Showing posts with label War on parents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on parents. Show all posts

Taking Steps Toward a "Brave New World"

Ok dear readers, hold on to your hats because this week we are headed deep into post-apocalyptic, futuristic science fiction, dystopian, Twilight Zone territory. That's right, the future is now and it isn't pretty. Yesterday I discovered that certain companies have started including egg freezing in their benefits package for women employees so that they can focus on their careers and postpone childbirth. While I understand that this is hardly breaking news, it was new to me.

Living in my little at-home bubble that consists of school, writing, kids' homework, extracurricular activities and an alarming amount of time spent in my pajamas, sometimes I miss things. Sometimes I miss a whole lot of things. Luckily for me, The Husband brings these things to my attention thus alleviating any need for me to go out and discover this stuff on my own.

So this morning he was on his way to work and heard a discussion on the radio involving the NPR article, Silicon Valley Companies Add New Benefit for Women: Egg Freezing, and the New York Times article, Freezing Eggs as Part of Employee Benefits: Some Women See Darker Message. The idea is that benefits offered to women executives includes a costly elective medical procedure that will give women peace of mind as they focus on their careers. He immediately called me and said, "Oh honey, I have a great topic for your blog....are you ready?"

Having been a news piece for a while, places like Huffington Post are already filled with articles arguing for and against the practice. I am going to have to say, I definitely agree with the ones that argue that this is a disturbing answer from corporations in regards to the work/family balance. It feels an awful lot like the beginning of the descent into Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (where babies are created in factories).



Putting off children, in my opinion, is dangerous, chancy and irresponsible. That sounds harsh, but I stand by the statement. Ignore the fact that pregnancy is far from guaranteed with frozen eggs, from my point of view, having children late in life just increases the chances that those children are going to be sandwiched in between elderly parents and young children (if they choose to have them).  If that happens, it only increases and intensifies the problems of work/family life balance choices for the next generation. Also, being raised by older parents increases the risk that their parents might not survive to see them reach adulthood. My father-in-law passed away three weeks after his 48th birthday. Most of my grandparents died in their 60s. It happens. I think egg freezing is an irresponsible choice for corporations, a figurative finger in the hole of the dam of work/family relations, temporary at best.

If companies really want to help their women executives, a much more fitting benefit would still be, and will always be, the inclusion of on-site childcare facilities for employees. Employees could go have lunch with their children, feel safe that they are well-taken care of and close by so the employee can focus on their work and ultimately work at a higher level of productivity. Also, it would prevent workers from having to run out early, or struggle to find care because the center would operate during the same hours as the employee. Quality would be assured by mere parental presence, extreme licensing would most likely be unnecessary.

Unfortunately the chance of companies creating on-site childcare sites is as likely as all of us getting magical unicorns to ride to work. It is never going to happen. The problem lies in the fact that we have increased insurance premiums on childcare centers to alarmingly high rates and imposed insane amounts of quality assurance legislation dictating environment and space. We did these things in the name of improving care quality, and we have, but at what cost?

Even our local gym that used to offer parents' day out programs had to indefinitely suspend them because the insurance premiums became too expensive to continue to allow parents to leave the premises. Premiums and quality control are significantly less if parents are on the premises, which should be good for companies, but most are not willing to take on that "risk" or "expense."

These companies would rather put in an employee gym (which they often charge for) or pay for two egg freezing treatments which can cost up to $20,000 rather than add a childcare facility for their workers. It says a lot about priorities. They are trying to appear family friendly, but as other authors have said, it only exerts subtle pressure on women to delay starting a family. Ultimately it is the simple solution of writing a check rather than the messier, long-term solution of taking responsibility for our country's families.

A true solution would be something similar to the crèche program in Brazil. Run by either the government or the Catholic church, the free crèches provide child care, education, basic health care and some of the Catholic-run centers even include a kitchen where workers can pay for an inexpensive, hot meal after picking up their children. As with any social system, there is a higher demand for services than availability, and quality varies, but for the families who gain access it is an invaluable tool in mixing child rearing with income production.

Imagine: A woman goes to work, dropping off her daughter on her way upstairs and works unhindered by worry for three hours. Taking a break, she goes downstairs and interacts with her daughter and a little with the other children and the teachers.  Mentally relaxed, she works productively for another hour and which point she heads down and has lunch with her daughter. Coming back in the afternoon she is able to focus and work undistracted for another four hours at which point she heads down, picks up her daughter and they head home.

If businesses were really truly thinking about bottom line productivity, they would realize that stepping out on a limb and embracing families might actually put them ahead, rather than behind. It is scary and financially adventurous, but if the studies about stress and overwork have shown us anything, it is that employees' health, welfare and productivity are greatly enhanced when their stress level is lowered. And nothing would lower a working Mom's stress level more than knowing her child is just downstairs, down the hall, or down the street. Bottom line is that 80% of women will eventually bear a child . Surely, if this is something that the majority of women are facing, we should do something about it.

Employers, please forget freezing eggs. Forget about pressuring women to put their career first before having children. Forget parental hiring discrimination. Embrace the whole family as a unit and you will have an employee that would probably sell her soul for you...or at the very least, her talents.

Taking a Page From the Home Birth Movement

I have written a couple of posts lately dealing with the same theme: Parental Pinch Gets Tighter, Forget "Free Range" and the Vaccine Debate and Discover the True Problem, and The Sad End to The Cat in the Hat (or The War on Parents) and I am starting to feel like I am beating a dead horse. However, a thought occurred to me the other day and I decided I really wanted to share it. The thought is that there are lessons to be taken from the home birth movement that can be applied to the current war on parenting, specifically as it relates to the "Free Range" parenting style.

Regardless of how you feel about the home birth movement, whether you are a full supporter, on the fence, or it makes you uncomfortable, the fact of the matter is the push for women to have freedom of choice in birth rests largely on the fact that the majority of low-risk births are safe and uncomplicated. The thought is, the risk is worth the reward. (If you are interested in reading about home birth some good links to some of the many, many articles on the topic can be found here, here and here as well as this interesting Master's Thesis.) The same can be applied to parenting. The risks are worth the reward.

We spend so much time saying things like, "but even one, is one too many," or the politicians' favorite, "but, as long as it prevents even one fatality then [insert whatever legal precedent you want to use to enact new restrictions] is totally justified and worth it." Here in America we are positively obsessed with reaching a zero percent mortality rate.

Guess what?

It isn't possible. We could require children to submit to 24/7 surveillance and we will still have children who die. We will still have children who are kidnapped, molested, injured. The old saying goes, where there is a will, there is a way. We can force vaccinations on everyone and there will be some that die from the vaccinations. We can throw up our hands and stop vaccinating all together, and someone will die of a "preventable" disease. We can strap every child in to a giant bubble wrap car seat, but the fact of the matter is that not every child will survive to see adulthood. We can legislate ourselves into a coma, and it still isn't ever going to happen. Reaching a zero percent mortality rate is completely unobtainable. Children are going to die, and the families will need our support, not our judgment and finger pointing. It sounds harsh, I know, but it is reality.

The Husband, reading over my shoulder just now, pointed out that this argument is much like the argument Sheldon and Leonard have on The Big Bang Theory about Leonard's surgery. Sheldon says he should not have it because he has a 1/700,000 chance of dying from general anesthesia. Leonard then says, all the more reason to have it because he has 699,999/ 700,000 chance of being fine. Sheldon then crunches the numbers which ultimately brings Leonard's chance of dying "down to a sphincter tightening 1:300."



And that is it. Can something happen to your kids if you leave your kids unattended while you run to the post office, or the bank, or the store? Yes. Can something happen if you let them walk to the park alone? Yes. Can something happen if you choose to vaccinate, or don't choose to vaccinate? Yes and yes. If we used the same number crunching gymnastics that Sheldon used, we would all be paralyzed with fear that death is lurking around every corner. But, things like that are rare, which is why they call it a freak accident. Of course, if something does happen our first instinct is to point a finger and demand to know, "where were the parents?"

Ultimately, chances are pretty darn good that they will be just fine. If you trust your kids to stay home alone for short periods of time, chances are you are right. If you feel safe enough in your neighborhood to let them walk to the park alone, you are probably right. You know your kids better than anyone, and chances are nothing bad will happen. Every choice you make for your kids carry risks and much like the cop who has to make a split second decision, you have to understand that if something does go wrong.... you will be publicly crucified. We will blame the victim, point our fingers, wring our hands, start a non-profit and demand "justice."

All that reaction really does, though, is assure that we are making parents more and more afraid. They are afraid that if they aren't watching 24/7 they won't be able to defend themselves if something happens. And something will eventually happen, to someone anyway. No one wants to be the 1 in 700,000, but it happens. Life doesn't come with guarantees.

Therefore, I say we take a page out of the home birth movement's book. Yes bad things will happen. Yes they may or may not be "preventable," but ultimately we need to make sure that parents have the right to make those calls, to take those risks, to utilize those options without fear of ridicule or legal and criminal ramifications.

Ask yourselves, do we want to bend over backwards, tying ourselves in knots trying to live in fear of the being the 1? Or do we want to make decisions based on the 699,999? I think the home birth movement has it right. Parents should educate themselves to the all the risks and choose for themselves. They should be able to make those choices without fear of legal prosecution or having their lives placed under the public microscope if they make the wrong choice. I am pretty sure losing a child is punishment enough.

The Sad End to The Cat in the Hat (or The War on Parents)

Parents! Stand up and take notice!
This is about vaccination freedom, this is about circumcision freedom, this is about educational freedom, this about freedom to parent as we see fit. This is about a case that sets a very dangerous legal precedent!

Recently this article appeared on ABC news about a couple who has been found criminally negligent for letting their children walk to a local park unsupervised at the ages of 10 and 6. (For the record, I walked a 5 and 2 year old to the park down the street when I was babysitting my neighbor's children at the age of 11.)

In the article it reads, "In Silver Spring, leaving anyone under age 18 unsupervised constitutes neglect."

Seriously!? Eighteen? So, a driver's license at sixteen, but don't leave your High School kids unsupervised. Good grief, what the hell is this country coming to? Put your kids in front of the t.v., that is the only place they are safe. But, make sure they don't become obese or we can take them from you. And for God's sake, don't let them play outside....I had a friend who was visited by CPS for letting her children play "unsupervised" (she was inside doing dishes) in HER OWN BACKYARD!!! The concern was, she had a gate. Seriously, A GATE, that might be able to be opened. *Facepalm*

And so, on that note, I bring you the very sad, 2015 end to the Cat in the Hat (first written and published in 1957....oh how times have changed).


Our mother came home
and found us, we two
looking out the window
with nothing to do.
She asked all about
what had gone on there that day?
And we told her, we two
that all we did was just play

We did not tell her
 about the Cat in the hat
or Thing 1 or Thing 2,
Oh no, nothing like that.

But before we got
too much further along,
the doorbell rang out
like some kind of gong.

And standing outside,
were two cops, and a man
looking angry and stern,
with a clipboard in hand.

Our mother pulled open
the door with a tug
and asked, “Can I help you?”
to the men on the rug.

“Ma’am, can we please come in?”
Was their brisk reply
And my mother just gasped, and
She muttered, “Oh my”

“I'm afraid that we must Ma’am,
we must speak here with you.

We must come in and talk

about your children, these two.

I am sorry dear mother,
I am sorry to say,
That these kids are too young
To be left here all day.

We all got a phone call
from someone concerned
that your kids were alone,
or so they had learned.

And so I’m afraid
that we will take them away
we will take them, with us

on this cold, cold wet day.


You see dear mother,
It matters not
where you’ve been;
the doctor's, or work,
or visiting kin.

You left them alone
and so now say adieu,
because they can no longer
still live here with you.

And now we arrest you
for being neglectful,
regardless of whether
this fact makes you fretful.”

And THAT my dear friends ,
 well, that is that.
The very sad end
 to the Cat in the Hat.



Get out your pens and your computers and write your local and National government offices. They need to know that parents have the right to decide how to raise their children. Whether we agree or disagree to the different methods of parenting, ultimately your rights are at risk!
And as always, it is time to forget about "Family Values" and focus on Valuing Families!!

Forget "Free Range" and the Vaccine Debate and Discover the True Problem


A few weeks ago I posted an article "The Parental Pinch Gets Tighter", which discussed the problem of trying to litigate childhood independence and children's unsupervised activity.

This week another similar article, "Kids' Solo Playtime Unleashes 'Free-Range' Parenting Debate"  appeared on the NPR website;
Christine James-Brown, president and CEO of the Child Welfare League of America, says while some investigations will inevitably prove a waste in the end, that doesn't mean agencies should forgo them ...Communities today may be made up of strangers, but James-Brown says they still have a stake in how kids are raised and a role to play in keeping them safe. She hopes all the media scrutiny gets more people thinking about what that role should be.
 The basic idea is that we, as America, find ourselves caught between multiple goals. We are caught between the ideal of perfect parenting and the need to let children take calculated risks. We are caught between the judgment when something goes wrong and protecting the sacred sanctity of parental rights within the nuclear family ideal. How are we to choose?

Do we choose to harass well meaning parents making choices geared toward their individual families in the interest of catching cases of actual neglect, or do we allow for more leniency, knowing that it is going to put some children at risk for physical harm and neglect? It isn't an easy choice, and there is no right answer.

There is one solution that is always my answer to this debate and is the same as Christine James-Brown's: we need to band together as a community. We need to start trusting our neighbors. We need to stop sheltering our children from everything and give society a stake in how kids are raised, and a role protecting them. We need businesses to invest in their workers and their families.



Just like childhood independence, trust is something that needs to grow over time. It can't grow if we don't take the time to invest. It is finding that time to invest in the people around us that is increasingly difficult in today's workplace economy; we have longer work hours in the office in addition to 24/7 accessibility with cell phones and email. We work longer (not harder) in a society that is Overworked and Underemployed, and that makes it hard to have time for anything else.

All these issues, all these parenting debates, all the pointing fingers, are all stemming from the same problem: they are interconnected with and inseparably joined to the economic sector and the current work/family balance in our country (or lack thereof). We can't put the time into the people in our communities when there is no time to give.

The fact is that we, as Americans, don't have time. We are starving for quality time. We don't have time to invest in family meals, instead relying on fast food and convenience meals. We don't have the time to build up our social networks which provide insulation against struggle. We don't have time to just enjoy our families. We barely have time to invest in quality family time, especially in a dual-income household. Instead we are on the hamster wheel of the American economy, working ourselves to death, but not actually getting anywhere.

Our workforce is not driven by concerns for individual people's lives and this is something that ultimately will affect all people, whether or not they have children. The system does not support workers with elder care responsibilities any more than they support parents of young children.

Until we change our economic system to become more worker friendly, or until we embrace Valuing Families, we will be forever debating the intricacies of parenting. It all boils down to, who do the young a of a society belong to? Do they belong to the family? The community? Or both?

And lest childless individuals wipe their brow and say, "not my problem," let me remind you that it is. Even if you never have children, you may have parents, a spouse or another family member who might become ill, or they could become ill themselves. Severe illness is as much at the heart of this debate as parenting. (Not to mention, the alarming boom in dating websites that have exploded in the last decade which are clearly driven by the fact that even unmarried workers find it hard to carve out time for a social life.)

 Believe it or not, taking responsibility for children in our communities promotes the belief at a grassroots level that families and individuals, or in other words people are important. Ultimately, they are more important than the monetary bottom line.

So, take the time to contact your local representatives and other government agencies, let them know that it is time to start Valuing Families.