So what do we think about these parental leave proposals?

LOVE the hydra-head analogy

Ormirian, I agree with you that babies are only one part of a woman's life. But the point I am making is that childbirth is the ultimate act of creation, and it happens to be women who have been gifted with it.
All other "wordly" creations men and women were given in equal measure, give or take. Oooh and it makes the patriarchy furious that they can't control life. Only death. Which is why they're obsessed with wars (death) and controlling female fertility (abortion, marriage, prizing virginity, vilification of "bastards" )

Like I say, I don't think it will stop sexism in the workplace - sexism is hydra-headed, as soon as you cut one head off, it grows 2 in its place - and I think that there will be bad consequences for some women - but I think that it will alleviate it to some extent and overall, I hope it will be a positive thing. The idea that men should take paternity leave and look after children is a good thing overall IMO.

I also do think that there is merit in ensuring that men and women can take the time off together for the first few weeks, but that men should have some extended time in the home with the children, where just they look after the child, without the woman there. Otherwise, lots of men are going to use their paternity leave to play- act parenting while women do the real work. (As they currently do at the weekend.)

And yes, before anyoen starts, I know that lots of men do real parenting too. But I'm not talking about those ones.

Oh I see it as both.

A threat and an opportunity.

But why see this proposal as a threat? It seems to me to offer as much as it might take away.

"I a more than the sum of my generative organs.

I think there is a risk by concentrating so hard on the vital importance of the small amount of time that woman are pregnant and breastfeeding you are in danger of labelling women as nothing more than a walking baby maker."

Orm, I think that is a danger, but that shouldn't make us afraid to claim it IYSWIM. Giving away our right to spend time with our babies, isn't going to stop the patriarchy defining us as nothing more than baby-makers. The patriarchy will always fight back against any progress for women, using any arguments against us, but that shouldn't stop us from arguing our cause.

And as for the rights of the father? Don't care too much about that TBH. Call me selfish. I do care about the rights of the mother to be more than simply a mother. And the rights of the child to have a close relationship with both it's parents.

"I just don't want to see a further devaluation of what women do: be that art, science or childbirth."

But if I felt obliged to be at home for a year because the only alternative was to put my child in paid childcare (which for whatever reason I didn't want to do) but the other parent of the child wasn't able to take leave to look after said child, it would be devaluing what I do wouldn't it?. "What I do" is so much more than having babies. So much more! Babies, growing them, delivering, feeling them, nurturing them has been a hugely important part of my life, but it's only one part, and babyhood is the tiny tip of a huge iceberg when it comes to mothering - the biggest and hardest bits come later IME.

By insisting that I and only I can be the caring parent for a small child you are devaluing ME! I a more than the sum of my generative organs.

I think there is a risk by concentrating so hard on the vital importance of the small amount of time that woman are pregnant and breastfeeding you are in danger of labelling women as nothing more than a walking baby maker.

The patriarchy loves nothing more than a woman who knows her place - 'pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen, was the old cliche. Why would feminism want to do the same thing?

I think this is a reasonable start. BUT:

• it only applies to the second six months, and the second six months is largely unpaid. So, no good for families who can't afford to lose one income for longer than 6 months.

• employers who give enhanced mat leave pay will not have to give enhanced pat leave pay, so again it will remain financially better for the woman to stay off work than the man (even if she is paid more)

• it doesn't allow for both parents to be off at the same time, which surely would be a good thing.

• there is a huge cultural barrier to overcome. The government's own research says only 4 to 8% on men will take this up. This is partly because of money, but also due to culture. My DH works in the financial sector (largely male environment); he is convinced his career prospects would be toast if he took extended paternity leave. And he may well be right.

Yes I do see the point of considering this from the radical feminist viewpoint rather than simple gender equality, when the context it's happening in is not one where we are equal.

I would like the idea of extended leave for either/both parents independently of the other, however from a practical point of view I really can't see that happening any time soon, so it does seem to be this or nothing.

Also want to say again that this is not about men vs women, but about sharing the leave between the mother who gives birth and the other parent, who may or may not be a man. I know that probably seems a pedantic point, but I feel it's relevant in thinking about the ideology behind this, and that woman+man is not the only sort of family that exists and is affected by this. It also makes it clear that any argument to protect the mother's rights is not arguing that way because she's female but because she was the one who gave birth. So it's not and shouldn't be fundamentally an argument about male/female equality.

I do understand and have sympathy with the points that you have both made. I also think it's very important that these points are raised as that is the beauty of this section, even if sometimes I think they are terribly cynical!

I suppose it's also hard not to see things through the prism of your own life - for me this feels like a great idea. We''l see how it pans out!

Personally I don't think many men will take it, at all, and little will change.

X posts HB, I agree with all you've written

My posts were a knee-jerk reaction

sorry

I just... how can I put it. A radical feminist analysis still needs to be had, and well, I suppose I don't want to see women devalued more than they are already.

I think the problem for women is not so much access to a career, but a devaluation by society of whatever they happen to do. Which is why all the top writers are men, apparently. And most of the nobel prize winners are men (or they just delete women's achievements as in the case of Rosalind Franklin), or the film-directers or the corporation heads... etc. This is what makes up The System, or The Establisment.

A break for childbirth is not really what's keeping women down is it. It's the devaluation of them as people, which refuses to reward them for their contribution to society or the economy, and painting whatever men happen to do as being superior

So I suppose what I'm saying is I'm not sure that the ideology behind paternity leave is wholly female-friendly, but that's because I'm very cynical, admittedly

I just don't want to see a further devaluation of what women do: be that art, science or childbirth.

Well, the last person anyone listens to is radical feminists, so The Establishment will go ahead and do what it wants anyway. Let's see how it all pans out in thirty years. It could well be all good...But I can't stifle this niggle I've got that all we're going to see is a lot of tired women

"It's perfectly possible to work from early on and breastfeed - I have several friends who did this, all you need is a good pump and some determination."

No I'm sorry, just because you know several people who did it, doesn't mean it's "perfectly possible" for everyone. Some women simply cannot express any reasonable amount of milk, with or without a good pump, ever.

I agree with Sakura, that we do need to be extremely cautious at giving fathers rights at the expense of mothers' rights. We've only just gained some of these maternity rights, why are we so eager to give them away to the gender which has over and over again shown that it is not willing to suppport us in our struggle for equality and will commandeer any rights in their favour not our's?

I am all in favour of more rights for fathers, I think there should be more paternity rights - but not at the expense of maternity rights, because we will lose them. We are not yet living in a society where men and women are considered equally valuable and it is simply reckless to pretend we are. What we need, is for men to be entitled to take paternity leave irrespective of how much maternity leave a woman takes - if his relationship as a father to his child, is important enough for him to need paternity rights, then it's important enough for those rights to be in existence regardless of his co-parent's maternity choices.

The original suggestion was the first 6 months set aside for the mother and the second 6 months could be mother or father.

The idea that women will be forced back to work before they have stopped bleeding or established BF is scaremongering IMO.

If we're going to focus on the sort of man who would force his wife back to work before she is ready / while she is ill / ruin BF etc (ie an absolutely horrible man) then I doubt that is the sort of man who would even want to be at home with a baby.

I don't think that legislation should be based on what the most absolutely horrible men in society will do, with this sort of thing, but recognise the vast majority of fathers who are kind and decent. And the somewhat lower number of fathers who will even want to do this - many men openly admit they prefer working to being at home with children - as do many women TBH. But at the moment the structure is that the man gets to work whether he likes it or not, and the woman gets to be at home with the children whether she likes it or not.

Assuming that the majority of people are reasonable, decent people, this legislation means there is more choice in how they run their families after babies. I think it's wholly positive.

As said, this is not a novely concept but has been the norm in many countries for quite a while already. At least in the ones I know, the horror scenarious pictured here have not materialised (and first part of the leave is always reserved for the mother, so she can recover, nobody has to run to work straight from the hospital).

as for weakening the career options, for example women in Scandinavia have a significantly better position on job market than in UK - sure, shared parental leave is just one part of it, but still a part.

If fathers can stay at home and take care of their kids as well, then this helps to fight the stereotype that kids are only women's business and dads are unable or should not be asked to cope with a baby.

Isn't the proposal for the first 6 months to be for the (birth) mother only, then for the remainder to be divided between her and the other parent? So it's unlikely anyone will be 'forced' back to work while still bleeding from the birth or struggling to establish breastfeeding . Until fairly recently maternity leave was only 6 months anyway.

Or are you concerned about the 'slippery slope' and how the rules might change in the future if this precedent is set Sakura?

that statement was refering to a scenario whereby couples would have to divide up their leave. Obviously I've got no problem with paternity leave alongside the mother.

Otherwise we're going to have all manner of pressures on mothers. There will be women returning to work still bleeding lochia, because she happens to earn slighly more than her partner, or because her boss expects her to now that her partner can take the leave.
Oh, and there will be LOTS of fathers claiming their "rights" to stay with the baby at the expense of the mother.

As others suggested, both parents off for the first few weeks then the mother (to recover and establish BF). I believe this part should be only open to the mother: either the mother takes it or nobody does. Otherwise women are going to be exploited.

"And what about fathers who want to spend time with their baby? "

Childbirth is the only time in a life a woman is generally allowed to put herself first. Frankly, I have no interest in the father's needs, but I've no doubt their "needs" will become known, and eventually prioritised over the mother's. Thus it has always been.

not1not2 - so it's better if the state decides that it should be mother's career that should be damaged? The parents should not have any say about it because... womens careers as such are less important?

again, fathers do not have to take this leave. They can, if this is the best option for their family.

"as it seems like a choice, when actually it is biologically drive."

Now that sort of thing bothers me. 'Biological drives' can be used to justify all kinds of things that by and large we don't encourage. Rape for example, and fathers not being keen on caring for babies, and women being crap in meetings because they don't have the right sort of brain for it, poor dears .

Telling women that both parents are permitted to share a set amount of parental post-birth leave is not undermining the value of childbirth or motherhood. Its is giving a choice that does not now exist.

rubbish

taking leave/having children damages your career most families can only afford to have 1 career damaged and need to keep the other one OK.
However it will prob result in societal pressures on women to go back earlier 'cos dh can take leave'

so it's a loose loose all round

I assume extending flexible leave to GP/friends is to create more jobs to go round

Childbirth isn't routine (not for the majority of us anyway) nor is breasfeeding.

I don't get your point.

I really welcome these plans and feel they have been a very long time coming. I was on a management course last week being run by a very well-respected lecturer at a well-respected university. She was also a mother of two grown-up children. She told us that she was seriously considering not hiring any more women of child-bearing-age because all their maternity leave was making it impossible for her team to meet their targets. I had really enjoyed the course up to that point, and was developing a huge amount of respect for her, but was and and at this remark

If nothing else, these new plans should contribute to stopping this kind of discrimination against women in the jobs market and not before time IMHO

And isn't it convenient fascinating how the jobs that men are just not 'biologically programmed' to do (according to Toby Young/Derek Draper-style wankery theory) are the jobs that need doing every single day, or several times a day? And the jobs men are 'biologically programmed' to do are the now-and-then type stuff, like cutting the grass, putting up shelves and changing plugs? We really need a 'vomit' emoticon on here, MumsnetHQ!

Exactly, women can just as well use their leave for studying/networking if they want to and they have time - maybe that isn't strictly what parental leave is 'for', but as long as the child is being looked after it's not really anyone's business how the parent spends their free time.

I've heard of women having full-time nannies while on maternity leave, which seems a bit odd to me, but it's their business and their money, and certainly isn't an argument for all women being denied parental leave!