2. 职称英语
  3. Only two countries in the advanced world provide no guarantee for paid leave

Only two countries in the advanced world provide no guarantee for paid leave

游客2023-09-07  65
问题     Only two countries in the advanced world provide no guarantee for paid leave from work to care for a newborn child. Last spring one of the two, Australia, gave up that dubious distinction by establishing paid family leave starting in 2011. I wasn’t surprised when this didn’t make the news here in the United States—we’re now the only wealthy country without such a policy.
    The United States does have one explicit family policy, the Family and Medical Leave Act, passed in 1993. It entitles workers to as much as 12 weeks’ unpaid leave for care of a newborn or dealing with a family medical problem. Despite the modesty of the benefit, the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups fought it bitterly, describing it as "government-run personnel management" and a "dangerous precedent." In fact, every step of the way, as (usually) Democratic leaders have tried to introduce work-family balance measures into the law, business groups have been strongly opposed.
    As Yale law professor Anne Alstott argues, justifying parental support depends on defining the family as a social good that, in some sense, society must pay for. In her book No Exit. What Parents Owe Their Children and What Society Owes Parents, she argues that parents are burdened in many ways in their lives: there is "no exit" when it comes to children. "Society expects—and needs—parents to provide their children with continuity of care, meaning the intensive, intimate care that human beings need to develop their intellectual, emotional, and moral capabilities. And society expects—and needs—parents to persist in their role for 18 years, or longer if needed. "
    While most parents do this out of love, there are public penalties for not providing care. What parents do, in other words, is of deep concern to the state, for the obvious reason that caring for children is not only morally urgent but essential for the future of society. The state recognizes this in the large body of family laws that govern children’s welfare, yet parents receive little help in meeting the life-changing obligations society imposes. To classify parenting as a personal choice for which there is no collective responsibility is not merely to ignore the social benefits of good parenting; really, it is to steal those benefits because they accrue(不断积累) to the whole of society as today’s children become tomorrow’s productive citizenry(公民). In fact, by some estimates, the value of parental investments in children, investment of time and money (including lost wages), is equal to 20-30% of gross domestic product. If these investments generate huge social benefits—as they clearly do—the benefits of providing more social support for the family should be that much clearer.
[br] Why does the author object to classifying parenting as a personal choice?
选项 A、It is regarded as a legal obligation.
B、It relies largely on social support.
C、It generates huge social benefits.
D、It is basically a social undertaking.
答案 D
解析 归纳总结题。由最后一段中间部分To classify parenting as a personal choice for which there is no collective responsibility is not merely to ignore the social benefits of good parenting;(把养育孩子作为一种个人选择而不加之以社会责任，不仅忽视了培养有良好教养的孩子所带来的社会效益;)这里的collective responsibility指的是一种社会责任，意为培养有良好的教养孩子是一个需要全社会共同努力的事业，因为它可带来巨大的社会效益。因此，作者反对将养育孩子仅仅作为一项个人选择。选项D中的social undertaking意为“社会事业，社会责任”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/2993093.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)