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.

Oh, I think it matters. It will be a long slow process. Like, when they actually see Bob from accounts go off for two months and Joe from sales did it too. THEN they will start to change their attitudes towards 25 year old women in an interview who has just gotten married and has no kids (ding ding... will be having them soon!!)

I think that the argument that goes: "because women are biologically penalised by childbirth in their careers because they must take x months out of work for recovery from pregnancy and childbirth, we must ensure that men are similarly penalised by making them take paternity leave for x months also" is fundamentally flawed and actually harms women hugely by highlighting the "penalty" of motherhood. Why on earth would men voluntarily penalise themselves too?

My sister's BIL in Norway was quite clear that he viewed his (obligatory) paternity leave entitlement as an opportunity for further professional training. Apparently this is quite a common attitude in the Netherlands, too. So forced paternity leave ends up being a career opportunity for men - how's that for equality?

Anna, who are you quoting?

I agree that attitudes need to change but I don't think all men are worried about how they'll be perceived by others at work.

DH would have jumped at the chance whether others had done it or not as would many of the dads I know. Though I'm sure employers such as his would start offering incentives to employees who didn't take it.

What I meant was that it doesn't matter on an individual basis. If it's common place, it doesn't matter whether one man has no intention of taking it as long as the company has no way of knowing that at interview and therefore is taking an (almost) equal risk between himand a woman in her 30s.

But Anna,nobody is talking about 'forced paternity leave'. Just that if a couple want to they can share it either by taking half each or by taking half and taking it together.

"Though I'm sure employers such as his would start offering incentives to employees who didn't take it."

Now that should be illegal.

Gosh that was a strong reaction, Starlight. What particularly got your goat? (Not saying you are wrong but that I am interested in your interpretation)

It seemed to me that it was agreeing with your point that men simply don't want to take paternity leave. I do think they should have left out the bit about men being more agressive - that wasn't really relevant unless that agression is supposedly being channelled into being competitive at work but it didn't say that.

It didn't say that women made better parents but that generally they preferred to do the childcare which is probably true, if you take the population as a whole. Several surveys I have seen would back these up as it says the happiest women are those working part time which presumably is because it allows time with their children and time out of the home.

I don't think it came to the right conclusions at the end though, by saying that if men aren't going to take paternity leave it shouldn't be offered. The only way to bring about social change is for it to be offered even if in the early stages, fathers don't take it up. Nothing will be achieved without making those first steps. Women did get offered the vote, for example, because men in the 19th century didn't believe they would be interested but that certainly isn't the case now.

Just as I get into this again I have to go and get DS2 from playgroup! I'll be back though.

Anna, your BIL is backing up the argument in the article I linked to. It seems he is not alone in using paternity leave to do other things than look after the baby.

Taking significant time away from work is always going to bring some penalty, both to the individual and to their employer. One thing that has been missed here is the impact on business of these sort of benefits, especially on the smaller employer. This may not always be direct, as at least some proportion of benefits can be claimed back from the governmant, and some is paid directly by the government, but indirectly there will be the costs of finding a substitute whilst the person (mother or father) is away, training the substitute or retraining the returning empoyeee (if it is a long break). These things can't be ignored in such a debate, which is why whenever there are family friendly policies introduced the CBI and other bodies always pop up. It may be that the benefit to society outweighs the costs, but you still have to factor in those costs. The wider the spread of maternity/paternity leave the more evenly those costs are distributed, which for a small employer probbly works out better (less likelihood of losing key employees for significant periods of time).

I really don't think that most mothers need more than three or four months to recover from childbirth, and if there is a year on offer a 50:50 split doesn't seem that problematic to me. No one is forced to take maternity/paternity leave anyway.

FWIW and in response to Eleusis' query about how long I stopped work to bring up my daughter, I think that maternity / paternity / parental leave takes three main forms:

1. Basic maternity leave eg the four months you get in France on almost full pay or the six weeks you get in the UK on almost full pay is about maternal health ie resting at the end of pregnancy and recovering from childbirth. It has absolutely nothing to do with breastfeeding, childcare or parental bonding - it's sole aim is to get the mother fit and well and back at work ASAP.

1. Breastfeeding leave eg the difference between (1) and up to a year that you get in the UK^, on minimal pay, or the extra month you get in France above and beyond the four months if you are breastfeeding (plus an hour per day once you return to the workplace).

1. Childrearing leave eg the further time after the end of (1)/(2) time up to a child's third birthday that French parents can take out of the workplace, with a guaranteed job on their return, to bring up their children.

I cannot see why fathers should have any right or interest in (1) and (2), though should they wish to take all or part of (3), why not? No reason at all why they shouldn't.

I'm not quoting anyone, Eleusis, I'm enclosing an argument (that sometimes emerges in this thread) in brackets for clarity.

That's a very good point, nooka.

Oh and having read that article Nieice, I absolutely agree with Starlight. It is offensive (perhaps not surprising as it came from the Express...).

Niecie - I have just read the article you linked to.

It is voiced in exceedingly un-PC terms (as befits its origins). But it also raises some very valid points.

Hmmm, I agree about the surgeon comment!

DH's aunt is a surgeon, though general surgery not CT surgery, and she has four children. I'm sure she must have taken some leave as she's only 9yrs older than him.

My goodness two weeks is enough rest for me after childbirth. Got bored stiff at that point and had to go get in the car and go somewhere with the kids. Okay, not everyone has trouble sitting still like I do. But, four months to physically recover from birth seems a bit extreme. Cetirtainly some people take a while (especially if say PND is involved). But I don't think we can say that a 4 month recovery period is standard.

And, if PND is involved, going back to work or getting out of the house may well aid one's recovery.

So, I don't think the full 4 months or even the UK's six weeks is just for physical recovery. MAternity leave is also about the needs of the child, bonding with them, etc.

My SIL had a natural delivery, and she was up and around the same day, even cooked and seved dinner.

Starlight - I have to query your assertion that women are happy to work part-time not because they wish to spend time with their children but because they wish to avoid putting their children into childcare for long hours and they wish to create a good child-parent relationship.

I work part-time so that I can be with my child. That is my main motivation - I just love being with her. Before she went to school I didn't work because I wanted to be with her all the time.

Oh come off it Eleusis. Many, many people are not as fortunate as you seem to be when it comes to childbirth, especially if they have had a difficult pregnancy as well.

Eleusis - it's not four months after the birth, it's six weeks before and ten weeks after the birth.

Actually, ten weeks is not that long given that women react extremely individually to pregnancy and childbirth - ten weeks is a compromise, it'll be overly generous for some women and completely miserly for others. But I don't know how anyone can get around that issue.

Twinkle, I'm just challenging Anna's point that the first 4 months ore for the sole purpose of mum's physical recovery. I think there is more to maternity leave than just physically recovering from the birth.

And, of course, it also depends what you do for work. I sit at a desk. And that is much easier to do post birth than run after a two year old with a new born in tow as well. If I was say a heart surgeon I'd have to stand up a lot more and then perhap... oh wait I'm not man therefore I'm not a heart surgeon.