Responding to her readers on paid family leave
When I recently wrote about Washington state’s landmark paid family leave legislation (only the second in the nation), Crosscut readers’ responses were striking. Two-thirds of comments expressed the same feeling: The legislation is “a token for the irresponsible,” a “confiscation of my tax dollars” for “social parasites.” One reader even called the legislation morally depraved.
Putting aside the extreme language and not terribly coherent arguments (“If you can't take the time to raise a child, why are you having one?”—the point is precisely to enable parents to take time to care for their newborns), I think these comments reveal an important and deeply American strain of thought. The line of thinking goes something like this: Individualism is the ideal state, we shouldn’t be fostering dependency, people are responsible for themselves and their own children, and don’t ask the rest of us for handouts.
This line of thinking has some appeal—I value individualism and independence myself. But independence is an achievement, attained only temporarily in the middle of life by even the luckiest of us. Somehow I just know that these letter writers were men, and men who have forgotten that they got to their enviably independent state only thanks to years of care by their mothers (and probably many others). (And who probably have wives who do their laundry, cook their food, and maybe type their manuscripts.) I’d say the real social parasites are all of us on our unpaid mothers. So if you have a distaste for this kind of social parasitism, consistency requires you to support test tube gestation and the raising of children in dormitories by well-paid professionals. Or you don’t mind the human race ceasing to exist. Or—phew—how about a little paid family leave?
I tend to think people like the letter writers don’t mind dependency—of their wives on them, for example—and it’s in fact the independence social supports like paid family leave foster in women that discomfits them. I’d like to ask the reader who wrote that “I for one am not planning on being a social parasite in my dotage” who he thinks will be paying for his Social Security. In fact, it’s those who are children now (it’s a politically useful myth that we each pay for our own Social Security).
I may mock this kind of thinking, but it has a powerful hold in America, and loosening its grip is crucial and difficult.








Comments:
Posted Mon, May 12, 4:59 p.m.
CHANGE IS NOT EASY. NEVER HAS BEEN.: A forty hour work week. A decent minimum wage. The vote for all men and women, not just the propertied and rich. Social Security. Employer paid medical care. Medicare for Seniors. Student loans for College. None of these fights were easy - all took time and effort. Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark - all do a much better job providing supports to parents, newborns, and women who work outside the home. Ultimately, the good sense and Scandinavian values embedded in the people of the State of Washington State will prevail over the naysayers.
Don't be discouraged. I say this as a husband, a father, a taxpayer and a voter.
Posted Mon, May 12, 5:45 p.m.
Choices: I feel somewhat conflicted about the argument being presented here. Mothers and Fathers both have the right already to spend Family Leave primarily for births and deaths. The problem is that no one can really afford to take 5 weeks off.
The feminist mantra had always been that women can do it on their own and are capable of making (and paying for) their OWN decisions. Although I feel that it is crucially important for both parents to be involved with an infant, and research supports this, it is just as important that parents plan for that time off. You have to plan out everything else like what color to paint the nursery and how the hospital is going to get paid, why shouldn't this be a personal responsibility?
I think that this is a bigger issue for single moms, they will have to go back to work earlier than their married counterparts. No system that supports (and encourages) irresponsibility will ever gain the support that it needs from the public.
And not only that, adoption is totally optional and was going to be covered the same as child birth. And I'm sure that there are plenty of people who would not want their tax dollars going to domestic partners to take time off to spend more time with their newly adopted child.
If the question is going to be who pays? Put on a pot of coffee and wait for the cows to come home.
Posted Mon, May 12, 5:52 p.m.
RE: CHANGE IS NOT EASY. NEVER HAS BEEN.: Some of those Scandinavian values come with a hefty price tag, Norways top marginal rate on income is 52%, Capital gains 28% and a VAT ( value added tax) of another 25%. Do the math and see where you would be after that type of tax burden.
Posted Tue, May 13, 11:36 a.m.
RE: CHANGE IS NOT EASY. NEVER HAS BEEN.: Ah, a skeptic, always measuring the cost, but never the benefit.
Well, you might ask, where has the United States low tax rates taken us over the past thirty years (that's right, the US has one of the lowest tax rate structures in comparison with other industrialized nations). How has our poverty rate changed? What is the trend in average lifespan? What is our individual and aggregate debt?
The marginal tax rate may not be that effective of a measure for policy development (ask the Norwegians, who have the highest standard of living [by some measures], but a much higher marginal tax rate).
Last, if having and raising children isn't a collective value that our culture supports, then why do we offer a tax deduction for them?
Posted Tue, May 13, 6:33 p.m.
You're giving them too much credit: It's a unfortunate fact of the Internets that the comments sections of various blogs and news sites tend to attract ignorant, angry, and boorish men. I wouldn't generalize too much based on this "special" sample.
It's probably best to ignore them, if you can manage it. They aren't here to have a conversation, they are here for a fix of self-righteousness.
Posted Tue, May 13, 11:32 p.m.
Not working doesn't work for me: Maybe it's because my mom worked full time, but I've always envisioned myself married to a woman with a profession, and this has never seemed incompatible with raising a family.
Well, I ended up married to a woman with a Ph.D. and a great career, both of which were qualities that attracted me to her in the first place. When we had kids, she had the choice of whether to continue working or not. I told her I'd support whatever she wanted to do, but I also told her I would be disappointed if she abandoned her career altogether, not because of the money (though the money is great), but because I'm proud of her profession, I thought her career made her a more well rounded individual, that it lent a certain balance to our relationship. I also predicted that she'd grow bored and unhappy once the kids hit school age and the demands of motherhood eased up.
Fortunately, her career is flexible, so she took some time off, and as the kids got older, she moved up to part time and will likely take on more hours when they are both in school.
Meanwhile, we've had a bunch of great nannies, all of whom have enriched our children's lives beyond what they would have gotten from either of us alone. Kids thrive from these kinds of relationships. Think about it - throughout most of human history kids had daily access to aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents. Sticking the kids alone with their mom all day in an isolated suburban home is a relatively recent American phenomenon, and it's hardly the ideal developmental environment that some people seem to think it is, for mom or the kids.