To think that whilst maternity & paternity leave is so crap women don’t have choice?

[guardiansofthegalaxychocs]

Read this very upbeat article in the guardian that suggests that it should be celebrated that more women are choosing to be child free. I have absolutely no issue with women choosing to be child free…. But I really struggle with the idea that women can truly have a choice whilst the cost of living is so insanely high, neither paid breaks (maternity, paternity etc) nor subsidised childcare are remotely adequate. We also know that high numbers of women experience terrible discrimination in the workplace.

This chirpy girl power article feels like a sort throwback to of feminism, which did us no good at all.

What we need is longer and better paid parental leave and then after that better and more subsidised childcare including relatives being able to get subsidies.

Then we can truly celebrate that women have choice.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/30/if-youre-childless-at-30-and-that-is-your-choice-isnt-that-something-we-should-applaud?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3NjWennDmPh-zgXOWGnOdWklLz0V6Qvhic23dZzah6laqbUKeELvDpWVg#Echobox=1643540688

I do agree with you OP tbh.

I am the main breadwinner in our household and I have had to wait until I was in a job that offered a better maternity package as it just would have been so hard for us before now. I literally would have had to go back to work after the mandatory 2 weeks.

It's genuinely very difficult when the woman is the higher earner and the other partner doesn't earn enough to cover the shortfall while she's not working.

I know lots of people have babies in all circumstances, as mentioned, but lots also rely on family help or benefits which aren't accessible to most.

I agree with you. DH and I aren’t in bad jobs and own our own home (mortgaged) with space but having had a DD who is now 3 we aren’t sure we can afford another even though we want one. I’m lucky as I get enhanced maternity pay but IMO statutory maternity pay should be to 12 months (increased to a sum actually able to live on would be nice but this would be a start), dads should be entitled to longer periods of paid paternity leave and funded nursery hours should start when a child starts nursery not at the age of 3 which is just a crazy system.

Oh. I am also now stuck in a job that I don’t particularly want to do because I would have to be somewhere else for 2 years before becoming eligible for enhanced maternity pay so even right now I’m being screwed over in my career for being a woman

I would only support longer mat leaves if there was an associated requirement that the employer cover the position in the interim. I've covered upwards of 60 maternity leaves in the time I've been with my employer (who has very generous policies so most people take 12-14 months off - fair enough).

I also don't agree that the solution to an ever-increasing aging population is to have ever-increasing numbers of babies. That's a bloody pyramid scheme. The solution is to legislate to allow people access to dignified end of life services. I've no desire to end up in a carehome needing one of Sally's 6 children to wipe my arse. It'd also stop people from arguing that they have kids to pay my pension, rather than because they want them.

I know lots of people have babies in all circumstances, as mentioned, but lots also rely on family help or benefits which aren't accessible to most.

The data suggests "the birth rate among women at the very top of the employment tree – in the best and highest-paid jobs – is twice the average of all occupations." "But the number of births to women with poorer employment prospects appears to be falling hard and fast."

I also don't agree that the solution to an ever-increasing aging population is to have ever-increasing numbers of babies.

@MabelsApron I think you are confused. Who is suggesting an ever increasing number of babies? The birth rate is well below replacement level. The median age is already 40. Do you really think there is no impact of having a population that is made up of only older people?

The level of maternity pay feels like a throwback to when a woman’s salary made up an insignificant proportion of a household’s income. DH and I earned about the same, so £140 a week barely touched the sides for contributing to our bills, we only covered 10 months maternity leave by saving very hard before getting pregnant. We could only save that hard because we were no longer saving for a house deposit or paying student loans. We can’t save at that rate again because now we have childcare costs.

I’d like to see SMP reset to be a proportion of usual earnings all the way through, not just for the first 6 weeks and then down to a flat rate which takes no account of your usual salary.

Absolutely dont agree with the state or anybody else subsidising people even further to have even more children. Id like to see financial entitlement restricted to two children .

@Viviennemary Id like to see financial entitlement restricted to two children

entitlement of what? maternity pay?

So I have chosen not to have children for non financial reasons. Cost of living is still expensive with scrimping and saving and on a much lower salary than most people. I would, therefore, probably raise an eyebrow at being taxed even more to subsidise people for having children, who should be having children ideally when financially able to and not on the hope and prayer of more subsidies

Yes maternity pay entitlement should be the same for everyone and restricted to two maternity leaves. That would be fairer IMHO.

@AnEpisodeOfEastenders

Everything else in life is ‘if you can’t afford it then don’t have it’, why should having children be different? Good maternity / paternity pay shouldn’t make a difference, some are simply choosing not to have children.

Quite. We chose not to have expensive holidays.

Yes maternity pay entitlement should be the same for everyone and restricted to two maternity leaves. That would be fairer IMHO.

But the birth rate is 1.6, so you just want to restrict it to the small number who have more than two.

@Longingforsunshine

I agree with you. DH and I aren’t in bad jobs and own our own home (mortgaged) with space but having had a DD who is now 3 we aren’t sure we can afford another even though we want one. I’m lucky as I get enhanced maternity pay but IMO statutory maternity pay should be to 12 months (increased to a sum actually able to live on would be nice but this would be a start), dads should be entitled to longer periods of paid paternity leave and funded nursery hours should start when a child starts nursery not at the age of 3 which is just a crazy system.

I also think a base level of enhanced maternity should be mandatory across all companies with over a certain amount of employees, this would really help. It doesn't need to be anything massive, just something which evens the playing field a bit.

At the moment, women are restricted to their current role if they're even contemplating a pregnancy over the next couple of years because there is no way to find out maternity provision at a company before you start. If you could know that wherever you go, you'd get a minimum of, say 8 weeks 80% pay, before it switches to statutory, it would at least be possible to contemplate moving jobs.

To clarify I think it’s great when women choose not to have children because they don’t want to be parents. I think it’s really sad state of affairs when women don’t have children because they would be impoverished if they did.
Those two groups are different and we can’t as a society know how many women are in the ‘free choice’ category until we are ensuring we enable women to have children without major financial or social penalty.

On the ‘why should we enable women to have children’ question -

• morally it’s wrong for men to be able to have children but women can’t because of unequal pay and societial injustice

• financially, we rely on a sort of pyramid scheme, we need children to then become the young adults who will find our pensions

• because I was fortunate to be able to make my choice freely. I therefore am happy to be taxed so others also have that choice.

For clarity (again) it should be a true and free choice. No one thinks women who don’t want children should be coerced in any way into having them

I agree with you @guardiansofthegalaxychocs.

I think sometimes we forget that children aren't just luxuries for people to enjoy, they are the future workers for the country. It's to the government's benefit for people to continue having children.

@guardiansofthegalaxychocs

To clarify I think it’s great when women choose not to have children because they don’t want to be parents. I think it’s really sad state of affairs when women don’t have children because they would be impoverished if they did. Those two groups are different and we can’t as a society know how many women are in the ‘free choice’ category until we are ensuring we enable women to have children without major financial or social penalty.

I genuinely don’t think significant numbers of women who would love a child choose to remain childless because of maternity leave and pay. I’ve definitely never met or heard of anyone say “we would have loved a family, it was all we ever wanted, but we just couldn’t afford nursery for a couple of years so we had to devastate ourselves and forgo children altogether.” There might be people who choose not to have children because they work out how expensive they are, but they were most likely those who weren’t hugely fussed one way or another in the first place.

I do think far more women who might, without social pressure and penalty, choose not to have children, go ahead and do so because of social conditioning and pressure to become mothers. But we can’t prove that quantifiably either.

I think that while you have good points, on balance YABU.
Choice doesn’t mean that both paths are equally easy or result in equal amounts of your money and time spent. No matter how good maternity/paternity leave and childcare costs are covered, choosing to have children will always cost you time and money. There is no way to push all of that on the government, and thus other tax payers. Why should other taxpayers pay for your choice to have children?

And why should you have all the benefits but no extra costs of having children? While those who choose to not have children end up paying same costs as you but get none of the benefits?

So I feel that even the generous maternity/shared parental leave and childcare subsidies and free hours while not enough for you, no amount extra FREE will ever be enough for you. A choice to have children is a choice to spend your time and money on them, it should never be that having children should be a choice where you don’t need to spend time or money on them because you expect other taxpayers to foot the bills and provide wrap around childcare for free.

we can’t as a society know how many women are in the ‘free choice’ category until we are ensuring we enable women to have children without major financial or social penalty

@guardiansofthegalaxychocs. No choice in life is a free choice. Every choice is influenced by society and comes with costs and benefits. I do not agree at all the the choice to have children or not should be so special it be made a free choice.

Definitely don't move to America OP if you think paternal leave here is so appalling

@Glitterygreen

I agree with you *@guardiansofthegalaxychocs*.

I think sometimes we forget that children aren't just luxuries for people to enjoy, they are the future workers for the country. It's to the government's benefit for people to continue having children.

But not the planet’s benefit, which ultimately affects whether our country will even exist in centuries to come. It is much more sustainable in a global sense to have the current low birth rate and take in immigrants from countries with high birth rates. The ideal end result is a planet with a 2.1 birth rate (zero growth, replacement rate). We should not be encouraging extra babies while the planet has a growth birth rate.

@ComtesseDeSpair

why do you think people aren't having dc because they can't afford them?

financially, we rely on a sort of pyramid scheme, we need children to then become the young adults who will find our pensions

This is the old system. But new systems of taxation, ie the global corporate tax on web based businesses uncouple the reliance on taxing workers on their wages to fund old age pensions. In fact, your NIC and Income tax don’t find the entirety of the state pension today. Most of it is funded by corporate taxes. As the demographics change and we continue to fund the bow wave of boomers, more and more will be paid via corporate taxes than by taxing workers incomes.

@Frankley

When l had my children there was no maternity leave at all. I had to leave my job both times. That was what happened then. Women going off on their maternity leave later on found it very difficult to believe. At least employment is safe now.

Unfortunately not. Thousands of women a year lose their jobs in the UK due to pregnancy, despite the law.