Incentives for SAHMs - anyone read Fiona Phillips today?

[bohemianbint]

Link here

I think if you can get past the slightly guilt-inducing title, what she is basically saying is quite interesting. It's the first thing I've read in a while that doesn't write SAHMs off as useless bovine idiots.

Obviously don't want to start the old fight of working vs sahm, but what do we think about some kind of incentive for mums to stay at home?

FWIW I have recently become a SAHM by accident after stupid sexist boss forced me out of my job - I am taking him to a tribunal. I am looking for work but am pregnant so not sure how that'll go down with potential employers! I'd like to work PT ideally but I feel really under pressure from everyone around me to get a job and stop being a "boring" SAHM.

Germany has 14 calendar months paid (67% of avge net income over the last 12 months - income, not salary, so you can also get it if self-employed) parental leave, which can be taken in any combination, except that the other is barred from working for the first 8 weeks post-partum. If one parent takes all the leave it is only 12 months - the 13th and 14th month are dependent on the other parent taking them, and so are often called 'father's months'.

mother not other.

I don't think the sole pupose of maternity leave is for physical recovery. Men can look after babies just as well as women can. Okay, they can't breast feed. But not everyone chooses to breastfeed. Besides, you can go back to work and breastfeed/express.

I'm not saying everyone should be forced to split the leave. Just that it should be on offer for those men who choose to take it. Some will take it if they get the same pay a woman gets. And, only then, will women have equal opportunities at work.

People still hold women back because they think she is going to leave and promote men before women because they are unlikely to leave the workplace for 6 months when they have a child.

eleusis - physical recovery does not have to be the sole purpose of maternity leave for my point to hold, and I didn't say it was.

But physical recovery is the sole purpose of maternity leave in many countries - France included. In fact, it can sometimes be prolonged (slightly) if a mother has not recovered sufficiently to return to work or if she is breastfeeding.

Then, what was your point, if in fact you had one, when you said "unless you really, truly believe that men take as long to recover from the physical effects of pregnancy and childbirth as women "?

The point, Eleusis, is that maternity leave is (and ought to be) first and foremost about the physical recovery of the mother and about breastfeeding. It is in a secondary way, sometimes, in some countries, about parent-child bonding.

If you make maternity and paternity leave identical in length/conditions, you are in effect saying - maternity/paternity leave is all about parent-child bonding (which is equal in importance for both parents) and nothing to do with physical recovery of the mother and breastfeeding. Unless you think it fair that fathers get more bonding time than mothers .

I covered the mother need to physically recover by suggesting she take her leave first. So, for me, I could have taken 6 weeks at 90%, 2 weeks at a pittance, then DH could have followed with 6 weeks at 90% and 2 weeks at a pittance. And, together we could have provided 4 months of parental care for the kids. This would have been fab. But it isn't on offer because he is a man and I am a woman. I regard that as sexual discrimination.

That's gross sexist discrimination against women, Eleusis .

Say I take two weeks maternity leave before giving birth because I am exhausted and need to sleep, and it takes me six weeks to be back on my feet and functioning properly again after the birth - so 8 weeks out of action. I go back to work, and DH gets 8 weeks at top physical form to have fun with the baby.

Grossly unfair.

I didn't say everyone must take 8 weeks. I said for example... Take whatever time you feel is appropriate. Both of you take it at the same time if you like. The options should be available for the new parents to decide. Or even have the leave transferable so that if a man wants to give say 3 or his weeks to his wife, that could be done too.

The point is not the absolute length of the leave, Eleusis (I just used 8 weeks since you used that example to show you how unfair it would be) but the fact that the length is the same for both maternity and paternity leave. That is just grossly unfair - I'm beginning to realise just how prejudiced you are against women .

Are you trying to pin me against my own kind? (my own kind being women)

It's not sexist. It's the only way to give us equal career oppotunities. If men are not allowed to stay home and look after their children, then staying home and looking after children will continue to be seen as women's work.

I am simple arguing that the option should be on the table for those who wish to use it. If you want to stay home while the man earns the money (as you obviously do), that's fine. But not everyone wants to live like that. I for one don't believe staying home for an extended period of time actually good for the children -- not in my case anyway. In your case, your partner makes buckets of money so you going to work too probably would have a noticable difference to the standard of living. That's your choice and it's fine. But some families would really benefit of the parents could share the leave. I don't see the problem with that. And I certainly don't see how it harms women.

Sorry...

so you going to work too probably would not have a noticable difference to the standard of living

Exactly, and the reason fathers don't take it is because they are not paid at 90% for it.

Eleusis - I cannot possibly agree, ever, that maternity and paternity leave should be the same lengths for reasons of "equality". Equality will happen when society recognises that 4 or 5 months out of the workplace for childbirth should not penalise women in any way in their career progression - not when women have to pretend that the physical effects of childbirth are nil.

You obviously have missed that I started work again two months ago (as always planned).

"Equality will happen when society recognises that 4 or 5 months out of the workplace for childbirth should not penalise women in any way in their career progression "

How do you propose to acheive that.

Anna, returning to work when your child is three counts as someone who stayed home for quite a long time in my book. So, yes, obviously you believe in staying home while she is young. But, out of curiosity, do you work full time (40+ hours per week)?

I'm sorry, Anna, but I think you're missing the point that Eleusis is making. She isn't suggesting that women don't need time to recover from childbirth or that men need this time too. She is just saying, as I did earlier,that after the woman has taken what she needs to recover physically from the birth the remaining 6/9mths or whatever is offered to her can be split between both partners IF SO DESIRED.

So a couple where the woman is the main wage earner may decide to split the 9mth entitlement between them as it is a better financial option for their family. In my family where DH earns significantly more than me then we wouldn't bother with the split BUT would have been interested in just taking 4mths but taking it together.

Only when employers know that taking on a man is 'equally as risky' as taking on a woman will woman be on a more even footing.

Sorry about the shocking state of my punctuation in that last post.

Starlight, I looked and previously commented. Extended low paid leave for father is unlikely to be used. Men don't use their paternity leave now because of course they can take a couple weeks of holiday and be paid for it. So, any leave that doesn't come with 90% of his pay is not fulfilling the requirement.

It may be a step in the right direction, but the step is so small it's not worth much.

I found this article when I was looking at parental leave yesterday. The second half if particularly interesting although I can't vouch for its accuracy or necessarily agree with the politics.

I think though, it supports the view that men and women view having children differently. Although in an ideal world all rights offered on the birth of a child should be offered to both parents in reality men and women are different and so women are more likely to take advantage of parental leave than men.

Equality doesn't mean men are the same as women, it is about them having the same opportunities but the likelihood is that they will not use those opportunities in the same way.

No, he has to be absent from the job just like women are -- or rather have the choice to be.

If my DH had been paid 90% of his salary to stay home, he would have. But at a pittance for two weeks, he took holiday instead.

It doesn't matter if they choose to use them or not. It will make discrimination far less likely if employers knew that they (male employees) could.