Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!sun222.nas.nasa.gov From: kfletche@sun222.nas.nasa.gov (Katherine E. Fletcher) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Child making and rearing Message-ID: Date: 2 Aug 90 03:46:07 GMT Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Reply-To: Kathi Fletcher Distribution: soc Organization: Nasa Ames Research Center Lines: 42 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R In article <19929.26ab3a4a@oregon.uoregon.edu> davidw@oregon.uoregon.edu writes: > I believe that women should have an equal place with men in the > business world and politically (hey, if I was old enough to vote, I > would've voted for Ferraro), but I think we have to be aware of some > problems this can cause. In hiring a male, one does not have to worry > that he will get pregnant and have to leave work. I don't think that > this should have ANY bearing on who gets hired, but many women feel > that their employer should pay for their time off while they're taking > care of their child. HA! Were I an employer, I would NOT set myself > up to be paying for a non-working employee. The employer who WOULD is > masochistic and doesn't want his(yes, or her) money. First, employers do pay for sick leave for their employees without going broke. In theory, it is a negotiation between the employer and employee and the employer could just as easily go broke by paying a higher base salary and not giving sick leave. I would like to use this as a starting point for a discussion about the economy of child making and rearing. What if the cost of these two things had to be borne completely equally by both partners in the conception. By this, I don't mean that the male and female could share equally in the physical cost (see Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin if this interests you), but that the economic cost had to be born by both. So that the male had to pay half of the women's lost salary due to pregnancy, half of the actual medical costs, and both people had to share equally the cost of lost work time due to child rearing errands - sick kiddo's, school chauffering etc. How would this impact on employer/employee relations and agreements? Both men and women would have equal incentive to lobby for parental leave, pregnancy leave, and insurance that supports the needs of parents. Their is still the two weeks that the woman must have for delivery and recovery, but that is comparable to vacation. Certain types of work would require longer and it might be harder to figure out a way that both responsible parties share in the cost for those types of jobs - heavy labor types. A construction company might still view the cost of retraining when a women leaves due to pregnancy as a reason to discriminate. Thoughts? Ideas? All you economists out there speak up. Kathi Fletcher kef@rice.edu