Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 weeks is ridiculous OP. You should have planned better. Now, either your baby is in a bad situation. I suggest you get a nanny so at least your kid won’t be subjected to daycare this young (and I’m a daycare mom).

And that should say - either your baby or your boss is in a bad situation

Your privilege is showing. Many of us go back to work after 6 weeks. My mom and MIL each spent a week with the baby, then baby started daycare at 9 weeks. Ideal? No. Is he fine? Absolutely. Healthy and happy and thriving 6 yo now.

MY privilege is showing? It’s the OP who is “bummed” and making casual decision about whether to quit her job on Monday. If she can afford to SAH she can afford a few more weeks unpaid leave. She should have resolved it with her workplace beforehand. Six weeks is obscene for mother and baby and she should have considered that before having a child.

I only had 6 weeks. I was a teacher, baby was supposed to come in late May and I’d have the rest of summer to be home. Baby came prematurely and I had to go back for 5 more weeks once leave was up. (Luckily DH had paid leave and grandma covered a week).

Planning isn’t perfect. Had I waited until I had enough saved for 12 weeks off, I wouldn’t have had my child until 8 years later, and then you’d be telling me I was negligent for being too old to have a baby.

You obviously cannot afford to take unpaid leave. OP can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 weeks is ridiculous OP. You should have planned better. Now, either your baby is in a bad situation. I suggest you get a nanny so at least your kid won’t be subjected to daycare this young (and I’m a daycare mom).

And that should say - either your baby or your boss is in a bad situation

Your privilege is showing. Many of us go back to work after 6 weeks. My mom and MIL each spent a week with the baby, then baby started daycare at 9 weeks. Ideal? No. Is he fine? Absolutely. Healthy and happy and thriving 6 yo now.

MY privilege is showing? It’s the OP who is “bummed” and making casual decision about whether to quit her job on Monday. If she can afford to SAH she can afford a few more weeks unpaid leave. She should have resolved it with her workplace beforehand. Six weeks is obscene for mother and baby and she should have considered that before having a child.

I only had 6 weeks. I was a teacher, baby was supposed to come in late May and I’d have the rest of summer to be home. Baby came prematurely and I had to go back for 5 more weeks once leave was up. (Luckily DH had paid leave and grandma covered a week).

Planning isn’t perfect. Had I waited until I had enough saved for 12 weeks off, I wouldn’t have had my child until 8 years later, and then you’d be telling me I was negligent for being too old to have a baby.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 weeks is ridiculous OP. You should have planned better. Now, either your baby is in a bad situation. I suggest you get a nanny so at least your kid won’t be subjected to daycare this young (and I’m a daycare mom).

And that should say - either your baby or your boss is in a bad situation

Your privilege is showing. Many of us go back to work after 6 weeks. My mom and MIL each spent a week with the baby, then baby started daycare at 9 weeks. Ideal? No. Is he fine? Absolutely. Healthy and happy and thriving 6 yo now.

MY privilege is showing? It’s the OP who is “bummed” and making casual decision about whether to quit her job on Monday. If she can afford to SAH she can afford a few more weeks unpaid leave. She should have resolved it with her workplace beforehand. Six weeks is obscene for mother and baby and she should have considered that before having a child.

^ was healed

Anonymous wrote:Here is my (unpopular) opinion. It would be easier to push through more generous maternal leave policies if we weren't simultaneously also trying to push through ridiculous (IMO) paternal leave policies. Companies have only so much money/time off to give. It is a zero sum game. Men do not need 12+ weeks of paternity leave. Newsflash, men and women are different!

You’re nuts. My DH took equal time, back to back with mine, and it was amazing. It’s not about what mom or dad needs. It’s about what baby needs. Baby needs a certain amount of time. Frankly, I wasn’t physically healed by 4 weeks (and some need more). But baby wasn’t ready and needed a parent - either one bc baby was still eating all the time and not STTN. All of us whose husbands take serious paternity will tell you it does wonders for avoiding default parenting. Also gets mom sleeping and out of the house to avoid PPD. And since you’re so concerned about employers, moms like me take less when dads are taking a turn and we get back to work sooner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is my (unpopular) opinion. It would be easier to push through more generous maternal leave policies if we weren't simultaneously also trying to push through ridiculous (IMO) paternal leave policies. Companies have only so much money/time off to give. It is a zero sum game. Men do not need 12+ weeks of paternity leave. Newsflash, men and women are different!

You understand that allotting all your zero-sum leave toward women perpetuates that women are the ones who have to sacrifice their career goals to provide childcare as a primary parent?

Most (if not all) of the men I know who take "paternity leave" do so concurrently with their wives. They have no interest in being the sole caretaker of the baby. Its just an extra long free vacation for them, and its costing companies time and resources that could go to women, which people on this board seem to think the women desperately need and I happen to agree.

We can say we think that women/men should get equal time 6, 9, 12+ months off but that is not realistic. We have to take baby steps.

To the adopting PP, yes I think adopting mothers should get the same time as mothers who gave birth. I personally think maternity leave is separate from "healing from childbirth" which in my case (and many cases) takes maybe a week, if that. Mothers have a different need to be with their babies than fathers do. Its just biological. I'm married to a wonderful man who is an involved father and a 50/50 partner. He took 2 weeks vacation with the birth of each of our children (he did not receive paternity leave either time) He helped me and hung out with the babies and then he went back to work. He was fine. And I was fine with him going back.

All this whining about paternity leave is hurting women. Sorry, its true.

I hear you on what you're saying, though I disagree and I think you're having a limited view of paternal bonding that continues to be a determinant to all of us - kids, moms, dads. But that aside, it sounds like it is your experience that dad's take the time concurrently but I want to share that has very much not been my experience. It's actually fairly common in my privileged circle of friends now and yes of course the dad's take some concurrent time in the first few weeks while the mother is recovering from childbirth, but every single other Dad I know that has had access to a decent family leave policy has taken the rest of their time after the mother goes back to work. And every single one of them has reported it being a huge, huge positive for their family - allowing the baby more time before going to daycare so avoiding illness when really young and allowing ample time for baby and Dad to bond, develop their own rhythm once they are past that initial stage of yes, needing their mother biologically quite a bit. It supports Dad in developing confidence in his own parenting - doing it on his own during the day everyday. This is huge for creating a more equal space for parents in the workforce and for raising kids who have confident dads active in their lives (which research has shown is pretty darn important).

You talk about "need" - of course Dad's can go back to work right away, not take time off after their wife goes back to work, and kids can still be ok (like you said my husband did that and is still a very active dad). Mom's can do that too and have their mothers, fathers, etc care for their child when they are forced to go back to work quickly as MANY MANY low income women are still forced to do. Just because it can and is done doesn't mean it's best for families or what we should be striving for. And for the record i do NOT agree that is what is actually holding back leave policies. I won't go into that, but yeah.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 weeks is ridiculous OP. You should have planned better. Now, either your baby is in a bad situation. I suggest you get a nanny so at least your kid won’t be subjected to daycare this young (and I’m a daycare mom).

And that should say - either your baby or your boss is in a bad situation

Your privilege is showing. Many of us go back to work after 6 weeks. My mom and MIL each spent a week with the baby, then baby started daycare at 9 weeks. Ideal? No. Is he fine? Absolutely. Healthy and happy and thriving 6 yo now.

This is harsh but you shouldn’t have a child if you have to return to work at six weeks. We don’t have paid leave in this country because women continue to have children under abysmal conditions.

I would like to see you come to know my delightful, well-loved child and then tell me he shouldn't have been born because of a less than ideal childcare situation for a few weeks of his life. Idiotic.

I can't change the maternity laws singlehandedly. Many of us make sacrifices to have a family. My company is too small to qualify for FMLA, by the way.