Cut maternity leave and give new paid leave to dads -- what do you guyst think?

[Page62]

link here

i would really welcome this

I went back when DD1 and DD2 were 3 months old. It was far too soon, and it was a real struggle to cope (I exclusively bf them both for 6 months, and then partially until they were 1 year old each). The problem is I was the main earner, and we couldn't afford to do anything else.

With DS (age gap of 9 years and different DH), maternity provision better, and no longer main earner - but bring in half, so still significant. Took 6 months off, which was much much better, but still had to return to work for financial reasons (part time this time).

I think the priority should be 6 months off for the mother at a decent % of her pay. After that, I think there should be paid (SMP) leave which can be taken by either parent.

I agree wholeheartedly with BonsoirAnna.

I'm now at 22 weeks post partum and there is no way that I'm phsically or psychologically ready to go back to work, and neither is my feeding three times a night DS. And yes, I could give him formula to enable me to do it and hope that it'll help him sleep through the night, but I really shouldn't feel obliged to do it.

And also, I'm scared that my DH would do a better job of childcare and also keeping the house spick and span than me and show me up

lol daisy!

maybe that what secretly we are all worried about! being upstaged by our DH's!

Cosette, I agree, I had 6 months off with both of mine, I definately felt ready to return to work at that point, and my DD's both settled into nursery very easily. I observed a lot of older babies (9 months+) take a lot longer to settle into nursery than the ones who started at 6 months. If mat leave had been 9 months when I had mine I'd have finished work earlier and still gone back when my DD's were 6 months or so. My job is quite physically demanding and I found it extremely hard going once I was about 7 months gone.

I'm not sure that extending full-time paid parental leave is the answer, for me life would be easier if I was able to work more flexibley, and without being penalised for taking time off to care for my DD's when they are poorly. A more understanding work environment is what we need, that takes night-waking babies/toddlers into account and aknowledges that working parents will need time off to care for thier children when they are sick or during school holidays etc.

yes agree - although I am very fortunate that I do and can work flexibly - as I work for a pretty enlightened employer, as does DH. we do take it (a little) for granted now, and wouldn't choose to work for an employer who didn't allow it. Unfortunately I know for most parents that's still not standard.

Thing is, that as more men are encouraged to take time off to look after children, the more accepted it will be in the workplace, and the less it will be seen as a disadvantage of employing a woman.

I think this is why the proposal is "use it or lose it" - to encourage more men to take it.

I think it should be made so its up to the couple how they split the leave like in Australia.

If maternal leave is cut to 6 months so dad's can have 6 months as well - does that mean they both get the first 6 months off together? So the child will need to go into childcare at an earlier age?

And what about single mums - will they get 12 months aor only be allowed 6 months and lose out? Or what if the dad doesn't want any leave and is itching to go back to work after a week off?

Just posted this on the other thread:

The six month leave undermines b/feeding because of the fact that leave, in most cases, starts a few weeks before EDD. B/feeding recommendations are to b/feed for 26 weeks.

By VeniVidiVickiQV on Mon 30-Mar-09 13:25:46
I think it has the potential to undermine breastfeeding, since most women commence maternity leave weeks prior to their EDD. Therefore, 6 months leave would mean them going back to work - in some cases where leave has (had to?)started 11 weeks before EDD - when the baby was 15 weeks old. Most mothers like to establish weaning themselves before they go back to work, dont they?

There is also the issue of babies born prematurely. To cut leave to 6 months is harsh.

It shouldnt be an either/or situation IMO. Give fathers more leave, but not at the expense of mothers, or undermining breastfeeding and weaning guidelines.

Awful idea if it's not at the very least allowing a choice to share the leave rather than imposing a 6month limit on a woman.

agree with bonsoir and greenmonkies.

I wonder how many woman will opt not to return to work at all, rather than return at 6 months. I think it would make interesting research.

What if fathers don't want to take the leave? Maybe personal circumstances dictate that the father's wage is too high for this to make good economic sense, or in the case of me when I had my DS1, DH (DP as he was then) and I lived in different cities..was I to pack up my DS and send him off to his Dad's for six months??

As others have said, by all mens increase the paternity provision, but not at the expense of maternity leave. Call me old fashioned but babies need their mums, especially if they are to BF exclusively for 6 months.

And until men can spontaneously lactate, then I'm afraid that baby rearing will continue to be the main responsibility of Mum.

I am pro paternity leave. Not at the expense of maternity leave, and I passionately believe that women should not have to return to work until at LEAST their child is fully weaned onto solids at a medically acceptable time.

But maternity leave is about more than the right of the mother. It is about the rights of the baby, to be properly nourished (physically and emotionally) for as long as they need.

There is a period when only the mother can undertake this nourishment (if they are breastfed) but equally there is a period when the father can and should step up and this would benefit both babies AND women AND men AND many families.

Babies and fathers would benefit because there is much research on the value of present, hands-on fathers and anything which helps forge that bond is of value.

Women would benefit because until men are eligible for comparable paternity leave and career breaks (whether or not they choose to take them) women of childbearing age will continue to be discriminated against in the work place, and until more men (particularly politicians!) are encouraged to do a long stint of solo- childcare, the work of caring for babies and children will continue to be undervalued and underpaid by our society.

And society will benefit because it's proven that absent, uninvolved fathers are implicated in a multitude of social problems.

Totally agree with BonsoirAnna...
'Maternity leave should be about:

(a) enabling a mother to recover her health after pregnancy and birth. Too many mothers in developed countries still do not properly rest and heal after childbirth.

(b) breastfeeding a baby fully until six months, and weaning onto a full range of foods while continuing to breastfeed between six months and a year.'

Cutting maternity leave may not be the answer, but I'd welcome anything that gives greater flexibility to both parents. And maternity/paternity pay for self-employed as well.

In some countries the man gets a year off at 80% salary - I know friends who'd be better off on this, not having to spend on travel to work...

"Totally agree with BonsoirAnna...
'Maternity leave should be about:

(a) enabling a mother to recover her health after pregnancy and birth. Too many mothers in developed countries still do not properly rest and heal after childbirth.

(b) breastfeeding a baby fully until six months, and weaning onto a full range of foods while continuing to breastfeed between six months and a year.'"

But surely it's about more than this? Otherwise what's the rationale for continuing maternity leave for a year? I think that's a very dangerous argument that reduces mat leave to your ability to bf and your physical health.

I totally agree that too many people see it as a prolonged baby-holiday, but equally it's not just about Anna's A) and B). it is about FAR more than that - not least about the child's rights.

couldn't agree with you more theyoungvisitor

i think there is a risk in some of the arguments on here that the mother is seen as the more natural carer just by virtue of having the ability to bf.

Totally agree with both your points, BonsoirAnna. You must be enjoying this!

Shortly after I went back to work after having DD3, I had a meeting with a member of HR regarding my return to work. She was genuinely surprised that I hadn't had a period of sick leave following my maternity leave. I have no statistics to prove it but I suspect that must be common. Cutting the mat leave would really increase people taking sick leave imo.

page62, but the mother is the more natural carer by dint of giving birth and being able to nourish her baby. Changing the law so men get more paternal rights won't actually change that.

And where I welcome the change in the law, it shouldn't be at the expense of maternity leave or the needs of the child as the young visitor said.

I should add that I am not in favour of reducing maternity leave at all - I think any paternity leave offered should be in addition to the current maternity leave - and I am extremely pro-bf. I exclusively bfed both my sons and in fact am currently tandem feeding my eldest and youngest.

But at the same time I think it is incredibly reductive to say that maternity leave is primarily about breast-feeding and the physical health of the mother.

That somehow implies that anyone who has had a straight-forward delivery and is unable to breastfeed is just malingering at home enjoying a holiday or something.

There is a much bigger debate here - about the pros and cons (and cost and availability) of childcare for the under ones, about the emotional cost to both mother and baby in going back to work early, about the role of the father in a young child's life, about the perception of the work and value of childcare.

To ignore those other factors and reduce the issue to simply breast-feeding and physical health does no-one any favours.

I don't agree that maternity leave should be limited to 6 months. This would put most mothers back at work before their baby was 6 months old. If you are breastfeeding this makes no sense and I think it would lead to an increase in sick leave. Many women simply don't recover from birth in that time.

However I would like to be able to voluntarily give some of my leave to my DH. I was ready to go back after 7 months and would have liked my DH to have been our daughter's primary carer when I first went back to work. It would have taken the pressure off significantly.

oh in my ideal world, i would like paternity rights to be extended without sacrificing any of the maternity rights.

however, if i was asked to choose to give up 3 out of 9 months maternity leave to give my DH the ability to say take paternity leave for 4 months, then i would happily take it.

Bfeeding is great, but after mixed with weaning at 6 months, i would like my DH to have the opportunity to be a lot more involved in all aspects.

perhaps i don't mind this because i took ML for 6-7 months but worked up until week of due date so didn't have the dilemma of ML starting a few months before giving birth and only having a few post partum.

i think views may also be affected on how willing husbands are to take this up - my DH would relish it and would love to show me up -- and i would love to be shown up!

lackadaisycal, i hear what you're saying but somehow just tend to think of ML as something larger than that - i think it is a real opportunity for the whole family to a bond with each other.

I just wonder what childless people would think of this. Ultimately there has to be someone to do the work and pay for all this leave.