Jeez, I had no idea. I took off a full week, paid, for my daughter's birth here in Thailand, and could easily have taken two weeks. As the father.

For mothers themselves here, a google search says:
* 90 days of maternity leave
* Full pay: 45 days paid by the employer and 45 days paid from the Social Welfare Fund
* With a doctor's certificate a temporary change of duties either before and/or after the child's birth is allowed
* Protection from termination of employment due to pregnancy


Guess I can add that to the list of things that this corrupt, shady, and highly unstable government does better than my "world's primary superpower" homeland. (not saying it is a very long list, but it is more than a handful of items!)

How can America call itself a civilised nation if this is how it treats it's needy? As an outsider it's great to see the success of Obama care. The way America treats it's citizens seems bizarre. Paid maternity anyone? Very strange.

I think it's more like if they would stop redistributing the wealth to themselves from their workers.

If they would stop being greedy f'tards, then more people would have money to buy the things that move the economy and nobody would need government aid in the form of food stamps and welfare (save those who are honestly mentally or physically unable to work).If you want to build an economy the keyword is "build". You don't build a house by building the attic first magically floating there, then the foundation and walls to get up to it, you start with a foundation, then walls. If the people at the bottom have money to do more than barely survive, they buy things that actually move the economy, they buy things at retailers, who need to hire more people; those people buy things which results in transportation and warehouses hiring more people, those people buy things; manufacturing starts hiring (if the rich f'tard didn't send those jobs overseas, which the conservatives blame on the government rather than the rich guy who sent the job overseas for some reason, it's not like the price of that shirt went down when they sent it overseas, they just pocketed the extra wealth for themselves) and those people buy even more expensive things.

Our right wing economy favors investors and large business over the needs of the vast majority. It doesn't matter how much GM stock investors buy and trade, GM won't make more cars and hire more people until enough people can buy cars.

As we slide more and more money from the people who actually spend money in the economy and make it move, to people who just horde and invest, the economy will continue to spiral down. More and more people will require food stamps and welfare due to the actions of the rich, but the conservative right will blame the workers and former workers rather than pushing blame onto the people who are refusing to pay living wages, who push jobs overseas so they can personally pocket more wealth, and complain about the people they aren't giving living wages to and the people they laid off need government assistance, and the conservative voters go right along because the pulpit and Fox News has brainwashed them into believing that a party that disobey's everything their Jesus taught them is the Christian party.

The growing wealth and income gap is the biggest challenge facing our nation, and indeed much of the world. Of course most of the rest of the world does a better job of caring for the work force than the US does, paid maternity leave in all but 4 nations, paid vacation time in most of the world by law, paid sick time in most developed economies, minimum wages tied to inflation in much of those countries, a minimum level of health insurance for every man woman and child without having to buy from for-profit corporations (most actually use a single payer, which sort of ignores the fact that our individual mandate that we have now was invented by the Republican party, and is financed the same way they wanted to do it and the tax penalty for not participating is the same...the other nations that use individual mandates do so via not-for-profit insurance)... We do so much to protect the rich and investor class in this nation... sickening really.

I agree with you, although my perspective has been changed recently due to the relationship I'm in. Never underestimate the power of love to make a parent completely blind and oblivious to the bad things their children do. Especially single mothers with strong maternal feelings who believe they're doing what's best for their child by never being critical of them...

On the plus side I've been experimenting with methods of child discipline, my partner now believes I've been studying parenting books since I'm getting good results, but in reality I've just been indulging my inner-scientist and figuring out what works best without resorting to a good beating

But like Magicpants says, when you compare across equivalent jobs, the number is closer to 90-95%.

That can be attributed to employers factoring in potential maternity leave and the general lower likelihood of women working overtime. These are not necessarily fair as some women will work long overtime and not have kids (or have the father take leave) but there's a rational reason for employers to assume this on average.

Realistically, I would argue that the best way to approach this is purely through awareness. Mandates on pay scales or opening up companies to lawsuits for unequal pay would, if anything, make the issue worse. Which is why this being brought up in politics seems like a play for votes for an issue that can't be effectively tackled with policy and instead requires cultural changes.

Take for example, South Korea, which has much more serious discrimination. Women earn 63% of what men do, and are expected to not return to work after having children. This has created an opportunity where domestic cultural biases allow foreign firms to come in a scoop up female talent cheaper. Over time, this will give them a competitive edge, raise wages for women, and help overturn the cultural stigma.

http://www.economist.com/node/17311877

Well, he's the boss of that piece of sugar cane that he's putting through the ringer. Won't have to worry about 401k's or maternity leave for it though.

Lived in Ontario (28 years), Brisbane, Australia (5 years), Alberta (7 years), and now Texas (14 years).

Agree with pretty much with Boneremake on Alberta, gets more points than Ontario. My Australian experience was good, in both the city and rural (blew an eardrum due to infection in Longreach QLD at Xmas... the doctor was drunk when they wheeled him into emerg, but he was a gentle, caring drunk).

Small things in Ontario are manageable - anything requiring stuff beyond typical emergency room patching up in more rural locations (my definition - anywhere far enough from Toronto that you can't see the nighttime glow, so north of Newfenmarket sort of) is quite lacking (v. long wait times for things like weekly dialysis, MRI, even open MRI, GI tract scoping, ultrasounds, contrast X-rays etc). Parental unit #1 with diabetes requiring 3 times a week dialysis almost snuffed it as there were only 4 chairs in the unit 14 miles from home, got on the list and had to wait for someone to die before getting on the team. Finally snuffed it when they shut down these 4 chairs and the new unit was now a 90 mile round trip 3 times a week for man who could barely walk or see. Died from exhaustion, not diabetes. 2nd parental unit needs an MRI for some serious GI issues, can't keep food down, losing weight rapidly. Wait 4.5 months and we'll see if we can get you in. I'm having her measured for the box.

Having said that, the situation is easier to describe in Texas, the land of excess (excessive wealth and excessive poverty).

Good health insurance plan, preferably through employer with lots of employees = wait times for advanced procedures measured usually in minutes or hours, sometimes days, but not weeks or months. You get taken care of, and your birthing room at the local maternity ward looks like the Marriott (just Couryard though, so no mini-bar or microwave).

Mediocre or no health insurance plan = pray you never get sick enough to require more than what you can buy at the CVS or splint up by watching do-it-yourself first aid videos on youtube, because an unplanned night in the hospital or a trip to emerg in the short bus with swirly lights followed by admission can, for many, wipe them out or sure eat up Bobby's college fund. No exaggeration. I have insurance, but for a reference point, one night in hospital (elective) for a turbinectomy (google it people) including jello and ice cream came in at $14,635. Yes, one night. 24 hours. Do the math. An emergency room visit for a forearm cut requiring 13 stitches (and I didn't even bleed on their white sheets - just cut through the skin to the fat tissue) was billed at $2,300 bucks. Our new baby tried to exit the meatbag as a footling breach, so emergency C-sectioned him out, and one extra night in hospital (2 in total) - all up, billed at just shy of $24K. We now have 3 full service hospitals within 5 miles of our house, and a full service children's hospital in the same radius. And they just started building another. Somebody's making money. If you don't have insurance, or your insurance is shitty (huge deductibles, huge copays) you will eat much of these types of costs. Rule: cheaper to die than get sick.

Ontario and AB might have longer wait times, but even an 83 year old woman in a rural Ontario village with no pension, insurance, income or large stacks of cash can (eventually) get the health care she needs without spending unjustifiable amounts of money. Happy birthday mom.

My 2¢

I feel so strongly about this. My partner and I are headed down the road where I'll be the primary caregiver. I work at home, and she goes into an academic environment to earn the majority of the money. We plan to have children in this setting.
My "manhood" has never been on the line, nor have I ever measured myself against the status-quo she describes (and most of society purportedly subscribes to), but it incenses me to no end that parents are given a scant few months off for p/maternity leave and then called back to work, or that so many people buy into the mindless cultural norms that she so effectively illustrates in her talk.
In our time, women don't have to think about the equality of men, because they're still fighting for equality against them, but it's immeasurably empowering and encouraging to see a woman take the time to assess the global situation on that front anyway. I've always tried to do the same with my life everywhere (i.e. measure everything from any and everyone's perspective), and this talk just makes me incredibly happy.

Excellent... that was exactly what you should have asked.

Journal of Medical Ethics

Historically the maternal mortality rate was 1%. These days it's closer to 0.01%

There's some evidence that suggests that planned home births come close to hospital births for favourable outcomes when the easy access to hospital is available (i.e. if the mother can be transported to a hospital in an emergency), but I just don't see why you'd take the risk, not to mention the added stress on the mother of trying to transport her when things have already gone wrong.

I don't get the Right's logic on stuff like this... More and more wealth is moving to the top few percent, and more and more of the earnable wages are moving to the top few percent. Walmart for example could easily afford to pay every employee something like $2-3 more an hour, give benefits and hire more people so their stores are properly staffed and still make a profit. And they get upset at the people working there needing help... "oh it's the government's fault for giving them aid letting the company do that"... What?! The company made a choice, and they blame the government actions for it... it's like when they blame moving jobs overseas on the government instead of the rich guy who decided that it is in his own greedy personal self interest to send the jobs there rather than pay Americans. Or its like that cartoon where a rich man, a middle class man and a working class person are all at a table with 100 cookies and the rich guy takes 99 of them, the middle class guy gets 1 and the working class guy has crumbs, then the rich guy warns the middle class guy "better watch out, he wants your cookie" and they fall for it, they get mad at that guy rather than the guy who took 99 cookies for himself...

They get upset at wanting to keep minimum wage in pace with inflation, something that happens in most countries. They get upset at the idea of the cost to business to do so, but somehow businesses do it all around the world... heck, when we were thinking of moving to New Zealand and a few other places we discovered that most countries force employers to give paid vacation time, not just a bonus that some/most employers offer after 1 or 2 years of service if they want. Almost every country forces employers to offer paid maternity leave, and paid holidays... American businesses have it easy compared to most countries, one could possibly argue they have an unfair advantage compared to the rest of the world. And it's not like those businesses outside the US don't make a killing, as in those countries the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, so that isn't a unique US trait.

They claim that only like 4% of the workforce get paid minimum, but ignore the fact that figure doesn't account for the fact that if minimum kept pace with inflation, that is the actual cost of living, then it would be over $10 something right now, which means everyone making less than that is below minimum... that guy working at Walmart, Target, McDonalds or whatever for $9, yes, they may be "above minimum" but if you account for the actual cost of living they are below it...which means that person making $12, while they are well above minimum isn't that far above it. Stretching it further, if minimum kept pace with worker productivity, and nobody is suggesting it should, it would be over $17, so the companies are getting great value out of their workers, and still would be even if minimum wage kept pace with inflation. That doesn't even account for where it would be if it kept pace with CEO/Executive pay of over $22...

And yes, Walmart is near the bottom of the rung in jobs, no matter what the right may say about them having a choice... Nobody grows up wanting to work at Walmart, McDonalds and the like. Most people working at those sort of jobs work them because that was the best job they can get, and after a while, you gain "job security" as well as you can call it that, which makes it harder for them to move on, up and out, taking a risk that some rich guy might ship their jobs overseas so he can take more for himself while screwing over his workers and the American public. So they get stuck, because it's the best option that they have, especially in a country that is so far lopsided in favor of the business over the workers... in one of the few countries that doesn't guarantee health insurance for everyone, that took a Republican created plan that makes people buy health insurance from for profit insurance companies (which if I recall correctly was one of the top 3 most profitable businesses in the US per dollar earned, with banks at number one, and pharmasutcal companies), and made it the law of the land, while those same Republicans, many who co-sponsored the legislation when Republicans tried to pass it at the federal level, now oppose their own creation... because apparently the changes that the left made to the bill (not being able to deny people for pre-existing conditions and not being able to charge them extra, and moving to comprehensive coverage rather than just catastrophic coverage, so two things that mean insurance companies have to pay out more for) are bad.

>> with all kinds of drama and tests, and poking and prodding.

In the western world, infant and maternal mortality has plummeted thanks to improved hygiene and good medical care, but these days there is a big emphasis on offering choice to the woman. In the UK If the pregnancy is deemed low risk then midwife only hospital delivery is offered as a basic right and the women can choose often choose pool birth, or home birth if they wish.
The latest NICE guidelines even go so far as to say that a woman should be able to ask for a c-section even if not medically indicated.
If the woman opts for something like opiate pain relief or an epideural then of course it becomes more medicalised but again it's a choice.

When you are on your second or third child, it often just pops out with little fuss where as the first baby is much more of an unknown. I'd be a lot less worried about a lady like this who has had 3 normal deliveries which i assume were uncomplicated.

The only think i'd say here is that babies get cold very quickly and so should be dried quickly rather than doused in brook water.

What does this have to do with Obama's father? This man is not Obama's father, and he never mentions Obama's father. The Youtube description states that this man knew Obama's maternal grandfather.

1. "Abortion pills" have been around since the 70's. Medically induced abortions are more common for first and second trimester abortions than surgical abortion in many places outside the U.S. Sometimes after a failed medical abortion though, surgical abortion must be carried out to finish the job. Medical abortion is still cheaper, easier and even more effective in many cases.

2. Ultrasound imaging in general is very safe and there are no major hazards involved in transvaginal ultrasound either. It's not really much different than a normal gynecologic examination, which is probably done before an abortion anyway. The only danger is that a patient might be afraid of the dildo-looking ultrasound probe.

3. The reason they want to require a transvaginal ultrasound examination is clearly to discourage abortion. I don't know the specifics of the bill, but presumably it would raise the bar for women to get an abortion because of this possibly scary examination being coupled with it. Or maybe seeing the fetus on the ultrasound screen is supposed to awaken the maternal instincts or something. It also would mandate the gynecologists office to have an expensive ultrasound machine available for every patient requiring an abortion, raising the cost of operating.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'animal, baboon, leopard, pregnant, baby, jeremy irons' to 'animal, baboon, leopard, maternal, instinct, prey, baby, jeremy irons' - edited by JTZ

maternal instinct to whole 'nother level? not really. someone's coming after your baby, you stop them. do what you have to. love this video. shows it's possible to own and operate a firearm without bein crazy with it.