To think parental leave should be 50/50?

[MunaZaldrizoti]

A system of mandatory use it or lose it. No one "gifting" anything to anyone, just equal entitlement...

But it isn’t just about the months off. It is about the likely career suicide that trying to take 2 months off from a senior position would bring

The point is, if it is compulsory then it won’t be career suicide.

My model for when I am dictator is that all
Women and all men allowed 2 years off paid between the ages of 20 and 60. And you HAVE to take at least 6 months in one block before you are 40.

That way everyone male and tamale will have had time out of the business. It is totally fair, everyone gets the same time.

If you don’t want children you can use the time as you wish.

If you want 8 children you’ll need to ration the time between you and your partner.

It's not just about massive amounts. In our case DH earns more than me. We managed on his salary (about national average) plus mat pay. We couldn't have managed on my salary plus mat pay. No high earning here, no chance to save for time off work. Still impossible financially.

As I said he should get a proportion of his salary. Sweden it's about 80%. If you can't manage on that couple of months perhaps you should consider whether the four children in the first place.

NewAccount270219

I’d be interested to see what the pattern of work post maternity leave was in the study. I don’t think it is just about mat leave. Arguably a far greater impact on career comes from part time working and that would surely have a bearing on decisions re shared leave too. A factor in that study re doctors might also be which specialities which is also gendered. I don’t think academic v doctor is quite as straight forward without looking at specific roles.

It is perfectly legitimate for a couple to decide to prioritise one person’s career over another just as it is legitimate for one parent to stay at home. Why shouldn’t families have that choice?

I’d be interested to see what the pattern of work post maternity leave was in the study. I don’t think it is just about mat leave.

I think that is affected by parental leave in the first place though. At the moment childcare is often perceived as a women's job and this starts at maternity leave. Attitudes may change if more men have time off after the birth of their child.

There are a lot of arguments as to why people didn't do this at a personal level. But these dont apply at population level, so there must be more to it.

Breastfeeding is one. The proportion of women still breastfeeding at 6 months is very small. At 10 months almost nil. I was one of them and I still managed to share leave and fed 3x a day even though I was working (first thing, after work and bedtime - no pumping needed). This cant be the reason men dont take any time off

Also earnings. Women earn more than men in a third of couples. A lot of couples will have similar earnings. It simply isn't the case any more that in the majority of cases, the woman earns so little and the man so much that the man taking even a few weeks off at the end of maternity leave would mean they couldn't cope financially. So this cant be the reason.

Again birth injuries- the vast majority of women will be ok to work after 9 / 10 months so this cant be the reason.

Interesting that people think its 'career suicide' for men to take a couple of months off when they have a baby. What evidence is there for this? Take up is so low I'd be surprised if there was any proof this was the case.

My husband got a promotion after his 10 weeks off. He was the first in his company to do it. For many men they will be the first in their company to do it

Ah, the 'but men will face discrimination at work if they do this' argument. Like women do, you mean?

Exactly!

I want my future kids to go to their dad because they see him as fully capable a caring for them as me. I want his emplyer to absolutely put their money where their mouth is on paid leave and not penalise him for taking 4 months out for our child. I want him to understand just as well as me what it's like to be at home all day with a child - the negatives and the positives.

But 10 weeks isnt a compulsory 6 months - which for many families would be about 5 months post partum.

Its not even 3 months is it?.

It is perfectly legitimate for a couple to decide to prioritise one person’s career over another just as it is legitimate for one parent to stay at home. Why shouldn’t families have that choice?

I would argue that if it is always the perfectly legitimate reasons then men would be as likely to have time off as women. You would think from these threads that women were less qualified than men and less capable of having a good career than men despite the fact that we actually do better academically than men on average and earn as much as men before children.

My model for when I am dictator is that all
Women and all men allowed 2 years off paid between the ages of 20 and 60. And you HAVE to take at least 6 months in one block before you are 40.

Ahh, see mine is a bit different. It changes over time, but at the moment, it's:

• between 25 and 45, everyone must take a four year break
• after 60, you must move into part-time, advisory roles (well remunerated), which focus upon perpetuating widsom and quality of long-term standards, whilst allowing young people to advance
• gradual phasing down of hours until 72 (as studies show that keeping some level of activity and involvement is good for the brain and heart)

Sorry no you're right grasspigeons I have gone off track slightly! Was just meaning that when men cant or wont take off even a few weeks say the last 10 weeks then there needs to be something done, in my opinion, to force the change in how people view paternity leave. Not saying forcing 50 50 is the answer but I think something does need to be done

YABVU

For all the reasons previously given. I’m happy to revise my decision when men are doing 50% of the pregnancy, developing 50% if the stretch marks, doing 50% of the Labour, having 50% of the stitches, 50% of the blood loss, 50% of the post birth complications, 50% of the breastfeeding, etc, etc, etc. Oh and I also object to womb transplants in men.

I still dont understand why having stitches and stretch marks and blood loss means you cant go back to work say 10 months later and give the dad the opportunity to be sole carer for a couple of months? I feel it's a bit unfair. Men can't give birth so they cant even have a discussion about trying to be an equal parent after the birth? I hated pregnancy and birth, I wish I could have shared it and I did feel resentful that I couldn't. But I didn't take it out on my husband! As I think it's in my childs best interest to have two primary carers rather than one. It wouldn't have helped me at all if he had stitches and blood loss as well!

As I said he should get a proportion of his salary. Sweden it's about 80%. If you can't manage on that couple of months perhaps you should consider whether the four children in the first place.

But that wasn't the option available to us at the time. So it was impossible.

Even then, we may not have managed. But that's ok because we chose for me to have the time off. Or should my DH have not had a child with me because I was a minimum wage worker?

To an extent I agree - if all adults were the same "risk" of taking time off to have children it would be less difficult for women of peak child bearing age to get jobs.

If 50% more of the population took an extended period of leave for child rearing purposes this would make career breaks less career suicide and just normal.

However women need time to recover from the birth physically and mentally. Is 6 months post birth enough for this? Probably, assuming the clock started at actual birth or 37 weeks if born prematurely ... obviously the pre birth mat leave funding would need consideration - but I would be tempted to "encourage" employers to make it easier to work to 38+ weeks where medically appropriate with reasonable adaptations like remote working, ergonomic assessments and suitable changes to duties.

I still dont understand why having stitches and stretch marks and blood loss means you cant go back to work say 10 months later and give the dad the opportunity to be sole carer for a couple of months?

Who’s saying that? That should be for individual couples to decide what’s best for them and their families. The original OP is advocating for enforced 50/50.

But that wasn't the option available to us at the time. So it was impossible.

How is that relevant. We are talking about whether things should change in the future so that men should either take paternity leave or lose it. As I said there are pros and cons but I think it could work if men were paid a proportion of their salary while on leave e.g. 80% as happens in Sweden.

Even then, we may not have managed. But that's ok because we chose for me to have the time off. Or should my DH have not had a child with me because I was a minimum wage worker?

As I said, if you and your DH couldn't save in advance to manageon 80% of his salary plus your salary for couple of months then perhaps you would need to consider whether you can afford a child.

Interesting to look at the stats for Sweden.

The first thing of note is that entire allocation is 18 months. Secondly only 3 months is use it or lose it for each parent. Suspect this means in practice that most people tack the Dad's 3 months onto the end.

The 80% salary provision only lasts for the first 13 months.

When the use it or lose it provision was introduced the uptake for men increased from 10% to 25% of total leave taken, which equates to roughly the use it or lose it period if you assume most can't afford the unpaid period.

Thinking about it, returning to work at 9-12 months with Dad at home with the baby in the run up to childcare taking over seems like an improvement on both parents returning to work and the baby going to childcare but it rather stretches the definition of "shared" baby care.

YABU - despite much trying, DD took a bottle precisely once in her life. Me going back to work before she was well established on solids simply wasn't an option.

And a c section plus night feeds meant I wasn't physically myself or up to working for at least 7 months I'd say. I didn't even realise it til after.

In the end, I took 9 months and DH took a month when I went back so I could settle back in without worrying about DD in nursery etc. It was perfect for us.

For the record - we do the same job, but I have the higher salary, I quite like my job but DH loves his.

Everything is 50/50 for us now.

YesimstillwatchingNetflix - are you me?! The description of handing over the adorable, sleeping baby to a father who gets adulation a mother never does is scarily familiar.

We shared it, well DH got the lions share as he had more than me. The only thing that was unfair was his work would have given him a higher rate if he had been female.

Who’s saying that? That should be for individual couples to decide what’s best for them and their families. The original OP is advocating for enforced 50/50.

Do individual couples always decide on what is best for them though? What happens if the man refuses to take paternity leave for example or the woman refuses to let him have it. Many men would argue that they can't take time off without losing their jobs. Some women argue that they should have the leave because they suffered the pregnancy. A lot of decision are based on societies expectations rather than what is "best" for the family.

I think it would be great if men had a longer statutory paternity leave period, to take at any stage over the first year. But this shouldn't come at the expense of the woman's maternity leave.

Nope. There needs to be an absolute free choice in it.
I know at the moment men taking shared parental leave is quite rare and until it’s normal men will feel pressured not to take it, but it’s never going to work for everyone.
For me, a year was what I needed off because only from a year could be child eat enough solids in the day to get through the day without breastfeeding.

Also being pregnant and giving birth take longer to recover from for some women than others.

I took a survey recently about shared parental leave and why we didn’t use it. The options on breastfeeding were things like “baby won’t take a bottle.” It’s perfectly ok for you to NOT WANT your baby to go onto a bottle.

Parental leave is one of these endless tweakings that are done in the world of work (a world built for and by men that women have been shoehorned into) where equality and equity are endlessly conflated.

Men and women do not have equal or the same roles in pregnancy and childbirth. Nor can men breastfeed (and not all women can express, nor do all babies take a bottle).

Instead of this, why not value the time that women take with their babies more and not use it as a workplace stick to beat them with?

What would piss me off is that the women would do the really difficult first six months, full of hormones and bleeding and bruising and sleeplessness and then the blokes would swan in for the lovely second six months of milestones and smiles and says out in the bloody park.

It’s a no from me.

“Interesting that people think its 'career suicide' for men to take a couple of months off when they have a baby. What evidence is there for this? Take up is so low I'd be surprised if there was any proof this was the case.”

It was me that said this. I don’t think it is for all men but would have been for my husband. Equally covering 2 months of my role would have been more irritating for my employers than getting cover for a year. There does have to be an element of realism. Lots of employers don’t do

In my ideal world, it wouldn’t be about shared parental leave. I’d want a culture where a 4 day week was the norm rather than full time and every school provided wrap around care.