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

No it's not. You cannot expect people to deny what is a natural, normal and inbuilt to the species trait. You also if you're childfree presumably have never experienced it and so have no idea what you're talking about.

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

Thinking of the practicalities.

At what point should women be allowed to take this? I assume they need to wait until they are either past the menopause or have been sterilised perhaps, so they can say that there will definitely be no baby in the future - by accident or deliberately.

And what about men? If all women get to have 6 months paid either for baby or for travel, then can men too?

Who will fund the additional costs to the businesses for all this extra time off work?

Who will do the work of the absent staff?

How many people per time period can be off at once, and for how long?

Some women have 2 children, so more maternity leave than those having only 1 child. Should those with only children be entitled to some of the extra travel time off to make up for not taking 2 or 3 maternity leaves?

Where does it end?

@ZeldaWillTellYourFortune but, you know, some people do need to have children and amazingly these people are women. So what are you suggesting for those who make the choice to have them and also (not unreasonably) expect to maintain a career too?

I mean I'd be fine with no maternity pay if the government paid every woman for 2 years to stay home and care for her own child and offered tax breaks to couples with more kids, but I feel like that would annoy the aggressively childfree more than companies paying women. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I also had a good maternity leave for one of the two (one child didn’t ever sleep) and had 7 months full pay between my actual time at full pay, statutory pay and selling back holiday. Statistically though it’s not common to get months of full pay or to not struggle for money on maternity leave.

Oh Jesus. If it wasn't for this 'obsession', you wouldn't exist to even think such a thought.

Absolutely no one "needs" to have a child.

Expecting to do so with no repurcussions on one's finances, career, etc. is unrealistic. Just as making any other big-ticket investment or lifestyle choice - such as, say, leaving the workforce to retrain or earn another degree -- will have an impact on one's finances, career, etc.

Absolutely no one "needs" to have a child

By this argument, non-one needs bereavement leave, carers' leave. It's all choices. Shit happens, it's up you to choose what you do.

@ZeldaWillTellYourFortune Of course it has an effect on your caree! Maternity pay is the most basic thing that can be done to help women stay in the workplace but that's the bare minimum. I completely expected hanging children to make a difference to my career and it did, but it shouldn't have and that's the point. What I said was that women had to have children - yes we do, at present - some women choose not to but are they the only women that should be able to stay in the workplace? Because it seems that's what you're saying...

What unpaid work will you do whenyou are off work? Looking after old people / disabled people? If so then it sounds like a good idea to me. If you want to just swan about then no it's not the same.

Total of six months paid leave for each person in the workforce, lifetime limit. That's where it should end. People can parcel that out to themselves as they see fit a whole six months for a trip of a lifetime or one child, or use it in one-month increments if you want three kids, take two months each. If you want to write that novel, take two consecutive summers off to focus on it.

Everyone gets paid, protected time to pursue what she/he values in life.

That would be fair to all workers.

Two months per kid? Are you taking the piss...?

Well someone needs to have children or were all fucked. And that women.

@echt sorry I'm agreeing with you. But just a bit irate!

Ive never had a natural urge , I had the urge to have sex and that resulted in pregnancy.

I don't think that some people are getting the fact that maternity leave is not for the benefit of women beyond the first couple of weeks. It's for their children. Even If you are childless, you probably had parents who looked you when you were a baby. Why should future generations not have the same?

"it shouldn't have and that's the point."

Why "shouldn't" it, though? What is the rationale for saying that? Of course stepping out of the workforce, whether to watch Gogglebox or do infant care or sail the Atlantic WILL have an effect on one's place in the workforce. That's how life works. You can't be two places at the same time; simple physics.

"Shouldn't" is wishful thinking; there is no moral authority for saying that, just personal preference.

Tradeoffs exist in all of our life choices and artificially propping up some but not others is discriminatory.

I had a year of maternity leave and it was not all cute outfits and baby coos. This very post is EXACTLY why mothers say that women who have not raised newborns will never understand until they’ve walked this path. It is not a break. It is not fun. It is not a “vacation”. it is all work. If have pushed a watermelon out of your vagina and then spend 6 months recovering from that while simultaneously getting up every 2-3 hours a night to feed and change diapers and putting lanisol cream on your bleeding nipples then then you will understand there is nothing remotely relaxing about it.

Yes, I think Zelda is taking the piss. No-one could seriously come up with such an imperfectly-baked idea.

Okay? Lots of people do have a desire to procreate though and it's a normal thing and nothing like wanting a watch or a holiday

Maternity leave isn't time off like a sabbatical. Its required medically for recovery from childbirth and to care for a newborn infant. It's like asking if people who don't get sick should get additional leave as their colleagues needed time off for illness.

I think so too, she had me until that comment

That's about the average in the United States and other countries. And population doesn't seem to be declining.

I think we should set the standard no. Of children per.woman to ten, no matter how children they have they should all be given ten maternity leaves, at the time of their choosing.

The US has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world, that's not what I'd be using as a benchmark for equality or fairness.

6 months per child is stingy enough as it is. Other countries get 12 months plus.