to think that anything other than total gender equality in the parental leave system is an absolute outrage?

[joanneg20]

Well, am I?

Now that all the political parties are packaging themselves as 'progressive', have to be seen to be shaking hands with black and/or gay people on their leaflets, why is no-one willing to tackle this properly?

Surely any system other than a set period of parental leave to be shared as the two partners see fit is massively sexist and discriminatory and how Labour can be promising 'a future fair for all' whilst refusing to commit to this baffles me.

Imagine a similar discriminatory system applied in any other way. Different holiday entitlements for gay and straight people? Different working hours for Asians and non-Asians? I don't think so. But parental leave is obviously a different matter - why? Why does anyone assume that because I was born female I wish to 'enjoy' (to use the terminology of the Labour manifesto) 9 months' maternity leave, and that my partner only wants 4 weeks - or possibly the ability to share the period after 6 months (which hardly anyone takes anyway).

Why aren't we all out on the street about this? And I include myself in that question. I think it really is the major feminist issue remaining to be tackled in Britain - almost on a par with getting the vote in terms of what it could do for gender equality.

Choice is a great thing, but I don't really understand how this leads to bashing the "state" again. The system is not ideal, but it is better than many families in many other countries enjoy. The conspiracy theory that it is the government trying to pigeon hole women is a step too far. The provision now is better than it was when I had my DD just five years ago.

Greatork mat leave is already 12 months. It's SMP that is 9 months.

I think it would be great to have 12 months to be decided between you who took what portion, I know my DH is very jealous that it's just me who gets mat leave and would love the chance at a month or two with the baby.

Would be fabulous to split parental leave as you wishes, just can't imagine how business leaders would respond to the white paper proposing it? They clearly think government's gone far enough on mat leave, flexible working and everything has had to be really hard fought.

Totally agree with OP. This is actually the first piece of public policy I would change if I had the power to do so. I am frustrated that no politician or pressure group anywhere that is relevant to me is pushing this idea, otherwise I would actively campaign along with them; it's a cause I want to support somehow, but the avenues to do so are nonexistant.

It would do so much to advance equality both in the workplace and in the home.

Men are equally as capable as women to nurture a child; it takes no special brand of female magic. The only thing they cannot actually do is breastfeed, and as others have pointed there are plenty of ways around that. We need the policy structure in place for it to be able to become more of a social norm for men to take longer paternal leave.

And I am so sick of the assumption that a woman in the workplace is a liability to her employer, because she will obviously be distracted by children, and bugger off on long maternity leave, whereas a man is seen as child-free, and therefore as the best sex to give more responsibility to, and higher pay -- and also to expect longer working hours from them since they are "not caregivers".

Let both parents be seen as equal carers in the eyes of the law. Although intellectually I prefer a system where 1 year of parental leave is split as the couple see fit, I do think a large chunk of it needs to be reserved for the father, to kick start a change in unequal social norms. I have read that in countries (I think maybe Germany? But I could be wrong) where men were given the choice to take some of the "maternity" leave, they did not do so because they felt looked down on as "unmanly" by their employers. So in my dreamworld where equality of parental leave is even in election manifestos, I would favour a straight 50/50 split at first, relaxed to complete choice by couples on how to split it once it has become accepted by employers and society at large that men too are fathers of newborns.

Totally agree with OP. Men are perfectly capable of looking after babies. And only when men get 90% of there salary (as women do) will they take paternity leave. And only when men take paternity leave will women get a bit more equality in the work place.

One rule for women and another for men is by definition sexual discrimination.

But, Labour will never give men 90% of their pay to take leave because it will cost them too much because of course men make more money than women do.

So let's encourage the women into the home and leave the big important jobs for the men -- just like the good old days.

I agree with the OP's sentiments. I like the policy of getting a set number of days, a certain proportion of which must be taken by the father (except presumably in the case of absent fathers?).

What a good idea.

According to our friend the Daily Mail, almost 50% of women now earn as much or more than their partner. So the idea of the man as breadwinner doesn't reflect the reality of many of our lives.

The result is that many women can't afford to use their maternity leave when perhaps it would make financial sense for their partner to take the time off rather than the family start having to use childcare.

And of course the reality is like it or not, that there are few women breastfeeding at 6 months. I doubt reforming parental leave would much affect bf rates.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that men should be forced to look after their babies if they don't want to. But it would be nice if those of us who weren't in a "traditional" woman stays at home, man brings in the big bucks relationship could get legislation that recognised this.

I sympathise with the OP but am with everyone who has pointed out that the early part of maternity leave is about allowing the person who has given birth to recuperate as well as about childcare.

So I'd make it a year to be shared as the couple see fit with the caveat that the first two months have to be taken by the mother. Can't genuinely think of a job that couldn't survive an employee being on leave for two months - any employee could be off sick for that length of time with no notice at all. (And yes, I know employers will moan, just as they did about the minimum wage/equal pay/the end of child labour but capitalism will adjust...)

but MintHumbug, how would it be "worse" if men shared leave? It would only be "worse" for employers who disproportionately employ men at the moment. So bam: another facet of discrimination corrected by a simple policy change. If leave is split between the parents, then where is the additional loss to employers? Say it is 9 months split as seen fit by the couple, or 4 and a half months each: it is still the same amount of leave, but spread out among both male and female employees.

And the situation you describe with employees who "swan off" on maternity leave is exactly how employers view women and only women while in fact every child also has a father. It is a real cause of discrimination against women in the workplace.

Suzi, I read that article quite carefully, and I don't think that's what it says. It says that a fifth (not 50% but 20%) of women earn more than their partner. To be honest, I was surprised that the figure was as high as 20%.

The article also explains that women working full-time typically earn about 25 per cent less than men.

We've got a long way to go before we get to gender equality.

A fith, 20%, earn more and (according to the article) 25% earn the same so 45% earn the same or more surely? Which is "nearly" 50% - in journalese anyway

minthumbug - that is why we need the legislation. Without it nothing will change. With it in 10-20 years you might see a gradual shift.

Which reflects the situation in most of the families I know actually.

How many mothers earn more than the fathers of their children, though? Or than the other adult in the household (adjusting for divorce and extended families)? I think the gap between average male and female earnings really opens up once you have children. Which is what the OP's idea would start to tackle.

MintHumbug - I think what we are saying is that Commerce is wrong and we want the state to force them to comply with the will of society (once that has been established). The same way that child labour, health and safety, minimum wage, holiday entitlements have been imposed. As with those things Commerce WILL oppose it - and they are perfectly entitled to do so and to make arguments about what the consequences of implementing the changes will be. But ultimatly we can tell them to stuff it, if we decide that any concequences are worth the gain.

Exactly edam. I earn (a little bit) less than dh because I work part time. If we'd been able to split the leave we might have gone for a different arrangement rather than the obvious.

Although in our case, probably not. Would have been good to have the choice though.

We have flexibly working. Women AND men are entitled to request this. If they both did a 3.5 day week then you'd have the equality you are after. It already exists.

However, there does need to be some protection for the woman who can take a good 6 months to recover from childbirth, and certainly there should be nothing to jeapordise the breastfeeding.

In coutries where men get paternity leave they use it to advance their careers by enroling on courses, skilling up, retraining or networking. Their companies EXPECT them to use if for this so if they don't they are at a disadvantage.

It isn't as simply as it sounds.

AngryWasp - do you have the data about the career advancement allegation?

LOL, yeah, reams of it papers my livingroom wall.

What IS it with MN tonight?

MintHumbug - I hate to repeat myself, but without the legislation there is no POSSIBILITY of change. With it there will certainly be change - how fast and with what consequences reamains to be seen. I am sure that one of the results would be greated equality. This might be at the expense of mens position in the job market, and it might also meant that women get less maternity leave over all. I think this is an acceptable price.

NB Do you have data to refute my opinion?