Having a child is usually an extremely exciting time in someone’s life, but unfortunately, our society creates a dilemma for most prospective parents - choosing between staying in the workforce and raising a child. Historically the task of staying home with a newborn baby has fallen on the mother. Even now when the majority of women have jobs outside the home, there is no law in the United States requiring employers to guarantee maternity leave for employees - unlike in many other countries. As a result, long-term earnings for women are typically reduced when they take time off of work to raise children. While this fact has long been well-known, recent studies are drawing attention to the fact that this happens for men who take so-called paternity leaves as well.
From a sociological standpoint, in most industrial (and post-industrial) societies women are ascribed the roles of caregivers and nurturers. Gender stratification insists that men are the breadwinners of the families, while women stay at home taking care of the children and the household. However, the feminist movement of the 1970s helped to normalize women entering the workforce. While it is much more common today for women to have jobs outside of the home, it is still predominantly women who take time off of work to raise children.
When men do take time off from work to raise children, they, too, experience a drop in earnings, unsurprisingly. It appears that many jobs today are still structured to suit a lifestyle from the 1950s, in which one breadwinner is responsible for the family’s financial stability. This type of situation does not allow for time off for childrearing. Not only does taking significant time off from work reduce earnings, but it also reduces the chances for advancement, oftentimes due to an employer perceiving the employee as being less committed to their job. This system makes it difficult for both parents to be actively involved in raising their children while still achieving their full earning potential.
Women are still much more likely than men to reduce their employment hours (either partially or totally) in order to take care of their children. Although our society is currently far more progressive than it was in the 1950s, this lack of familial leave guaranteed by employers discourages both women from taking on the role of breadwinner and men from taking on the role of caregiver. In countries such as Sweden and Norway, over 80% of men take some form of paternity leave. Studies have shown that men who do this stay more involved in their children’s lives, in addition to taking on a greater share of household labor. Overall, it appears that opportunities for parental leave create greater equality in male-female relationships.
While several states do have laws mandating paid leave for fathers, the federal government of the United States could do with reassessing its policies in relation to this issue. The fact that many men cannot afford to take even a few days off of work after the birth of a child hinders our country’s progress towards gender equality. Men, women, and children alike would all benefit from more progressive laws pertaining to parental leave.
Sources:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/the-risky-business-of-paternity-leave/282688/
http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Maternity-leave-chart-final.png
I find it interesting that the countries the United States considers to be oppressive, backwards, and undeveloped (Pakistan, Mexico, Venezuela) have 12-18 times more mandated paid maternity leave. The weeks after birth are considered essential to a child in its development and socialization, when at least one parent is unable to have the time off to take care of the child, it can have a great impact on the development of that child. I am always bewildered how this country wants to raise an army of intelligent workers, but fails to provide the adequate tools to do that from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that our society is, fundamentally, still structured to support an outdated lifestyle (you reference the 1950's male breadwinner image) begs many questions, and this blog post highlights what I think are the most important ones. Why, in the United States, is child-rearing, not more valued, given that children are the future of our society? And why, in the United States, is all of the emphasis placed on the mother? Though I cannot site anything specifically off of the top of my head, I find that I quite frequently encounter studies proving that families that regularly embrace strong relationships and frequent interactions with BOTH parents are conducive to more healthy living environments and a more wholesome upbringing for children. Lastly, why is more funding not allocated for maternity and/or paternity leave when it is in so many other "progressive" countries?
ReplyDeleteYour emphasis on the financial aspect of maternity/paternity leave made me think a little bit about the debate on abortions in the US. A common argument of people who are "pro-life" is that the fetus is already a "baby" and that that baby might go on to do great things, so abortions might rob the world of great people. However, there is no focus on the child's living conditions after being born, and it seems like the lack of paid maternity/paternity leave might have a real effect on that especially if it is lowering the parents' earning potential. I really enjoyed your analysis of this issue, and although unrelated it did really make me think of the debate about abortion.
ReplyDelete