Maternity Leave and Feminism

[Cricket123]

Susan B. Anthony:

“I shall work for the Republican party and call on all women to join me, precisely… for what that party has done and promises to do for women, nothing more, nothing less.”
Letter to Elizabeth Cady Stanton (Autumn 1872)

According to the History Channel website, both Mott and Stanton were big aboltonists, which was a republican value.

I prefer the factual version of history versus the distorted post-modern liberal one:

spectator.org/articles/35608/republicans-and-womens-rights-brief-reality-check

Fail.

I did not say “Republican.” I (and you) said “conservative.” Yes, Susan B. Anthony was a Republican, but the Republicans were not the conservative party of the day. Though the Republican party was not officially abolitionist, most abolitionists were Republicans, back when the Republican party was largely a Northern, liberal concern.

Republicans freed the slaves: Northern liberal Republicans.

Democrats founded the Klan: Southern conservative Democrats.

Same people, different party.

Of course, the Republican party lost most of its progressive bent pretty quickly once Wall Street decided there was lots of money to be made reconstructing the South. I prefer the factual version of history, too.

Nice try though.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Here in entitlement nation???

:dts:

You know that our welfare state is much smaller than most of the western nations listed in the OP, right?

But here’s the thing, as a very moderate person, I’m not even sure how I feel about extended paid maternity leave. It would be a pretty serious government regulation on business, and I would need to know that it wouldn’t apply to very small businesses. Most disturbing though, is that unless it’s government subsidized, it would discourage businesses from hiring women, especially married professional women. And if it’s government subsidized, good luck getting the public on board.

 

[ringil]

Ah, yes. This is precisely the kind of one-dimensional thinking one can expect from the Huffington Post.

I always get a kick when American liberals compare statistics of what America and Europe are doing as a reason why America needs to be more like Europe.

It can and does work on a lot of people, I’m sorry to say.

For starters, the biggest expenditure America has other than it’s mostly feel–good social welfare programs, is defense.

Not just defense for itself, but for a good chunk of the countries on that list as well.

Now, if businesses didn’t have to pay so much in taxes maybe they could afford better benefits for their employees.

How about that? Businesses knowing how to spend their money than the corrupt, wasteful American government.

There’s also political motives there too. :yup:

Problem with your logic here is that many countries on this list have MUCH higher tax rates than the US.

The US certainly can learn a thing or three from our European neighbors regarding workers rights.

Added: The US needs paternity time as well.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Cricket123;11935276]Fail.

:dts:

I did not say “Republican.” I (and you) said “conservative.” Yes, Susan B. Anthony was a Republican, but the Republicans were not the conservative party of the day.

Today’s conservative republican was yesterday’s classical liberal.

It’s really not a mystery.

Though the Republican party was not officially abolitionist, most abolitionists were Republicans, back when the Republican party was largely a Northern, liberal concern.

According the wikipedia entry “Republican Party,” the GOP was founded by abolitionists.

That would be a classical liberal position, and the GOP was founded on the basis of ending slavery.

Republicans freed the slaves: Northern liberal Republicans.

Democrats founded the Klan: Southern conservative Democrats.

Today’s post-modern liberals are NOT classical liberals.

As El Rushbo once said “Democrats have always been the party of government”. In the case of slavery, they wanted government endorsement of it.

Same people, different party.

That’s too general. There’s a lot of democrats out there who want NOTHING to do with people who are not like them…

Of course, the Republican party lost most of its progressive bent pretty quickly once Wall Street decided there was lots of money to be made reconstructing the South.

Does this refer to the Civil War? The South turned republican when Nixon went after Southern whites.

I guess it’s a good think Democrats refused campaign contributions from Wall Street too, huh?

Oh wait… uch:

I prefer the factual version of history, too.

Then there’s no room for American liberal talking points.

Nice try though.

:tsktsk:

It’s not a good idea to crow when all that’s argued is twisted semantics.

From wikipedia:

“The party’s platform is generally based upon American conservatism…whose members endorse more liberal policies. American conservatism of the Republican Party is not wholly based upon rejection of the political ideology of liberalism; some principles of American** conservatism are based on classical liberalism**.[14] Rather, the Republican Party’s conservatism is largely based upon its support of classical principles against the social liberalism of the Democratic Party that is considered American liberalism in contemporary American political discourse.[14]”

 

[SuperLuigi]

=BlueEyedLady;11935392]You know that our welfare state is much smaller than most of the western nations listed in the OP, right?

Based on what? Percentage of the economy? Some American liberals love the the"well, gee, Norway does X social program with Y % and we only do Z%" argument and “we can do better than them”.

Tired, old and one-dimensional.

European states can experiment more with nonsense because as I said, their defense is guaranteed by the United States.

But here’s the thing, as a very moderate person, I’m not even sure how I feel about extended paid maternity leave. It would be a pretty serious government regulation on business, and I would need to know that it wouldn’t apply to very small businesses. Most disturbing though, is that unless it’s government subsidized, it would discourage businesses from hiring women, especially married professional women. And if it’s government subsidized, good luck getting the public on board.

That’s a good assessment, and I like the notation of negative feedback loops.

Let the free market work.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=ringil;11935761]Problem with your logic here is that many countries on this list have MUCH higher tax rates than the US.

Well, free lunches galore really aren’t free. They want to experiment with all these programs, those cost money.

It’s not a problem with my logic, because regardless of what they take in, they don’t have much at all for defense.

The US certainly can learn a thing or three from our European neighbors regarding workers rights.

Oh really? A lot of foreign companies want nothing to do with American unions and all the headaches they create.

Added: The US needs paternity time as well.

The US needs to let the free market work more.

 

[Cojuanco]

SuperLuigi, that’s because the labor-capital relations in America are much more contentious than those in most of Europe (the UK perhaps being a partial exception). European unions are more willing to compromise with employers in return for concessions, and vice versa. In the Netherlands, for example, workers are much more willing to accept temporary cuts to some benefits in exchange for keeping their jobs. Here, every issue would be referred to the NLRB. The problem in America is politics, especially labor politics, is much more adversarial, which means the government is percieved as taking sides when it intervenes in industrial disputes. Business and labor have in America a self-defeating winner take all outlook that is not historically the case with postwar European counterparts, excepting Britain. The problem with European employers is labor in America think they’re as pigheaded as American management, and behave accordingly, which turns off investment.

In this area, if we had labor and business leaders like in Europe, a good deal of our politics would be less idiotic.

 

[MarcoPolo]

abortion and birth control are actually much more available in many of the countries you listed. Reproductive rights and maternity leave are not mutually exclusive.

I just didn’t want the use of the term “reproductive rights” referring back to abortion to go unaddressed. Rest assured, those who believe that which is in the womb is a human life would no sooner call abortion a “reproductive right” than genocide a “population control right.”

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

You know that our welfare state is much smaller than most of the western nations listed in the OP, right?

But here’s the thing, as a very moderate person, I’m not even sure how I feel about extended paid maternity leave. It would be a pretty serious government regulation on business, and I would need to know that it wouldn’t apply to very small businesses. Most disturbing though, is that unless it’s government subsidized, it would discourage businesses from hiring women, especially married professional women. And if it’s government subsidized, good luck getting the public on board.

If it is done in such a way as to force a business to solely pay for the worker that’d be a bad idea as fundamentally parental leave is a common good and as such should be a common expense.

Honestly I think at the very least we should establish four weeks paid parental leave at 100% replacement up to double minimum wage which would at current US number of birth if for both men and women would cost 18.6 billion per year maximum (0.67% of US actual revenue for last full fiscal year), if for women only it’d be 1/3 of 1% of actual revenue for last fiscal year. It’d be a massive improvement for people at a small cost to society.

 

[Cojuanco]

I just didn’t want the use of the term “reproductive rights” referring back to abortion to go unaddressed. Rest assured, those who believe that which is in the womb is a human life would no sooner call abortion a “reproductive right” than genocide a “population control right.”

I’ll point out that Ireland (even with the Taoiseach’s liberalization of abortion laws) has a much stricter policy on abortion than most of the United States (the main exceptions IIRC are Mississippi and and to a lesser extent Texas). Indeed IIRC a lot of European countries have restrictions on the practice that would make, say, certain California Democrats call doom and gloom were they to be made law in this country. The major exceptions are the Scandinavian countries, but otherwise, for a developed country, the USA has had relatively lax abortion laws since 1973, comparable until very recently with Canada and Russia.

In large part is that because in a lot of those countries, abortion was passed by parliamentary vote, giving it the (misplaced, of course) democratic legitimacy Roe v. Wade and its progeny could never have.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

1. How much time do you think that CAF posters spend on this issue?
2. “Feminist” is not a dirty word. It’s an indication that someone is concerned with the equal treatment of women.
3. Are you really going to make me dredge up the names of feminists that have advanced this cause? Because I’d rather you just admit that you’re incorrect here so I don’t have to waste my time. Thanks.

Please do! I want very much to be proven wrong. My initial post was a half-though out rant. Then, I calmed down a little. I fully admit that I have been blasted non-stop with a “feminist = abortionist” message, which has left me out in the cold because I don’t subscribe to their view. I have done my best to represent women well in non-traditional roles in the military, the police, and in agriculture. Please tell me there are feminists that are pro-life and are concerned with many other aspects regarding the advancement of women’s rights. Are there women who match this profile that are well-known? Or, are they left out in the cold by politics and media?