AIBU to ask for your best comeback to this work colleague...

[Seraphina77]

A male work colleague today said to me that employed women/men who choose not to have children should still be entitled to take 12 months off, paid at the equivalent of maternity/paternity pay because "then it's fair".

I was completely sidelined and apart from explaining to him that maternity/paternity leave is not a holiday, I couldn't get my brain in gear quick enough to come up with a cogent argument in response!

Help me out mumsnet... how would you have responded???

Yes, let's do the American system, since ours is "far too generous" wherein women are forced to go back to work two weeks post C-section, in agonising pain, or risk losing their jobs entirely. Then, when they can't cope, they are prescribed Percocet, which triggers an addiction that ends up wreaking destruction on their kidneys and eventually killing them. (Yes, this really happens)

That's definitely fair, and good for society.

@ScreamingCosArgosHaveNoRavens are you just deliberately contrary, or do you believe the cack you’re spouting on this thread?

People having children destroys the planet? Eh? So let’s not have them and humans will be eradicated in 3 generations. That makes total sense

So let’s not have them and humans will be eradicated in 3 generations.

Why would that matter? The planet could recover and be enjoyed by the millions of other species which don't pollute it. Why is the continuation of the human race, at the expense of all other living things, considered to be a good or necessary thing?

Lol this made me laugh. Did any of the other mothers here share similar views pre-children and once they gave birth, the reality hit them like a ton of bricks?!

Because you’re still destroying the planet, but faster. So either you care about the planet being destroyed or you don’t

Or you care when it suits you

Because you’re still destroying the planet, but faster.

Can you explain that statement - I don't understand what you mean at all.

I’m not sure whether to bother. You’re determined to argue everything and seem
To be a bit hard of thinking too

I’m not sure whether to bother. You’re determined to argue everything and seem To be a bit hard of thinking too

I'll take that to mean your statement was meaningless and you're unable to explain it.

Of course. Carry on cacking all over the thread

I would say that maternity leave is for the baby to bond with its primary caregiver and have the best start in life - it's not for the parents. But if he wanted to take time off to volunteer with vulnerable children eg in care for 12 months that you agree with him the company should support this.

Does he know when he is old, the taxes from your children will be supporting his health and care costs (assuming the NHS is still run the same way), what's he going to do to 'even this up'

Having children is viewed as valuable to society (you may contest that but it is the policy view)

Economically having kids benefits us all.

I do contest it, because a) you have children because you want them, not for any altruistic reason b) I worked for 46 years non-stop and pay for my own pension, c) the Planet is overpopulated but everyone thinks other people should cut down on the number of children they have, but it doesn't apply to them.

I haven't much option, cherrycoke, as you seem determined to retreat from any kind of meaningful debate, in favour of hurling out childish insults as soon as you are asked to back up your assertions. It's a pity, as I'd enjoy discussing this in an intelligent and civilised manner, but if you're unwilling or incapable of doing this, so be it.

You haven’t contributed anything intelligent to the many posters who have responded to your posts so far. It’s obvious what I mean, there is no “back up” - it’s simply a statement.

You are being ridiculous and deliberately contrary. What’s the point in joining other posters in wasting my time?

I kind of agree with him, OP. If everyone got to take advantage of up to a year off on the same terms then we wouldn’t have discrimination against any one specific group (ie mums / women of child bearing age / people with MH problems). However companies would probably get rid of annual / sick / sabbatical leave etc to compensate. Which I don’t think is all that bad really

You haven’t contributed anything intelligent to the many posters who have responded to your posts so far

Are you mistaking me for another person on the thread? 'Many posters' haven't responded to me at all. One person responded to my first post, in a sensible way, and I replied in a sensible way, in part agreeing with what they said. You are so far the only other person to respond to any of my posts. I've tried to engage with you, but you don't seem willing to enter into a proper discussion.

I totally agree with him.

As if maternity leave is time off!

I thought I’d have time to brush up on my languages, write stuff I’ve always meant to write. Instead I was permanently attached to a baby requiring round the clock care, suffering after effects of birth for quite some time and more tired than I’ve ever been in my whole life.

It’s not a break.

@ Smelborp - that’s your experience. A lot of women I know have done all that you have plus professional up-skill even after horrific births. If you want / need to up-skill enough you will do it.

Paid sabbatical for all to pursue a life choice that's important to you?

It's a great idea and could benefit childless women as well a men. But how much more tax is he willing to pay to fund this idea?

I don't have children and am not going to have them and I support long well paid parental leave and good quality affordable childcare as government policies.

I'd like more help to look after my elderly mum - mandated paid time off work and better care for her.

As women we always suffer as a result of stingy social policies.

I agree with him.

People are confused about sabbaticals, they're different. They're not government policy, they're a staff retention tool.

"Economically having kids benefits us all."

But it ruins our planet.

No, having too many children AND being over consumers is ruining our planet.

If every couple had 2 children, opted for public transport and walking when they could (instead of when they felt like it or told themselves they could), ate a largely plant based diet & didn't waste money on purchasing things that are thrown into landfill within 6 months, then we would be well on our way to living more in balance with the planet.

Eradication of human life isn't the only solution to the ecological disaster we are facing.

Maternity leave is still besides the point, in my mind.

If we taxed the impossibly rich (billionaires) out of existence and basic wages rose to a place where we could work a 3 day week, we'd all be much happier and wouldn't be having these ridiculous arguments.

I've worked since I was 16 and had my dd when I was 33 so I'm pretty certain the pittance of maternity pay I received was more than covered by the years of taxes I'd already paid!

@kerryhall were the taxes you paid between 16 and 33 saved up to cover your maternity leave, or did they fund public spending on the NHS, schools, police, etc, etc.?

Always amazes me that people think whatever they've paid in is there to be taken out again by them personally.