Thursday, January 13, 2011

Not Good

My things have changed...

The State of California is bragging on the great success of one it's welfare programs.

California’s paid family leave law, one of only two in the country, has provided valuable benefits to workers without the negative consequences feared by employers, according to a new study released Tuesday. (actually, that's not true. I see the negative effects on the production floor all the time, when overtime is required by the unwilling to cover for the mandated missing.)

“Paid family leave has been remarkably successful in California since the state first created it six years ago,” said co-author Ruth Milkman, professor of sociology at UCLA and the City University of New York. “It has helped hundreds of thousands of workers – especially in low-wage jobs – balance the costs and challenges of tending to family and work, and it has begun to close the gap in access to paid leave benefits.”

Basically, it's used mostly by younger men to avoid work after they've bred their women.
The namby-pamby idea is to help a family bond with their new baby during those all important weeks immediately after birth, when the baby's eyes are mostly closed and wouldn't know Daddy from Sancho as long as the bottle is tipped and flowing, and the wipes are kept warm.

Back in my breeding years, being a new Daddy meant it was time stop goofing off and Man Up. Get off my ass, get a job, get a better job and work longer hours cause I had a family to feed.

Taking several weeks off 'to bond' was not the manly to do. I still don't think it is. Bonding was done after work, after I'd brought home the bread and milk, and put a roof over Baby's head (and Mommy's), and fulfilled my duties as a Man before I could become The Dad.

There was pride in that world view. A sense of responsibilities being met. A way to say to the world that I was worthy of the "Man" title. Any dick could make a baby, but it took a Man to be a Father.

I know, I know... the world seems to be a different place to some. But don't let that fool you. The rules of what makes a stable civilization have not changed. Boys should Man Up if they want the privilege of breeding. That concept should be the expected norm.

And a State that encourages otherwise is doing no favors in the long run.


my name is Amanda said...

Resisting the urge to comment about the concept of "Man up" AND the "namby pamby" thing, PLUS the "bred their women?!" thing.

But I will say, that I don't think it's about bonding at all. It's about equality and keeping women employable, by not putting the entire burden of taking leave on the mother. Which, helps enable her to *keep* her job, as we don't live in a world anymore where there is only one breadwinner, and New Mommy is likely to be bringing home 50% of the bacon. With this system, parents have the option to take leave consecutively, or together, to help ease the transition. And I imagine it helps decrease incidence of post-partum, to not put the entire burden of care on the mother.

Bike Bubba said...

I've always taken a week or two off after my kids were born, but using vacation or other time, not any paid family leave. Sorry, but Gino's right; this is a significant surcharge on labor costs to accomodate new dads. I'm all in favor of family and taking time off, but this is a boondoggle.

Some purposeful duplicity in the study; they cite the 55% pay employees get instead of taking vacation time as a "bonus" because they would have gotten 100% on vacation otherwise--ignoring the fact that the vacation is owed the worker whether he takes it or not.

And if you want the cost here, consider California's 12.4% unemployment rate and $25 billion deficit. Not all due to this, but hey--add 1.2% here and there a few times to the cost of employing people, and you are going to chase jobs out of the state. It's not an accident that Arizonans, Utahns, Nevadans, Coloradans, New Mexicans, Oregonians, and Washingtonians all say

"Don't Californicate our State!"

It's because so many Californians are justifiably leaving, and some rudely forget to leave California habits and politics behind.

Gino said...

(resisting the urge to comment on amanda's desire to fight the feminist battles of the 1950's in what is now a very changed world.)

i think its a terrible burden that feminism has placed on mothers who are now expected two work instead of stay home and raise their babies.
its is what the vast majority of women would prefer, if you ask me, if society hadnt conditioned them to believe otherwise.

what has placed the entire burden on women is the feminism that says men are optional.
so, now women are expected to want to work, as well as come home and do the baby things, because wage work is productive and increases self esteem. bullshit.

my name is Amanda said...

Women want to work without that being expected of them, Gino! And I think the Feminist battles of the 50s have partially been won, but not all.

I mean, basically if you're arguing that men shouldn't have equal opportunity to stay home with their newborn child, simply because they are men, then the battle isn't won.

Though in general, I have to admit, I'm a little exhausted with arguing about anything at this point in the week. :)

Bike Bubba said...

With all due respect, I dare suggest that "breast milk" is one big reason that, at least in the first year, there ought to be some preference given to women staying at home with their children.

If the feminists want to argue with biology, so be it, but let it be known that that's what they're doing. The benefits of lactation for both mother and child are not exactly subtle.