India Knight's article on maternity leave etc in S Times

[ZolaPola]

saw this earlier and rather shocked by her attitude - on what she saw as huge difficulties women of childbearing age cN cause to businesses, esp SMEs- normally find her refreshingly forthright in her views, but today her conclusion was to agree with the IKIP spokesman! She did temper this by saying gov should do more to support such companies in providing mat leave. Any others have views on this?

Sorry meant UKIP spokesman (he of cleaning behind fridge fame...)

DH is reading this as I surf MN, and has just expressed his surprise at her attitude. I haven't read it yet (usually get round to reading Sunday papers by about Tuesday) but have to admit that a few weeks ago was moved to send her an outraged email about her piece on stay at home mothers, whom she claimed must be 'below average intelligence'. Suspect she has come to see herself as the new Julie Birchill, and is being deliberately obnoxious. Someone should remind her that her main areas of expertise are shopping and eating in expensive restaurants, and tell her not to get ideas above her station.

India Knight wrote a first class piece on racism a couple of weeks ago but I was horrified by her piece in todays Sunday Times. Inaccurate, biased and, basically, rubbish. Since when was basic tenant of feminism the burning of bras and the banning of lipstick? How can the rest of her article be taken seriously when she comes out with such absurd generalisations? I am a feminist and proud to be so. It means fulfilling my potential in anyway that might be - stay at home mum, career woman, whatever - NOT being restricted in whatever I want to do 'just' because I am a woman.

I had a houseguest this weekend who has very personal reasons for hating tabloid journalists who hassle celebrities to within an inch of their lives!! and who had a good old (and jolly interesting) rant about a few choice ignorant journalists over dinner last night. at breakfast this morning I was shrieking "but what about India bloody Knight! She is AWFUL! LOOK what she has written this morning! Can't you DO something?" at him while he was patiently trying to munch his toast.

She is not quite as bad as Amanda Platell, but almost...

I haven't read the article and I actually (she whispers) don't think that the ukip idiot is entirely wrong in his assesment that small businesses will be wary of women of childbearing age, but as an American, I am amazed at the amount of help companies do get in providing maternity leave. That India Knight woman should do her research before spouting off...Companies with under 5 employees get the statutory maternity pay reimbursed at 110% and those with 5-20 employeees get something like 80 or 90% reimbursed.

...and maybe companies should remember child bearing is vital for customers of the future, future pension providers, employees of the future etc etc....

We should be paid for having children, In italy where birthrate has fallen dramatically women get a few thousand euros for having children.

I personally think that the only way the UK is going to take childrearing seriously is to put men in a position where they HAVE to take a realistic amount of paternity leave. In other words, their salary and career is affected too.

At the moment, there is a lot of focus on extending maternity leave and extending a mother's right to take time from work to look after her child. Fair enough, BUT, it DOES push women back into the dark ages by emphasising that it is the woman's job to stay at home at rear kids.

What I would like to see is a 'Family' leave of 1 year, to be shared by both parents, with no more than 7 months to be taken by the mother. This gives dad time to seriously bond with his kid, apopreciate what rearing a child is all about - and this WILL filter into the workplace (eventually) so that women are not made to fel guilty if they have to bomb off home to look after a sick child. If dad doesn't choose to stay at home, mum should NOT be entitled to his leave.

Disagree Highlander - I think families should be allowed to make their own choices, that work for them. And if that means the mother taking a year off and being able to BF for a year without the hassle of expressing every day, I don't see why that shouldn't happen if that suits that individual family. I don?t see why it?s the ?dark ages? for society to recognise that when children are very tiny, their relationship with their mother is different from that with their father.

Also, I think the danger of the approach that says men have to take x number of months off, is that they'll then feel they've done "their bit" for the next 18 years! What is just as important as the initial paternity/ maternity leave period, is the long term expectations of who picks up the kids from school, who takes time off work during the summer holidays/ when they're ill etc. Forcing men to take paternity leave at the expense of mother's maternity leave will not solve those long term issues, which I think might be even more of a factor in the glass ceiling than the initial maternity leave.

PPH: are you name-dropping????? Any clues about your houseguest???

oh yes, pph, clues please!!!

MeanBean, I agree totally, wholeheartedly with your post.

In Germany mothers or fathers can take up to 3 years parental leave - it can be split between the two, depending on the family's circumstances. There is a means-tested payment of up to £400 a month for up to two years. Your job is held open for you. I quite like that...

Emkana, I was very impressed to hear about the German approach on a trip to a company over there a few weeks ago. This is a major multi-national corporation, and they have lots of couples both working for them. They see it as entirely normal for one person, usually the mother, to take the first tranche of parental leave, and then the other half of the partnership go on leave. Their German workers were suprised that women go back to work in this country when their babies are still babies.
But, I was told, it won't last, due to Germany economy in the doldrums...

ps when are these companies which are so worried about women having babies going to realise that actually it's 90 per cent of their workforce who reproduce; and any men they employ are just as likely to become fathers as woman are to become mothers.

Ooooh crikey well I'll be the controversial one and stick my neck on the block. (pause for deep breath) ...... I agreed with much of what she was saying.

I think that women can give themselves too much of a hard time over this. Equality has come to the point where we think we can only compete with men on the same playing field i.e. we have to have the same jobs as them. In doing so then we brush aside the scientific fact that mother nature perfected us women to do the mothering bit and we keep trying to supress our instincts in the name of equality. This only demeans the role of being a mother. It's as if we think of ourselves as lesser beings because staying at home to do the child rearing, cooking cleaning isn't as worthy a job as going to work. We need to look at this again and be proud to do exactly what we are best at!! (I'm ducking to avoid the rotten veg being flung at me just now )

The bit of the article that struck me most was the division of labour. I look upon my SAHM as a different 'job' for a wee while and probably the most worthwhile one I'll ever do. I have a strong work ethic and always like to think I've done a good job whether that be getting the glosssy report out on time or having a nice dinner on the table. And like Indira says it doesn't make me a doormat or a drudge.

I accept that there are those who want to work and that is fine and that there are those who have to work and that's just the way it is, but can we stop beating ourselves up about it.

The link is www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1189927,00.html\here{}

have to say I agree with most of what she's written. I read it as saying that actually the way it is at the moment you can't be superwoman in the office and you can't be superwoman at home as well. She appears to be saying you should be free to amke the choice but you can't expect to get the promotion and be there are bathtime. DH works 12- 15 hour days (not particularly through choice) and weekend evenings. How on earth could I do that and look after the children?

In fact I accepted while ago that I am currently unemployable. DS1 didn't manage to make it into school full time this year (or at least the school couldn't find someone suitable to work with him). His full days and half days changed each week and often at short notice, days were cancelled because his LSA was off sick, and I had to make an emergency visit to collect him from the school trip as he rufused to go into the aquarium. How on earth could a small employer (or large one come to that?) actually employ me? If I pretended that I could do the big career etc as well as care for him (not to mention ds2) then I would be kidding myself.

out of context Bloom's comments were appalling, but in context they weren't so bad. We have jokes in our house that I have to do all the boys jobs (change a plug, set up the video- even record on the video for god's sake) don't really see that its's that different.

well that link went wrong- cut and paste!

I also don't see that what she was saying was so very controversial. I generally agree with what she has to say. Burchill, on the other hand, has lost the plot, I think. Every week the subtext of her piece is 'me, me, me, I'm so wonderful'. The only good thing about her is the way she inevitably gets in a little pop at Tony Parsons!

I've been really angry at many of India Knight's column pieces over the last few weeks. She has been making sweeping statements about older women who have children, children who are in full time day care and this recent article. And she bases all this on her experience - no research or science to back it up. I'm seriously thinking of not buying the Times again she annoys me so much.

I'm pretty sure that small businesses actually MAKE money out of maternity leave. I think they get 120% of state maternity pay. Also the rules are a lot less strict re keeping job open etc.

At the end of the day, IMO part of running a busimess is taking legislation like this which benefits the poplation as a whole (if only because theres somone to pay our pensions) into account.

They hardly "make' money out of maternity leave. When I went on maternity leave from a small business (22 months ago), they were reimbursed for my maternity pay at 110%. The idea of the extra 10% is to pay for the additional paperwork/accounting involved as it can be a large burden on a small company. In our case the extra 10% was probably no where near enough to cover the extra cost of my leaving for 6 months, the extra accounting and the hiring of someone while I was gone and then the extra accounting involved in my coming back initially at 2 days a week and then eventually moving up to 4 days a week. Luckily I have a boss is is in favour of supporting working parents (being one himself).

I thought the additional amount was to cover the cost of employer's national insurance contributions so the employer was not 'out of pocket'.

sis, you could be right. I was told by someone at inland revenue that it was to cover extra accounting costs, but now that you mention it, it would only just cover the ni.

Sorry to change tack here, but I have a question on maternity benefits. I know that my annual leave continued to accumulate throughout the duration of my maternity leave but I wondered what happens to it if you are not returning to work. Do you just lose it or do you get paid for it? Thanks in advance!

you get paid for it i think! i got an unexpected cheque for it from my employer. but don't forget if you don't go back at all you should have to pay back your maternity leave/maternity pay (not sure exactly what).

Thanks acnebride, as I only got statutory minimum, there is nothing to repay but I did wonder about the leave.