Who is for equal parenthood?

"But many of those same women don't seem to want to support another woman's right to go back much sooner if that's what she feels is right. They feel it is somehow threatening to them and their choice. Am I imagining this as this is how to feels to me?"

Yes, you are imagining it.

I took that amount of leave with my first. It was no biggie.

I'm not sure what you are moaning about really.

I've never heard a woman arguing for compulsory long maternity leave.

I also agree with Xenia that breastfeeding needn't suffer just because you go back to work, although I think it is rare to be able to work in a way that is compatible with feeding a newborn. It gets easier as they get older.

I was right much higher up the thread about £135 a week after the first 6 weeks (if you can afford not to return to week and actually live on £135 a week)

"Statutory maternity, paternity, additional paternity, adoption pay and maternity allowance will increase from £128.73 to £135.45 per week or 90% of normal weekly earnings if lower. The changes will take effect from 9 April 2012."

And this seems to be what I was describing from 2015 -

www.shoosmiths.co.uk/news/3387.asp

"The Government believes that the current system whereby employed mothers receive a long period of maternity leave and pay (52 weeks leave, 39 weeks pay [ 6 WEEKS 90% PAY ABOUT £128 A WEEK AFTER THAT] but employed fathers receive much less (2 paid weeks), is inflexible and does not support shared parenting. ....
The principles which the Government wishes to embody in the new leave right were set out by Nick Clegg in a recent speech:

any new arrangement must absolutely maintain women's guaranteed right to time off in the first months after birth, paid as it is now; and there must be protection of the rights of lone mothers
the reforms must transform the opportunities for fathers to take time off to care for their children
it must be possible for mother and fathers to share part of their leave, splitting it between them, in whatever way suits them best
the new system must take into account the needs of employers and it must be simple to administer

In the meantime?

As an interim measure, new arrangements for additional paternity leave will cover parents of children due on or after 3 April 2011. These will give employed fathers a right to up to six months extra leave which can be taken once the mother has returned to work and the child is at least 20 weeks old.
Some of this leave may be paid if taken during what would have been the mother?s maternity pay period. This will be paid at 90% of earnings up to the same standard rate as Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP), which is currently £124.88 per week (rising to £128.73 from April).
The Government believes these changes are a small step in the right direction, but do not go far enough."

I wonder if that means if the woman returns at 2 weeks as I did the husband could take the next 4 weeks off at 90% pay? What we really nee is not 2011 proposals but sight of the regulations themselves to be sure what is above is accurate.

So far found out - 18 weeks unpaid parental leave from 2013 - www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3639 and it is unpaid so useless to women who need to eat and do not live on male earnings.

I think that is something different from the 2015 changes but will carry on checking.

I don't think we are really in disagreement. I support the 6 weeks off at 90% pay women currently get which reflects the fact birth is something they not emn do.

I totally disagree with the comments that you cannot work and breastfeed though! in the early 1980s I was reading books on work and breastfeeding so surely in 2012 women have that sussed. I expressed milk at work, left work on time, fed as soon as I got in the door and then every few hours at night and all holiday and weekends and fed all 5 children including twins for at least 1 - 2 years. I have never bottle fed a baby in my life yet returned to work when they were 2 weeks old. I find expressing much harder than breastfeeding but it does not preclude a return to many forms of work and it was a tiny price to pay for all the benefits this family has had from my work.

I also disagree with the suggestion a parent cannot bond with a child if it works. You bond through all those hours of breastfeeding outside working hours just as it bonds with a father. My 5 have done fine (indeed much better than children of housewives). Let us not discount the returning to full time work in 2 weeks route for those men and women who want it . It can work very well.

McF you may be right. I had better check. I had read that from 2015 it was 18 weeks leave as now (6 weeks on 90% pay as now) and after that parents share the leave. I will go and check what you say

I absolutely agree that fathers should get equal rights to paternity leave.

The trouble with the inequality now is that mothers start off doing the majority of the childcare, when they go back to work they sort out nursery etc, tend to do the drop offs, take emergency leave when child ill etc. I'm not saying 100% but this is what tends to happen and it continues through to school and beyond. Men tend to work longer hours, pursue their careers. Sometimes this is a conscious choice for a woman but often it's by default. So the inequality continues.

And there's the employment risk issue - employers (especially small employers) don't want to take on women of child bearing age.

Before I had children I thought "maternity" leave was sexist against men, but for a while now I've thought it's sexist against women.

But chibi, the new rules wouldn't change rights for women they'd just extend rights for fathers. That's the part I am not understanding when so many people seem anti it?

6weeks after a c section i was only just starting to feel like myself in terms of being able to do anything remotely physical, like walking to the shops. There is no way i could have coped with going back to work, even part time

not everyone has a job sitting on their bum typing on a keyboard and having tea breaks in a relaxed collegial atmosphere

i also did almost no housework for the first few months because i physically could not cope. my partner did it as and when it could fit in, and we prioritised doing only the very bare minimum

i had a very fast and easy recovery after my second birth

i have friends who got PND and it was all they could do to get out of bed

you do not know which birth you are going to get, and the idea that in 6 weeks, all women are either ready to work, or slackers is ridiculous

i think we really need to be careful what we rush in in the name of expanding parental leave - i can see employers thinking that if you needed more than 6weeks maternity leave, you would have an entitlement called that

I wholeheartedly support this

All the women on here that have said its 'not enough time' are again missing the point. The option is still there for mothers to take. It just opens up new options for partners too

What I think we need to get better at realising is that the world has changed and relationships with it

I am due my first child in 7 weeks. I will take 2-4 weeks and then return to work. My husband will then take over. I am the high earner and as the owner of my own small business I cannot afford to take any more time off. SMP would not pay my bills. As he is the one giving up work we will subsequently get nothing in the way of financial support. How is that fair?

I don't plan to breast feed. Not everyone does, but some women have a great deal of problem understanding that.

I thought that I grew up in a very modern and equal world. The whole motherhood thing has really thrown me as I hear intelligent women coming out with some shocking statements.

A good friend of mine has gone back to work full time, 10 months after giving birth, leaving her (unemployed) husband to take care if their child. Another friend of hers (and mother) said "goodness, what do they do all day". As if fathers somehow are completely clueless in how to look after their own child?

The more we treat women as if they're the only ones capable of child care and fathers as if they are some kind of 'extra help', the more it will continue to be so!

I absolutely support a woman's right to stay home for 6 months, a year or longer if thats what she feels is right for her and her family. But many of those same women don't seem to want to support another woman's right to go back much sooner if that's what she feels is right. They feel it is somehow threatening to them and their choice. Am I imagining this as this is how to feels to me?

Incidentally the law is changing, like it or not. The govt is planning 6 weeks maternity and the remaining 46 weeks as parental leave from 2013. It works in other countries so why not here!

What I would really like to see is the option for concurrent leave straight after birth - that way both parents are around for the early days, patterns of women doing all the baby and housework because they are "off" don't get established, women who need help and support don't have to have a fit and willing mother or lots of money.

I like this idea actually - so the right to 12 months (plus 2 weeks if we include current paternity leave rights) could be there with the option for the father to take up to 7 months of it as with the 2015 changes, but with the option for father and mother to take it over the first six months together.

Out of interest does anyone know what the rights of the non-birth mother are in same sex couples, because if they are not the same as the father either currently or in the 2015 legislation, then they bloody well should be.

And what ClaireDe said :)

"My piont about people saying " no woman can return to work at 2 weeks" as I did "because they are too ill" is rubbish."

But has anyone said that?

I thought people were saying that a lot of women would not be ready, not that women shouldn't be permitted to return to work, or that there's anything wrong with going back if you are able.

I wasn't ready, for many reasons (despite crying the day DH went to work because I wished it could be me) - I wasn't recovered from a CS, I was still struggling to establish breastfeeding, I was emotionally all over the place.

I needed more time. DH had not been through labour, had not given birth, was not breastfeeding and did not have hormones all over the place.

All he had going on was the emotional changes of becoming a Dad, and TBH I think the return to the world of normality and release from baby house helped with that transition.

I was back at work after 15 weeks - much earlier than most women want to go back and some women are able.

I don't have any moral argument for women being at home straight after birth just practical ones.

What I would really like to see is the option for concurrent leave straight after birth - that way both parents are around for the early days, patterns of women doing all the baby and housework because they are "off" don't get established, women who need help and support don't have to have a fit and willing mother or lots of money.

It's not about 'illness' necessarily, but just because you were lucky enough not to have had a c-section or physical issues arising from your labours doesn't mean a lot of other women don't. True - some who do have to cope with other children out of necessity, but the majority of women will have at least some help. Also most sensible women will not be scrubbing the house within two weeks of giving birth - they will most likely be doing the bare minimum.

Any woman who doesn't have help around the house and has to wrangle a toddler and new born alone so soon after birth, would likely not have any support if she were to return to work either, so as well as working full time she would still have to wrangle the baby, care for the toddler and do the housework - difficult at the best of times, doing it with a new born after the physical marathon of pregnancy and sleepless nights would be nigh on impossible.

Also, the toddler may be kicking you while you BF, but at least you can BF - pretty impossible to do while stuck in an office with your new born at home with DH / nursery / with a CM.

There is also the emotional aspect to consider. I would argue that most women relish the chance to bond with the baby that they have grown for nine months and for the majority, parting from them so soon would be a massive wrench that would put many at risk of PND.

Even though physically, I could have returned after two weeks, it would have meant giving up breast feeding and would have destroyed me emotionally. I would have also been beyond knackered as DD is a poor sleeper and DH does a lot of driving, so I would have had to take care of most of the night wakings.

It is great for you that you managed to go back after two weeks and seem to be happy with your choice, but I think you need to appreciate how highly unusual it is that you were happy to do that.

I think the 2015 changes are a great compromise - it allows fathers to take some time off with the infant while protecting the mothers rights to spend a decent amount of time with their newborn should they wish.

I'd even like to see them go further so that any time after the first 6 weeks could be transferred to the father if that's what would work for the family as long as safeguards were put in place to ensure that abusive men did not make their wives go back to work simply so that they could benefit from the time off.

Also existing rights of the full 12 months to maternity / paternity / parental leave should not be eroded.

The problem with the original idea in the OP is two-fold:

Firstly it erodes current maternity rights due to the non-transferability idea - suddenly the right of a women to spend 12 months with their child if that is what works for them and their family is reduced to 7 months.

Secondly the idea that any woman who is still physically recovering from the birth after the first month should be transferred to sick leave is massively problematic because sick leave has a lot less employment protection than maternity leave.

I'm all for equal parenting and giving families more opportunity to choose which parent, if either, is home with the kids. The current maternity / paternity / parental rights should be changed and extended to allow this, BUT those changes should not in anyway be to the detriment to the hard won rights that women currently have to spend the first 12 months with the infant that they have carried and given birth to should they wish and their family circumstances allow.

I think the 2015 change is not a problem for anyone. You will get 18 weeks statutory maternity leave - first 6 weeks at 90% pay as now. After the 18 weeks the balance of whatever period people get on leave can be divided between husband and wife.

My piont about people saying " no woman can return to work at 2 weeks" as I did "because they are too ill" is rubbish. If they can scrub the house and run round after the toddler who will be kciking you whenever you try to breastfeed or else pulling books off shelves whilst the 3 or 4 year old tries to scribble on the walls I don't see why they cannot work. By all means make arguments that you think it's morally right a mother not a father is at home or any other but I don't think the physical argument stacks up unless the contrast is mother at home with hot and cold running servants or her mother in situ compared with work being tarmac-ing roads.

I think that's a very personal thing. I find babies and toddlers very hard work - tiring and quite boring.

I enjoyed having a toddler and a baby though - it wasn't relaxing, but there was plenty to keep me occupied.

I'm not sure there is any objective measure of how hard or easy something is. We all have different abilities, personal strengths, and interests.

It's kind of like the "when should you be ready to go back to work?" question. Some women pop out a baby, breastfeed like a natural and are swanning about days after birth. Some are physically wrecked after the birth or suffer crippling PND or PS and take months to rediscover any kind of equilibrium.

Which group you belong to is determined by multiple factors, none of them (IMO at least) to do with your moral fibre.

I don't think looking after young children is all that hard. Frankly, I was on holiday when DD was a baby and the DSSs were in primary school - all lazy days in the park, lunch with friends, lots of dinner parties, long baths with DD in the morning.

Life is infinitely harder work now!

" I would suggest though that if you can look after a baby toddler and 4 year old you are probably fit enough to be doing most jobs at least in offices."

I hope you are wrong, because I'm close to starting maternity leave (35 weeks pregnant, 2 weeks of work to go) and I am starting to struggle a little with work a little. Once off I will be looking after my DDs (4&2).

I hope looking after them will be less stressful than being at work. It matters that I'm no longer working when it becomes too hard to disguise how tired I'm feeling. I need to finish while I can still leave an impression of a hardworking, professional woman.

At home I can give the accurate impression that I am a knackered pregnant woman :o

I had no idea about that change in 2015 Xenia, thanks :)

I wonder will it affect me if we go for no.4?

As I said about in 2015 the law changes so women receive 18 weeks maternity leave (first six weeks at 90% pay rest at £135 a week) and after that parents can share it if they want to take any or all of that at all. I don't think except in very low income families that frmo week 7 the fact the woman gets £135 a week and the man nothing to be home really has a sexist effect unless she is a really low earner. I cannot really see much point in any change but the one from 2015 already taking place.

On the issue of whether pregnancy is illness or not some women are more ill than others. Some are skivers and never do much of a day's work in their life and some however bad they feel will be back in the saddle feeding toddlers, scrubbing the floor and running a bank the next week. It was ever thus.

We have (1) those who are fit and hard workers (I suppoe lucky people like I am who can take two weeks or less of work and be able to mind a toddler the next day after giving birth

(2) Those who genuine suffer huge difficulties with pregnancy - indeed most of us know pregnancy can even be fatal - very risky business. Some have C sections which take recovery time, others all kinds of things and cannot even look after the other under 5s at home after birth and help has to be hired in. I would suggest though that if you can look after a baby toddler and 4 year old you are probably fit enough to be doing most jobs at least in offices.

(3) Bit lazy, any excuse to put feet up, milk pregnancy to the max, rub stomach 20 times a day with martyish look on face, most sick leave in pregnancy than even your hardened local authority long server , does no housework as so ill, has husband fussing around her doing everythin. Will probably not work for the next 30 years and milks husband to the max on divorce before moving on to next target man.

" I dthink the argument that birth is such a sickness that women need lots of recovering time presumably with hosts of servants at home to do the childcare and cleaning is just put about my sexists who wants to medicalise childbirth or justify their own housewifely position."

Horseshit and PMSL at me wanting to justify my "housewifely position" :o

I don't want special "birth leave" because for many women there is no need for it and for many others the proposed time will not be sufficient.

It's too inflexible because it seeks (for no good reason whatsoever) to apportion a little bit of leave for recovery and the rest for specifically non-gendered parenting.

Why do we need to be so prescriptive?

If parents are to be given time after the birth of their child, what can possibly be the need to separate that into "recovery time" and "childcare time".

Just figure out what time is available to whom, what (if any) can be shared, and let people get on with it.

I'm with you Himalaya. FWIW.

On page 4 someone says there are huge differences in views on this thread and there are. It's fascinating.

As I said in 2015 the law is changing anyway to reduce maternity leave to 18 weeks (although as now only 6 weeks is at 90% pay and most people do earn wuite a bit more than the £135 a week or whatever maternity pay is and cannot affodr to pay their mortgage or childcare for the other children on that so go back sooner) and 70% of women go back to work in 12 months to 18 months in the Uk at present. After that parents can share time. That is a good plan. If you are rich enough to be able to live on £135 a week for 12 weeks and stay home that is fine. If you have a rich enough husband or savings to support you in the 12 weeks at £135 then that's fine.

If the tax payer or your employer pays more than 6 weeks at 90% pay then you get more of course.

If you want to return having taken 2 weeks off as I did that's fine too in most jobs. We must remember plenty of parents, male and female, want to return to work quickly and feminists should support them in that choice and ensure there is no censure or discrimination on sex grounds if a woman goes back to work quickly.

No one yet on the thread has justified to me their points about being ill. Most housewives with 2 under 5s who have a third baby and are "recovering" from birth have a much much harder time without any help for 12 hours a day alone than they would haev in a call centre or in an office recovering from a birth. I dthink the argument that birth is such a sickness that women need lots of recovering time presumably with hosts of servants at home to do the childcare and cleaning is just put about my sexists who wants to medicalise childbirth or justify their own housewifely position.

The issue of whether the mother or the father is the "senior parent" isn't dependent on post-birth leave either, IMVHO. In my DP's family with his exW, he was always the senior parent and he has continued to be the senior parent right through his children's childhood, including separation and divorce. It is purely a function of the relative interest of each parent in the children.