My pal Rachel write, <<The only down side of long paid leaves is that fewer women feel comfortable asserting their legal right to time off for expressing or BF when they wait 12 months to return to work outside the home.>> There's always a first, and to my astonishment I disagree with Rachel. The other downside of substantial leaves, at least as played out in the US, is that they make managers more chary of hiring married or likely-to-procreate women in the first place, and more likely to fire them. I speak from experience here: I had a great maternity leave policy in my old job, by US standards at least, but my job was "eliminated" and I was "laid off" when I took advantage of it for the second time and was foolish enough to confess that I hoped someday to do it a third time, too. (needless to say the same responsibilities and title went *the same day* to an unmarried colleague...) Establishing good maternity leaves is important, and I still fight for it. But they are only meaningful in a social and economic climate that lets women take advantage of them safely; and that is much harder to guarantee. (American women who want more leave often look at Germany, where required leaves are much longer. But I am told that women's earning power is also much less, there; and that's not good for women and children, either...) A complicated question. Elisheva Urbas now working from home (or, as I like to say, editing in the bf lab) *********************************************** The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM) mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html *********************************************** The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM) mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html