supporting other people, she doesn’t actually want to take those personal days for that reason. She has to take those personal days, and she shouldn’t have to risk her job to do it. Even if the business allows it, they certainly don’t encourage it. A mother who takes too many personal days will be overlooked for promotion, so even if you have them, you’re very careful with how you use them. Also, most companies are not good at reassigning work, so if you miss a day, your work piles up and you end up taking it home or staying late at work at a later date to catch up.
Even if we are talking paid sick days, I wonder about people who have no compassion. A parent taking care of a sick child is an unexpected emergency…not like the single person who wants to finish up her Christmas shopping, or sleep off a hangover, or go play golf that afternoon. The parent is stuck between a rock and a hard place, but people like Sarah don’t give a damn about that, they chose to be parents so if they lose their job because their kid got sick, TOUGH! She’d rather see that family in line at the soup kitchen than give them that super special personal time off perk.
The larger issue is that most jobs and raising children just don’t fit together. Primary caretakers of children of either sex sacrafice income and career tracks, as men who are primary custodians of children find themselves passed by on the career track, too. When employers are too rigid it puts parents in the position of having to “steal” time from the employer to take care of essential parenting duties. Parents shouldn’t have to choose between their job duties and their parental duties, but it happens all the time. This is not only hard on parents, but employers lose out because of decreased productivity and the failure to develop the talents of people who happen to be parents. And, of course, the kids suffer, too. As a society we need to develop new approaches to employent.
I’m all for employees having more flexibility in taking personal time off, but I wonder about the wisdom of targeting such perqs only at parents, as much as they need them, mainly because of the history of employers considering family status in their personnel decisions. If, as Donna comments, it’s only incompensated personal leave, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t want to see it go a lot futher. Otherwise we might be going back to the familiar story of Joe being given a raise or a promotion while Jane is passed over, because Joe has a family to support, while Jane is either unmarried or a second income earner in her family. Certainly Joe needs the break to offset the “disadvantage” of having a family, but where does that leave Jane?
Another concept that gets lost in this debate (as regards Sarah’s concern for fairness) is fairness for the community. If you don’t grant parents the reality that their kids have needs requiring address, you increase the likelihood of neglect of those needs, which can come back to haunt the entire community.
And Sarah? Your petulant unlinking policy displays the added ignorance of one unable to withstand honest critique. And lacking any impact on Barbara’s life, blogging, truth, or wisdom, the loss is entirely yours.
Otherwise we might be going back to the familiar story of Joe being given a raise or a promotion while Jane is passed over, because Joe has a family to support, while Jane is either unmarried or a second income earner in her family.
But that’s not the issue. People should be compensated according to their value to the employer. We’re talking about workplace policies that enable people to be good parents and good employees at the same time. Ultimately such policies could allow parents to be more productive and bring more value to the company, hence earning more compensation. But the way it is now people who are primary caretakers of small children are held back because most workplaces are too rigid to allow them to balance their roles as employees and as parents. Thus, the parent-employee is put into a position of perpetually stealing time and energy from one role to give to the other.
We’re talking about workplace policies that enable people to be good parents and good employees at the same time.
One company in my area provides on-site child care at a significant discount to employees who are parents, which sounds to me like the kind of policy that might be much more common. This company has a reputation as being one of the most employee- and family-friendly places to work in the country.
If men want choice and equality, then when abortion becomes illegal, the father of the aborted fetus should be thrown in jail along with the woman and the doctor. When I hear the zealots talk about the woman and what a terrible person she is if she were to consider abortion, I want to ask them what about the guy who got her pregnant and for some reason has told the woman to get a long best she can because he is not interested in having a baby. If men can decide they don’t want a kid after it is conceived, then a woman should have the same freedom.
I agree that if you haven’t experienced something, you cannot truly understand the situation. I am a woman who never had children and do not regret the decision one bit. However, I have since 1989 been President, VP, or Chief Steward of my agency union. The employees I have spent the most time helping and been appalled at the lack of understanding from stupidvisors are the single mothers, who more often than not are at the low end of the wage scale.
That being said, I have had some extraordinarily cruel things said to me because I have no children. Our society does not approve of women without children. In fact, if you are 35 or older and are not a wife and/or mother, you are really taking up vital air and space for people of more importance than you. And, that is an experience mothers cannot understand.
One company in my area provides on-site child care at a significant discount to employees who are parents,
That’s a start. People have been talking about this for years, however, and I don’t see it happenng much. I suspect this is mostly because of insurance costs.
When the kids start school there are all new issues, like where do the kids go after school, and what happens when they have vacation days when you have to work, or they are home sick, or they break their arm on the playground, or the teacher INSISTS you come in and TALK TO HER FACE, like a phone conference won’t work.
(I actually blew up at a teacher once who insisted I meet with her in person, and then when I managed to get away from the office, after taking considerable grief from my boss, the teacher didn’t tell me anything she couldn’t have told me on the phone. Grrrr. But that’s another rant. Schools are not terribly accommodating to working parents, either, and that’s got to change, too.)
I don’t know what all the answers are, and it may be that we’ll revamp “working hours” in a way that impacts all employees and not just parents.
I don’t know what all the answers are, and it may be that we’ll revamp “working hours†in a way that impacts all employees and not just parents.
I think that one problem with acceptance of policies that identify people (e.g., parents, or adults with dependent parents) rather than situations (e.g., dealing with some public agency, whether schools, motor vehicle departments, voting registration offices, etc.) is that it pits one group against another, with one getting a benefit that the other doesn’t. If policies made everyone potentially eligible, even if only specific groups took advantage of them, people might end up thinking, “I could take time off if I really needed it, but thank God I don’t have to deal with all the problems that so-and-so does.”
However, RSA, parents need a massive re-arrangement of the whole employment thing. Policies that just deal with “emergencies” or “dealing with some public agency” are just not enough. Because the truth is that it’s the daily juggling act that wears you down, not the “exceptions.”
So guys can skate on their responsibilities-no harm, no foul? Seems to me like this would make abortions a lot more common since if I was a woman and I got pregnant by some asshole who wasn’t ready to accept the responsibility of having a child I’d be more likely to end the pregnancy. Teen pregnancy would also rise, seems to me like the only reason some guys wear condoms is so that they don’t end up with kids. This is just a fucking stupid idea on WAY too many levels.
I don’t have kids, and I am glad I didn’t when all is said and done.BUT, just because that was my life choice,that does not mean I am blind to how things might be for others.
I respect single Moms a great deal.Equal is not my concern, my concern is not making the world MORE unfair by my actions.Just because I am not a parent, that does not mean I have no responsibility to the children in my community.It is sad so many childless people lack compassion.If the sarah’s of the world thought about it, they would see their views are only HURTING children.
If one of my co workers has a sick child, I want them to be with the child.I don’t have to have a child who needs their parent to understand ,I just have to consider the FEELINGS of others.If we all did that,it would be a non- topic.
I suppose the Sarah’s of the world have their panties in a bunch too when they pay taxes to fund schools,I myself am damn proud to pay them,and just ask me for more,I do believe it takes a village to raise a child and it is a worth while investment for us all.
A parent gives up the most ,IMHO,in the whole “it takes a village” process and my part is kicking in a bit for education,and yes maybe working a little extra so that a parent can enrich the lives of their children..it seems like such a small price to pay for the good of the community. It’s about looking at the big picture.
As for the choice for men thing…yes they have a choice!!!!!They have a choice on where they leave their bodily fluid.I am sorry to be so raw, but this needs to be said,,I have heard enough of men whining about having any say in the matter.Men act as if they were somehow innocent victims of their penis, like they were somehow choice-less in the act.Let me get this straight, they give away fluid , then they can return later and make demands about what a woman does with it?So do women need to get signed release forms from men before any action occurs?Is this where sex is headed? Are we going to need lawyers? He will have consent forms, she will make him sign off on his rights to the fluid, he will make her free him from financial obligation,both will have to sign STD waivers……..how romantic.
I’m lucky to be in a very flexible job, but I think comment 16 above really hits the nail on the head. School schedules still assume 1) that kids work on farms and 2) someone is home at 3:00. Well, hello, not always true. And in-service days, half days for conferences, etc. We’ve had about 10 of those since september. That’s right, 10 days of non-holiday time where I need to deal with a kid. Luckily, my husband and split this time and I have plenty of paid time off. But most people don’t. I have no idea how they handle it. And can we talk about summer?
Laura–I had two kids, four years apart, so they were in different schools most of the time. And did I mention I was divorced? Often while I was at work I spent way too much time on the phone trying to make child care arrangements so I could go to work. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
The school schedules are insane, aren’t they? As I remember the high school day went from 7:45am to 2 pm. The kids sleep through the day and then have all afternoon unsupervised so they can get into trouble. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
I can have understanding of the plight of a single mother. The burden must be trememdous and especially so if the mother doesn’t have an adequate support system. My wife raised four children and tended to their every need with the help of my mother-in law and myself.And even then, with three of us working on the demands of the children, it got hectic..I remember what an burden it was to taxi them to and from school on rainy days when every child in a 2 mile radius from the school was aslo being driven to school because of the rain.
I agree with you, maha, that until you’ve been there, you can’t even begin to understand the experience. My experience provided every opportunity favorable for raising children – flexible work hours, stay at home mother with a vehicle and a support system of family and friends, but with all that it was still a major burden.. children make demands. I can’t concieve how much of a burden it must be for a single mom. I do know enough to know that it’s not easy for them..
Let me start by laying out that I am 50, single, male, and childless. You might think as a result that I have no right to a position, but I beg to disagree. Despite not having children, I can see a point to giving singles the option of personal time, because I fear that I am facing the need for a lot of it. My father, in his 70s quite healthy physically but beginning to lose his memory. His doctor is not hopeful. OK? Enough?
Fortunately, I work for the Federal Gov’t. and all are eligible for personal time but if I were in the private sector I would be praying hard that I reached retirement before he lost function entirely. At present, my mother (also healthy, and in full command of her faculties) is handling it but I think I know where this is going.
No sympathy requested, but do understand that posession of a uterus, a spouse, or children are not the only reasons personal time might be valuable. All you need are parents and we are all qualified there, even single people.
do understand that posession of a uterus, a spouse, or children are not the only reasons personal time might be valuable.
Certainly, but parenting is a “reason” that goes on for 20 years or so, whereas other “reasons” are more temporary.
Pingback: Running Scared
Rather than take an unavoidable beating here, at the hands of somebody who I respect and almost always agree with, I figured I’d just put myself up for sacrificial slaughter on my blog.
Maha… normally love you, but you’ve ticked me off this time.
Maha,
I think both you and person in the cube next to you missed an opportunity. This should not and can not be viewed as “people with children” v. “people w/o children.” The context must be “Employee v. employer.”
If the folks w/o children would support more/better benefits for those with children, then some time in the future, those w/ children would support some other benefit for those w/o kids.
I am retired now. But at my last workplace, which was ‘smoke-free’ , every one got a 15 minute break in the morning and one in the afternoon. Smokers would step outside for a 10 minute ‘cigarette’ break every hour. (I do not smoke). It never bothered me that smokers were getting more time ‘off’ than I was. Screw the man. I was getting my 15 min in the AM and the PM. If somebody else could beat the boss out of a few more minutes, good on ’em.
Having said all that, I am glad Mrs. Chief and I did not have to contend with the issues a divorced mother of two is forced to face. When I was gone in the Navy, Mrs. Chief was a “stay-at-home” Mom. When I was home there was enough flexibility in my schedule to assist her as needed.
But, we do have younger friends and children who must contend w/ these problems on a daily basis.
The context must be “Employee v. employer.â€
Yes, and because the single brats threw a snit because somebody else was getting a “privilege,” nothing changed. Employees have to stick together.
Thhat was my point, Maha.
I actually think that our public life in America should be more family oriented. Yeah we have freedom of speech and expression but in the public eye and before 10 at night it should be rated pg. I hated watching tv at 8 and having the Simpsons interrupted by a commercial with people seriously making out. I cannot tell you how many times I heard 12 year old callers to the Bob & Tom show at 9 in the morning. I also think it a good idea for parents to attend classes on the rudementary tasks of child rearing including picking up the house no matter how tired you are and teaching children the same when they are 3.
I also wonder how many mothers work their butts off because they have the fear in thier guts about losing their means of support. At the same time single people only get fired up for their own self interests which can and do flag..’specially after having late nights out pursuing their own personal lives…
Whoa. This is the first time I think I’ve mightily disagreed with you, maha. I keep looking for nuance in your position, but unless I’m misreading you there isn’t any. Things must have been pretty poisonous at your old job for you to be so unforgiving. Other commenters have suggested that the issue isn’t black/white, but apparently if they never had kids, they’re not entitled to an opinion.
Well, I never had kids. And no, it wasn’t because of a deliberate choice that I made, it was because of longtime health problems. Problems that made conception unlikely in my twenties, impossible in my thirties, and now in my forties take up so much of my “free” time and energy that it’s unlikely I’ll ever have time to find a mate, much less raise a family. Yes, raising kids is hard work, but it also brings you great long-term benefits. It breaks my heart sometimes to think about the joys of having a family, and how that’s something I will never have.
I continue to work full time (can’t lose those benefits!) and it would be nice to have time for a real social life, but as you say, life isn’t fair. Yet I’ve never expected my workplace to offer more personal time to people with excessive doctor visits. Maybe raising children is an bad comparison, because raising children benefits society as a whole whereas keeping myself out of the hospital only benefits me. But again, life isn’t fair.
HOWEVER, that isn’t to say that it’s a yes-no issue. It isn’t. My boss understands that everyone has a unique situation, and allows us flexibility in dealing with it so long as we deliver make-up time and are here for core hours. But to offer extra personal time to one class of people who need it as opposed to another class of people who need it just as much, is unreasonable.
But to offer extra personal time to one class of people who need it as opposed to another class of people who need it just as much, is unreasonable.
If you were to go back to the original anecdote and re-read it, you might notice that is not the case. The childless woman did not need a privilege “just as much.” She had no health problems, did not have sick parents, etc. etc. She just objected because she thought somebody was getting an unfair advantage, as did Sarah, the original commenter. And my contention was that the so-called “privilege” actually just made the playing field a little more even.
Surely there are circumstances other than children in which people need to be given a break. I’m not suggesting otherwise. So kindly get off the soapbox of righteousness, dear.
Maha. You sound VERY mean in this blog. What is it with the rants and pejorative comments toward childless people in the story and comments? It sounds like you’re very bitter about your experiences as a single parent, but don’t take it out on childless women. The United States uses up so much of the world’s resources, that Americans who decide not to have children are actually benefiting society and the whole world quite a bit. They don’t deserve your scorn. And you were quite rude to Sarah, who has a right to her opinion without being attacked, regardless of whether she has children. I probably won’t be back to this web site myself, because you’ve attacked everybody who disagreed with you here. As other commenters have suggested, the issue of how to care for children is a larger issue, and it isn’t helped by your attachment to a single method of addressing it (i.e., make single people give more of their time to “the man”). How about a shorter work week for everyone? Or is that unfair?
So kindly get off the soapbox of righteousness, dear.
Actually, I was trying to say the same thing to you. Only I think I at least tried to be nice about it.
You have no idea whether the woman in question had a reason to need extra personal time just as much as you. No one on my job knows about my situation other than my immediate boss, because it’s none of their business. Maybe there are more details that explain your anger at her, but from what you’re telling us, her asking to be treated the same as employees with children is selfish and unjustified.
“You have no idea whether the woman in question had a reason to need extra personal time just as much as you.”
Yes, I do. We spoke at length. You weren’t there.
Update: I’m not sure why people assume I think people with children ought to get special treatment that no one else can get. Did I say that? No. Had you bothered to ask, I would have told you I agree that employers should make allowances for the health problems of employees. And the problems of people with sick and elderly parents, which I also experienced (they are now deceased). And all kinds of other issues people might have. But the young woman in the anecdote, with whom I got along quite well for three years except for that one episode, objected to ANYONE getting any special allowances.
Now, ultimately (and I’ve written about this in the past) I think the whole go-to-the-office, 9-to-5 work thing needs to be re-worked, and a big reason for that is the fact that it’s damn near impossible to raise kids when both parents work full time. Some couples make it work, and some kids turn out OK anyway, but it’s not the way families should have to live. The answer is not to go back to the 1950s and stay-at-home moms, but to re-think the way people are employed. As I’ve said I’m not sure how that’s going to work, but it needs to be done. And then all our squabbling will be moot, eh?
hearth moon: Learn to read. At no time did I criticize anyone for being childless. I critized people for being selfish and clueless.
Pingback: Greg Prince’s Blog » Speaking of choice…
I’m 26, single and don’t have kids, and, even though I like kids, I don’t plan on having any of my own. I don’t have to a parent to know that it’s tough raising kids, so if parents want more personal time to spend with theirs, then they should do it.
Besides, it might mean more hours for those who are childless, and more money.