To think that women without children should be able to take time off work too?

[Playfair]

Firstly I will say that I am 100% supportive of good maternity leave (and paternity / shared), and understand the importance of supporting women to maintain a career, care for children or whatever else they wish.

I also acknowledge that maintaining birth rates is critical for society. And that maternity leave is spent doing work in raising a child.

Reflecting on my company's good maternity policy (about 6 months paid) and also some other institutions that have announced paid time off for those undergoing fertility treatment, it leaves me wondering about those of us without children (by choice or otherwise).

I'm in my thirties and will never have children. I'd love to have a small amount of paid time off (in addition to usual annual leave) to do some lengthy travel for example. I can't see why we can't have access to something similar if you haven't used any maternity benefit by a certain point.

There would obviously be benefits for society & business from developing new skills, morale etc. As well as women in work contributing to economy and through taxation.

So,

YABU - Women who choose not to have children shouldn't be entitled to anything else

YANBU - Women should be able to claim a small amount of extra paid time off if they stay in a career and contribute to business and societies success

if no one had kids we’d pretty soon be screwed. So people so need to have them so that the human race continues

This is a nonsensical argument, given global population rates. Even in the UK, the population is projected to rise for decades. There is more chance of human life being wiped out by climate change than from billions of people all deciding not to have kids.

Not all women do need maternity leave. Some aren't working anyway.

Surely this would just further widen the gap between mothers and non-mothers?!

While the non- mothers go along boosting their morale, developing skills, travelling, volunteering, adding to their CV/special interests etc, the mothers continue to be further at the bottom of the pile upon returning to work, with the pay-gap widening ever more while recovering from major surgery, bodily/emorional trauma being supported from their 'equal' partner for a pitiful 2 weeks.

And likewise if men got it too got it.

But I'm all for a sabbatical for all- regardless of parental status!! That sounds great!!

It’s because you say you’d like to use your non-maternity leave time to go travelling or similar. Most people call that a holiday. Therefore it looks as though you think of maternity leave as being a ‘break’ or ‘time off’ rather than a period of time legally allowed to mothers so they can (i) give their newborns the best possible quality of care, and (ii) recover from giving birth.
I think what’s happening here is that you think of having children as a lifestyle choice and maternity leave as a perk attached to that lifestyle choice. Certainly enhanced maternity pay is marketed as a perk by many companies, so if you wanted to campaign for companies to provide an equivalent perk to child free and childless people you could do that, I guess. I don’t see it being wildly attractive to those companies, though. A lot of businesses, especially small ones, find maternity leave quite financially and logistically burdensome as it is, and I have a lot of sympathy with those that are reluctant to hire breeding age women as a result.
I’m not sure if you’re suggesting businesses should be legally required to offer paid time off comparable to enhanced maternity benefit to women, with comparable guarantees about jobs on return from leave, who don’t have children? If so, I think you do need to consider a bit more broadly why it’s important that these legal protections and financial assistance packages exist. That is, the social good extends beyond the two individuals most obviously involved (mother and baby) and even the nebulous social good of having enough young people to keep the country afloat in years to come. It also helps mothers to stay in the workforce, which is good for the economy and for equality between the sexes. It means mothers are more likely to maintain financial independence so they are better able to cope with supporting their children financially in the case of the husband losing his job, or dying, or running off with another woman. It also means mothers in abusive relationships can leave more easily, protecting themselves and their children. These social goods do not issue from giving legal protection to paid leave for childless women.
So if there is no ‘social good’ argument for your suggestion then it’s just a question of feeling that if one woman is entitled to time away from work because of a choice she has made then any woman should be entitled to the same, even if her choices are different and don’t produce the same need (for the women) or good outcomes (for society). The problem with that is that there are plenty of ‘unfair’ elements in the welfare state at large. Take university education. Should someone who studies English literature have the option of drawing down a student loan for 6 years rather than 3 (as medical students do since they have longer degree programmes) so he or she can travel or try to pursue a career as an actor? If not (under your logic) why not? Studying medicine is, after all, a choice! Should someone who doesn’t go to university at all have the option of drawing down those loans on the same terms to try to start a band, or a business? If not, why not?
Essentially, I think most commenters would agree that it’s perfectly fine for you to campaign for companies to provide ‘alternative leave’ packages to child free people voluntarily, but wanting the government to enforce that on the grounds that otherwise it’s unfair on the childless goes too far. The point is that having children is not a lifestyle choice comparable with taking up skiing as a hobby or getting a cat because it is a choice that does not only concern the individual making that choice, but also the people that choice produces, and society at large.

Why does that matter? Have you looked around this place we call home recently? Do you really think that deliberately producing more people knowing they have to live on a dieing planet is a good idea? Of course it isn't so I do wish people would stop pretending that they have kids for the greater good. They had them because they wanted them. That's all.

Are you having a laugh? You are massively OVER populating the planet and causing irreversible damage. Don't try and pretend you are all selfless do gooders just doing a public service.

Like many I disagree with the comparison between maternity leave and sabbaticals but, putting that aside, I don't follow how you would implement something like this.

The instances of parental leave a person can have is limited by the number of children they have. How many 'sabbaticals in lieu of parental leave' can a person take? What happens if they hit their limit then find out they have a child on the way?

While the non- mothers go along boosting their morale, developing skills, travelling, volunteering, adding to their CV/special interests etc

God I hate this narrative. I’m not doing any of these things because, just like mothers, I’m working. I’m single so everything is paid for by me, my job has no progression or development opportunities, I haven’t been abroad in years, I can’t volunteer as I’m either at work or balancing other responsibilities, which makes it difficult to cultivate lots of hobbies and special interests.

I do wonder if the level of anger on this thread towards “non mothers” is because of the stereotype that we’re all about designer handbags and 3 luxury holidays per year, courtesy of our career-busting behaviour and ability to stomp all over downtrodden mums.

It’s not the quantity of people that’s the issue, it is the burning of fossil fuels. Plenty of resources to go round if govts taxed and made laws and subsidised accordingly.

Well yes I had them because I wanted them but as a country we do also need them for the future. That is a fact. I think if we stick to just replacing ourselves ie two children if in a couple then that is the best.

I imagine those who don't have children due to the environment still drive cars or fly on numerous foreign holidays. I find the air of superiority from these individuals to parents a bit nauseating.

Ha ha ha. I used to work with someone that genuinely suggested this to the big boss. With lots of exclaimations that it was unfair i was getting paid time off. Why dont you try saving up.

How many 'sabbaticals in lieu of parental leave' can a person take?

One

What happens if they hit their limit then find out they have a child on the way?

They have to take unpaid leave.

None of this would be a problem if it was linked to long service the way John Lewis did it, they had a year’s paid leave after 25 years.

level of anger on this thread towards “non mothers”

Pretty sure the animosity is for illogical CFs like the OP. The same as it would be towards a bloke demanding something extra because he wasn't eligible for maternity leave.

YANBU

but then again I’m one of those as mentioned earlier in the thread who genuinely thought of mat leave as a holiday, both times.

I am well paid, got to go on loads of holidays during the year off too, both of mine have slept through from a few weeks old and I recovered from both sections in a few weeks. Back to normal at 5-6 weeks and able to pick up some hobbies along the way too (and start reading again!)

I agree with PP, maternity leave isn’t some hellish endurance sport for a fair few women. Especially those with partners that aren’t twats.

Fewer people are already having children. There’s not really an issue with huge birth rates in the U.K.

Of course not all women need it for this reason

Adoption leave no recovery, many women are perfectly recovered pretty quickly as well. And as PP mentioned you can also take full maternity if you unfortunately have a stillbirth after 24/25 weeks (not sure which one), so recovery would be a lot ‘easier’ on the most part (although awful, it’s true, delivering a 24w old sleeping baby is a lot less strain on the body than delivering a 9lb whopper at 40+ weeks in terms of physical recovery, and yes emotional recovery is a factor but a year off is a lot more than parents get when they lose existing children so the argument doesn’t stack up on that side)

Think globally. Human population still is rising. Countries with low birth rates need to change immigration policies, not encourage more reproduction.

There is already provision for everyone

It doesn't have to be for a child
Can be for a relative, elderly person

www.gov.uk/time-off-for-dependants

I would say everyone is entitled to two three-month paid leaves between age 21 and 61. That's fair to the workers, fair to the employers and doesn't reward excessive procreation with additional perks and time off.

Those who wish to have more than two children can plan and save up to fund their own leaves. Those who do not wish to have children can use the lifestyle leave any way they choose.

I imagine those who don't have children due to the environment still drive cars or fly on numerous foreign holidays. I find the air of superiority from these individuals to parents a bit nauseating.

They might do, but they're still massively less environmentally-damaging than those who have children.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

@Blossomtoes if the justification is, as OP asserts, people without children are discriminated against because they can't take an equivalent of maternity leave, that wouldn't fix the 'discrimination' because parents can take multiple parental leave but people without children only get one.

Any approach possibly forcing people to lose their salary immediately on having a child is clearly a non-starter too.

@AnneTwacky - this is brilliant :)

Absolutely!

You do realise that maternity leave is not sane like holidays for ffs...🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

Exactly. If you have children the environmental damage carries on down the generations. If you don’t it stops with you when you die.