Maybe we can narrow down your thoughts on this. First, it's irrelevant whether this money is going to you personally, or any other person. You seem to be advocating mothers being given money for over 3 months without doing anything to earn it, as a mandate rather than as a company policy or negotiated part of a compensation package. Is that correct? If so, who should pay this money? Who should receive it?
I'm advocating that maternity leave be recategorised as a form of paid leave of absence. The idea that it's unpaid is basically pro corporate and anti mother, especially lower class mothers.
How do you propose to sell employers on a long term paid absence? Did you ever try to negotiate that with any of your employers? What makes you think an employer would want to pay someone for a long term vacation presumably well beyond their more typical number or range of vacation or other PTO? If an employer did offer this do you suppose they may balance the expected expense with a lower salary to balance the overall compensation package? How would that be any more beneficial than just saving for the expected expenses and lower income when choosing to have a child? Why do you seem opposed to parents saving for this reduced income, or ensuring one partner has sufficient income to cover the total household expenses?
I do not understand how my stance of extended paid leave being anything other than a point of negotiation between employer and employee, or how to cover the expenses of a child being anything other than the business of the parents, is anti mother. You haven't made any compelling arguments. What I have said is neither pro corporate or pro mother, but rather it is entirely neutral. If what you propose (3+ months of paid leave?) is mutually beneficial then it will eventually become the norm instead of the exception, barring outside influence.
are we still arguing about this?
these same arguments were used against, sick leave, vacation, weekends, an eight hour workday, unemployment insurance, pensions....pretty much anything that doesnt allow corporations to work people into the ground.
sometimes everything isnt about the bottom line. it isnt even about what is ' fair' you expect society to have children. turns out the only one capable of doing that in a society are women.
why do you penalize women for doing what is best for society?
not to mention aside from discouraging giving birth, it also discourages woman from advancing in the work place.
its anti mother because it forces people, mainly the female people, to jump through extra hoops for doing things that are completely natural.
although you make think not getting paid for 3-6 months up to her. men dont have the same onus put on them of deciding whether to work or have a family.
to be honest i think there should be paternity leave as well, just not as long.. cause lets be real why should only the mother have this opportunity to bond and help out around the house.
having kids is natural and working is natural, why should you have to choose one over the other?
sure you could make the argument that its between an employer and employee, cause we all know how well that's worked in the past.