Just in case I wasn't controversial enough, I'll add one more point.
This argument makes no sense whatsoever. You cannot argue on one hand that you can do it all, and then argue on the other hand that the problem is that the government isn't making people give you special treatment for your own choices. This mentality irks me to no end. There is no reason that your employer should have to pay you for time off because you decided to have children at that time. Women are intelligent adults. Physician women are intelligent adults who chose to go into a profession in which they knew that long hours into the early 30s were a requirement. Other people should not have to pay for you to take time off. This isn't some universal American refusal to value families. It is the fact that people hire you to work and generate income, and when you are at home nursing your baby, you are not generating any income. It is perfectly reasonable to forego this income for personal family priorities, but it really isn't everyone else's responsibility. You cannot argue that it is those evil employers that don't care about families because they won't pay you to take time off from a job for which they hired you. In this case, you are arguing that because your personal life interferes with your ability to do your job, that your job should bend. That is a bit self-centric, and if anything, is the truly sexist argument on this thread. If everyone is truly equal, make an arrangement to take whatever time you need for your personal reasons, but don't expect to be compensated for it.
The Europeans also have work hour restrictions in some countries per week that resemble a call shift on some more stringent medical specialties. Europe is nothing like here. It's nice that some people think that humans shouldn't be burdened with more than 32 or 35 or 38 hours a week of actual work, but I am not one of them. There is no reason that we need to coddle the entire country. We don't need people rioting over here over the atrocity of being able to be fired a year into a job if your employer feels that you aren't doing a good job. We can leave that in France.
Miami med,
Where did you see me argue that "I can do it all?" I don't think anybody can "do it all" when it comes to parenting. My point was that, although I would love to take time off to be with my children when I have them (and hopefully will be able to arrange to have some time off), the reality of my debt obligation is such that I will not be able to do this for an extended amount of time. I made this point in response to the argument that some were putting forth that the only reason for a physician to work full-time and have kids was to fund some kind of materialistic lifestyle; I will need to work at least close to full-time to pay off my loans and live a comfortably middle-class- not extravagant- lifestyle (which I do feel I am entitled to after 8 years in school + 3 years of residency). I am going into pediatrics, not rumored to be the most high-paying of fields, so to meet my loan burden, pay a mortgage, feed a family, and save for college/retirement after taxes will require me to work more than part-time. I am fortunate, as I said earlier, to have a partner who has more flexibility in his career than I do and will be able to assist with childcare, but I do not think that those who are not fortunate enough to be in this situation (e.g., two resident households) should be told that they are selfish and materialistic for wanting to have a family and needing to use daycare/nannies to do this so they can actually work and pay back their loans. Not everybody who doesn't decide to stay home full-time with little Johnny is obsessed with "keeping up with the Joneses."
I also fail to see how it is "sexist" to argue that there should be better support for families in the workplace. Your arguments rest on the idea that parenting has no intrinsic social value beyond that to the parents themselves, and therefore should be solely their responsibility to deal with, which I would disagree with. I do feel that our country should value its members (male and female) who choose to get an education and be productive members of the workforce and would also like to have a family by accomodating that with reasonable maternity/paternity leave and ideally better daycare options and flexible work hours (e.g., jobshare). In ye olde days, women stayed home and were mommies and daddies went off to work and earned the money; while some may feel this was a preferable arrangement, I personally feel it deprived both sexes to some extent- women of the ability to pursue job/educational goals, and men to devote more time and energy to parenthood. I would like to see society move towards encouraging fulfillment of
both of these valuable things for
both genders. Now that most adults, men and women alike, want to pursue education and a career as well as a family, it is reasonable that our society adapt to accomodate this as these are all positive things and worth encouraging in a healthy society.
Obviously, parenthood involves sacrifice, but I disagree that one parent should have to entirely sublimate his/her career for the good of the family. Other societies- realizing the value of well-cared for children, a happy workforce, and families in general- have arrangements that are more conducive to workers being able to be both productive and good parents. The fact is, most adults will have children at some point and thus benefit from policies such as these; it is hardly a unique situation that only a few members of the workforce would take advantage of while everyone else is left to shoulder the burden for them. Our current lack of support for families mean that many people- women in particular, since it is an irrefutable fact of biology that we must actually grow the kid for 9 months in our bodies, squeeze it out, and breastfeed it- find that it is more cost-effective to drop out of the workforce entirely than to face the realities of turning your child over to a stranger for care after 3 short months and having half your paycheck after that go to daycare. This of course forces the other parent to work longer hours to make up for the parent who is now unemployed or minimally employed, meaning they have less time to be home and help rear their child (particularly true in blue-collar households where neither parent is bringing home a six figure paycheck). I think that is a shame and a waste for both the parents and society; if these people had other options available to them to have children and still maintain employment they would be able to make valuable contributions in both spheres (parenthood and work) rather than be restricted entirely to one or the other. Obviously it is not entirely the responsibility of the government or employers to find this balance for individuals, but I find it equally odd to say they have no role in this or that their policies don't have a huge effect on people's opportunities and choices.
Europe is a lot like here. Developed nations everywhere are dealing with the same problems and finding different solutions. It is of course debatable which is the best, and none will be perfect, but I personally feel that we should develop policies that reflect the reality of a society and workforce composed of both parents working and support that instead of making it more challenging, because we should value parents and the contribution they make to society by raising its next generation. Everyone benefits from this and thus all should to some extent share the burden; this may be a more "socialized" view, however, than you are comfortable with.