August 20, 2007

What makes a mother

I have to admit, I'm somewhat conflicted about the Patti Tomasson case.

Well, not about the case specifically. I believe adoptive parents should absolutely be entitled to parental leave and I think it's a shame the court decided otherwise.

What conflicts me is that the discourse around the case has been almost entirely about mothers. Tomasson herself has emphasized that "paternity benefits are a separate issue".

But I don't think they are. If this is all about bonding with a child, why should fathers be any less entitled to that time? The idea that bonding is a purely maternal activity just reinforces the kind of gender essentialism I wish we could get past. We need more fathers to spend time with their children, both when they're young and as they grow. Is it any wonder child-rearing is still an overwhelmingly female job, when men are actively excluded from the discourse?

By the same token, it is true that childbirth is physically exhausting, and carries with it all kinds of trauma -- there's no doubt that one would need time to recover from that. To that extent, I agree with the judge. Where I disagree is that parental/maternity leave is (or should be) about more than just the physical exigencies of childbirth.

I suppose in my ideal universe, there would be medical leave to allow for late prenatal care, childbirth and recovery, and there would be parental leave, for which all parents would be eligible, and which would take up the vast majority of the time period we now think of as maternity leave.

Thoughts?

No comments: