Pøedmìt: [world-vedic] A Mother?s Worth Od: Vrndavan Parker Datum: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:34:59 +0200 (CEST) Komu: vediculture@yahoogroups.com, hinduthought@yahoogroups.com, hinducivilization@yahoogroups.com, indicjournalists@yahoogroups.com, fhrs_usa@yahoogroups.com, branded_indian@yahoogroups.com, iamuc@yahoogroups.com, vfa-members@yahoogroups.com, niwarriors@yahoogroups.com, bcvenkatakrishnannewslist@yahoogroups.com, sanatanadharmaofdallas@yahoogroups.com, usbrahmins@yahoogroups.com, vedichistory@yahoogroups.com, vfa-coreteam@yahoogroups.com A Mother’s Worth By Rachel Radhanuja Mizuta-Parker $138,095 per year. That sounds pretty good. But what if you had to work ten different jobs and put in 90-100 hours a week with no insurance coverage, no sick leave and no paid vacation? Advertise this position in the newspaper or online and how many interested candidates would apply? Not many. Yet millions of people find themselves starting this new job every year and millions more are staying on with the company. Why? Because the company is their child or children and their job is a stay at home mother. The average income for a woman working full time at 40 hours per week year round is just under $32,000 per year. Multiply that income by 2.5 times to match a 100 hour work week and we end up with $80,000, just over half of a mother’s estimated annual worth. If a working mother regarded parenting as a second job she would still command an annual salary of $85,939, not counting the money she earns in the workplace. That is still almost $6,000 more than putting in 100 hours at a regular job. It is not reasonable or viable to demand that every mother be compensated with nearly $140,000 a year. But the resources that are available and support subsidized child care could be used to support parents to eliminate or limit the time spent working outside of the home. This is especially needed for low-income families. A case in point can be made regarding Washington State where I currently reside. Well known as a bastion of progressive ideals and gender equality, this image is severely challenged when the issue of Motherhood arises. In Washington the combined federal and state grants for subsidized child care for low-income families will pay $707 a month per child for full time child care. Imagine if instead that money was given to the parent or parents every month if they choose to stay home with their child. It may not be enough to live off of, but if there is another parent in the home then it could supplement a one-income household. For single parents it could limit the number of hours they would need to work outside of the home. Not only would this decrease the financial stress on the family, but it would free up more time for the mother or father to spend with their child. The emotional and psychological impact is the greatest reward for both the parents and the children. Children who grow up with love and support and important bonding time from birth to three are more emotionally balanced, get sick less often, recover from illness quicker, and are less likely to turn toward drugs or crime to make money when they grow older. Women who find themselves pregnant unexpectedly would have more options than abortion, adoption, or poverty. Even if they choose to keep their child the financial burden and unexpected situation of becoming a mother can begin to build resentment toward their child. Let’s give them more options to support their family, to spend time with their child, to build a strong connection and find the social support to continue confidently on the long path of parenthood. Optioning staying at home gives a mother greater opportunity to breastfeed her child. The benefits to the mother, the child, and to society are extraordinary. Exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, with gradual introduction of solid foods after six months is recognized as the preferred method of infant feeding. Mother’s milk contains an ideal balance of nutrients that is easily digested by the infant, it meets the changing needs of the growing child on a daily basis, contains substances essential for the development of the infant’s brain, contains growth factors that assist in maturing the infant’s stomach and digestion processes, and provides immune factors which fight allergens and illnesses specific to the mother’s and infant’s environment. Providing women with the necessary time with their child to breastfeed and bond emotionally, as well as guaranteeing workplace rights to breastfeed or pump breast milk to supply food for their child while they are out of the home has tremendous economical advantages. The estimated cost of using infant formula is four times greater than breastfeeding. $2 billion per year is spent by families on infant formula. Electricity or fuel costs are increased due to the use of these to prepare formula. Breast milk is the perfect temperature, requires no wasteful packaging and uses zero electricity. Breastfed children are sick less often which reduces the number of sick days that families must use to care for sick children, a savings to the employer. $1.3 billion more is spent by insurers to cover sick-child office visits and prescriptions to treat the three most common first-year illnesses for formula-fed infants versus breastfed infants. And lastly, $3.6 to nearly $7 billion excess dollars are spent yearly on diseases and conditions that are preventable by breastfeeding. Give women the opportunity to spend more time if not all of their time at home with their child, encourage and support mother’s rights to breastfeed, and then watch these numbers drop dramatically. Social and economic disadvantages are not a factor in providing ideal nutrition to children through breastfeeding. The federal government funded $4.8 billion for the fiscal year of 2001-2002 to provide matching funds to states for subsidized child care. Notice that these are matching funds and this is a huge amount of money. This is specifically for low-income families who fall below 85% of the state’s median income. Even with the help of subsidies, low-income families still pay and average of 15% of their earnings for child care. They are working hard to pay for other people to watch over and raise their children. Why not give them the choice to raise their own children with financial help from these same subsidies? Important changes need to be made in the workplace for those parents who stay in the workforce both full and part time. Parents who need to work with or without a child subsidy payment require considerations that could easily be accommodated for if the federal government stepped up to the challenge. Worldwide, 168 countries provide paid maternity leave, 66 countries provide paid paternal leave, 107 countries protect working mother’s right to breastfeed, 137 countries mandate paid annual leave, and 145 countries provide paid sick days or leave for long or short term illnesses. The United States doesn’t guarantee any of these yet and it is left to the employer to decide what rights are extended to the employee. The combination of a paid-to-parent child subsidy along with federal mandated maternal, paternal, and sick leave would have an important impact on the amount of time parents and mothers in particular have to spend with their children. The child subsidy should be paid to the parents for the first three years, offered as a 50% split between child care and paid-to-parent for the years of three to five to allow for part time work, then offered as 100% subsidized child care after the age of five. The lack of these rights is an unnecessary stress and an offensive form of oppression to the citizens of this country. It is a veritable attack on the societal structure and families in particular to not guarantee paid time off for valid and important circumstances. Bringing a new child into the world is one of the greatest responsibilities a person will have. It is also one of the most difficult, frustrating and selfless acts that can be done. For the betterment of society, for the betterment of families, for the betterment of ourselves we must support a woman’s right to stay home with her children not just in words but in actions as well. Rachel Radhanuja Mizuta-Parker is a Japanese-American Mother of 4 children, an IT Network Infrastructure Security Specialist, an Airplane Pilot and a Parenting Activist. She can be contacted at radhanuja@msn.com This is an information resource and discussion group for people interested in the World's Ancient Vedic Culture, with a focus on its historical, archeological and scientific aspects. Also topics about India, Hinduism, God, and other aspects of World Culture are welcome. Remember, Vedic Culture is not an artificial imposition, but is the natural state of a society that is in harmony with God and the environment.Om Shantih, Harih Om