I have unpopular opinions.

[napoleonherself]

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/22/maternity-leave-survey-work-forbes-woman-time-vacation.html

Um.

You have made a decision, of your own free will. You presumably know that this decision will result in a great deal of inconvenience, even difficulty for you over the years, and presumably you have decided it's worth the trouble.

Why, then, does anyone else owe you something?

Why should you get extra time off just to deal with the results of a decision you made? Can I make some other, different decision, and get to take off work because of it, in addition to the "regular" vacation/sick time I get?

No?

Only childbirth counts for that?

Well, then. Thank you for doing us all such a favor then, I guess. Carry on being a protected class with extra rights and privileges that you deserve because, um... something.

This is a topic I've gone on about before, and I know it's just screamin' into the wind and all, but... yeah. I understand that giving birth to and caring for a new baby is a lot of work and physical trauma and all, but I'm not sure why you should expect your workplace to make it up to you. From what I heard, raising a kid meant making sacrifices... whether it's not trying to drag a ten-month-old to that new action flick that you really really want to see, or not trying to get your job to subsidize your having added a family member.

Of course, I've never had kids, so I could be wrong.

Comments

[nidoking.livejournal.com]

The government wants to encourage women to have more babies. Most governments do, I think. I suppose they could all decide to stop having babies, and humanity would die out.

[napoleonherself.livejournal.com]

I would argue, however, that we are not exactly anywhere near a shortage of babies the last time I checked. I would also argue that there would still be new kids even if nobody got any maternity leave ever! Of course, if we tried it and the new-baby population crashed to nothing nine months later, then I would happily admit I was wrong!

[wing-zero-ew.livejournal.com]

We have too many people to support using sustainable agriculture, and the 'Green Revolution' has already started to fail. The only reason we aren't seeing enormous worldwide famine is because of the use of gi-normous amounts of fertilizer produced from oil. Without large amounts of oil, you can't grow the ridiculous amount of grain and raise the insane amount of meat that we consume.

We need to reduce ourselves to negative population growth for a few generations (not sharply negative, something a tad less extreme than Italy or Japan perhaps, but negative). Governments should be taking measures to a: discourage reproduction b: sharply discourage reproduction above replacement rate (2.1 children per woman in the developed world, round down to 2, say, *counting immigration*) and c: encourage adoption.

If I was designing a scheme, I'd encourage immigration and try to cut native reproduction way below replacement rate. That way we can brain-drain other nations (good for competitiveness) and increase the diversity of our gene pool/restaurant scene (American food tends to suck). I'd put a tax surcharge on having kids, the entirety of which is used to fund better schools and child care and suchlike. If you really want to have kids, we'll make damn sure you prioritize them over the flat screen tv.

On the other hand, I'd make sure the government pays for adoption expenses and vetting of parents, and adopted kids would be tax free. (I'll never understand why people are so hung up on indulging their parenting urges with direct genetic offspring. Sure, it's the natural way, but so is rape and pillage, and we discourage that, at least within our own borders)

That's my thinking, anyway.

[captainspam.livejournal.com]

Psst: MST3K's Crow agrees (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Qc4oxHkZE).

[napoleonherself.livejournal.com]

Man, he's even more snippy about it than I am! Good job, Crow.