Next book

ALL IN

HOW OUR WORK-FIRST CULTURE FAILS DADS, FAMILIES, AND BUSINESSES--AND HOW WE CAN FIX IT TOGETHER

Well-documented and easy-to-comprehend data on why men need more paid time off to be with their newborn children.

Using his personal experience as a jumping-off point, journalist and “dad columnist” Levs examines the need for more paternity leave in the United States.

When his third child was born, the author wanted time off to be with his family. However, he quickly discovered he would only receive two weeks, unlike others, such as adoptive parents, same-sex partners, and mothers, who would receive 10 weeks. Levs filed a lawsuit and began a serious investigation into the discrepancies between maternal and paternal paid leave. Since an increasing number of fathers are becoming involved in the day-to-day raising of their children, it makes sense that they want to be there during the first critical months of a child’s life. But as Lev points out after conducting over “150 hours of interviews” with male workers, the amount of paid leave is far from fair for the new fathers. The author’s interviewees “divulge their struggles to find balance, and their thoughts on all the issues that play into the fight for gender equality: work, home life, money, ‘male privilege,’ ‘female gatekeeping,’ and a lot more.” Through his straightforward analysis, Levs shows how the male-female dynamics at home have changed significantly over the past 50 years, while those same forces have not changed in the workplace. Fathers are expected to continue working while new mothers must handle all crises at home on their own, and men who place family before work are often punished and even fired. Levs also considers the issues surrounding absentee fathers, the lack of intimacy for new parents, and finding the mental and spiritual balance needed to continue parenting well during times of extreme emotional and physical stress. His scrutiny and evaluation of paid paternity leave leaves no doubt that the entire infrastructure needs a serious renovation.

Well-documented and easy-to-comprehend data on why men need more paid time off to be with their newborn children.

Pub Date: May 12, 2015

ISBN: 978-0-06-234961-3

Page Count: 272

Publisher: HarperOne

Review Posted Online: Feb. 16, 2015

Kirkus Reviews Issue: March 1, 2015

Next book

AN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

A Churchill-ian view of native history—Ward, that is, not Winston—its facts filtered through a dense screen of ideology.

Custer died for your sins. And so, this book would seem to suggest, did every other native victim of colonialism.

Inducing guilt in non-native readers would seem to be the guiding idea behind Dunbar-Ortiz’s (Emerita, Ethnic Studies/California State Univ., Hayward; Blood on the Border: A Memoir of the Contra War, 2005, etc.) survey, which is hardly a new strategy. Indeed, the author says little that hasn’t been said before, but she packs a trove of ideological assumptions into nearly every page. For one thing, while “Indian” isn’t bad, since “[i]ndigenous individuals and peoples in North America on the whole do not consider ‘Indian’ a slur,” “American” is due to the fact that it’s “blatantly imperialistic.” Just so, indigenous peoples were overwhelmed by a “colonialist settler-state” (the very language broadly applied to Israelis vis-à-vis the Palestinians today) and then “displaced to fragmented reservations and economically decimated”—after, that is, having been forced to live in “concentration camps.” Were he around today, Vine Deloria Jr., the always-indignant champion of bias-puncturing in defense of native history, would disavow such tidily packaged, ready-made, reflexive language. As it is, the readers who are likely to come to this book—undergraduates, mostly, in survey courses—probably won’t question Dunbar-Ortiz’s inaccurate assertion that the military phrase “in country” derives from the military phrase “Indian country” or her insistence that all Spanish people in the New World were “gold-obsessed.” Furthermore, most readers won’t likely know that some Ancestral Pueblo (for whom Dunbar-Ortiz uses the long-abandoned term “Anasazi”) sites show evidence of cannibalism and torture, which in turn points to the inconvenient fact that North America wasn’t entirely an Eden before the arrival of Europe.

A Churchill-ian view of native history—Ward, that is, not Winston—its facts filtered through a dense screen of ideology.

Pub Date: Sept. 16, 2014

ISBN: 978-0-8070-0040-3

Page Count: 296

Publisher: Beacon Press

Review Posted Online: Aug. 17, 2014

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 15, 2014

Next book

GOOD ECONOMICS FOR HARD TIMES

Occasionally wonky but overall a good case for how the dismal science can make the world less—well, dismal.

“Quality of life means more than just consumption”: Two MIT economists urge that a smarter, more politically aware economics be brought to bear on social issues.

It’s no secret, write Banerjee and Duflo (co-authors: Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way To Fight Global Poverty, 2011), that “we seem to have fallen on hard times.” Immigration, trade, inequality, and taxation problems present themselves daily, and they seem to be intractable. Economics can be put to use in figuring out these big-issue questions. Data can be adduced, for example, to answer the question of whether immigration tends to suppress wages. The answer: “There is no evidence low-skilled migration to rich countries drives wage and employment down for the natives.” In fact, it opens up opportunities for those natives by freeing them to look for better work. The problem becomes thornier when it comes to the matter of free trade; as the authors observe, “left-behind people live in left-behind places,” which explains why regional poverty descended on Appalachia when so many manufacturing jobs left for China in the age of globalism, leaving behind not just left-behind people but also people ripe for exploitation by nationalist politicians. The authors add, interestingly, that the same thing occurred in parts of Germany, Spain, and Norway that fell victim to the “China shock.” In what they call a “slightly technical aside,” they build a case for addressing trade issues not with trade wars but with consumption taxes: “It makes no sense to ask agricultural workers to lose their jobs just so steelworkers can keep theirs, which is what tariffs accomplish.” Policymakers might want to consider such counsel, especially when it is coupled with the observation that free trade benefits workers in poor countries but punishes workers in rich ones.

Occasionally wonky but overall a good case for how the dismal science can make the world less—well, dismal.

Pub Date: Nov. 12, 2019

ISBN: 978-1-61039-950-0

Page Count: 432

Publisher: PublicAffairs

Review Posted Online: Aug. 28, 2019

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 15, 2019

Close Quickview