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

[Page62]

link here

i would really welcome this

or mums who with the best intention, could not breastfeed (they do exist.....) I think they would probably welcome a lot more flexibility in their arrangements.....

Wondered if this would be on here; I agreed to be the case study after my comments on a MN media request!
women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5998876.ece
To be clear, I was not aware of the part of the article regarding the cutting of maternity leave, I think a year is correct, and that we need higher pay for the first 6 months to encourage bfing. (Sheer bloodymindedness and encouragement from MNers meant I fed Scarlett for 2.6 yrs even though I had to go back to work after 10 weeks!)
However, I do still still stand by my opinion that it should be up to the indiviual parents, if they wish, to share some of this leave to suit their circumstances.
Am just chuffed managed to get bfing pic in the Times!

I don't think 3 months @ £104 per week or whatever it is would make or break the economy.

They can manage it in Sweden after all.

what a gorgeous picture Hiding! If I were you I would have it blown up poster sized and everyone entering the house would be forced to admire it

Thanks TYV - might just do that.
It is dd's birthday today and she thinks that is the reason she is in the paper!

Oh, I'm not saying that maternity leave is primarily about BFing either and agree it's about much much more and that fathers have every right/need to be involved and take time off. But.....that doesn't detract from the fact that the woman is the natural carer for her baby......'tis just mother nature isn't it? Although men are a lot more involved in the care of their offspring than generations previously, it's more a case of them being programmed by society to do it rather than being driven by some physiological process. Nurture over nature if you will.

I think that's true for some/most women Lackadaisy - but not all. And even when maternal instinct is very strong and does express itself in a desire to stay home with the baby, not all circumstances permit it.

Hidingmnname's article is a good case in point, where not having flexibility meant that no-one was able to stay home with the baby, rather than maternal instinct conquering all.

I am very lucky that not only do I want to stay home with my babies for the full year, I also love it, and I am not the main earner so it's possible for me. But I don't think the law should be built solely around my circumstances.

(My other post wasn't only directed at you btw! I was more musing on points made on the thread in general, having come to it a bit late.)

It's a great picture hiding

If they want to increase fathers' involvement with their children, why on earth don't they just stick with the current nine months and leave it up to the parents as to how they split it? This would allow exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months if that was possible for the mother and also allow fathers to have a few months after that to get to know their child better once he or she is not quite so welded to the mother's side. If formula feeding, then obviously you could just choose whatever worked best for the family and its finances in your particular circumstances. I'd like to see a year's leave split as required between parents, really.

But there should still be paternal leave to be taken directly after the birth. There is no substitute for that time when you're all together as a family for the first time and not all mothers have other family or friends who can help out in those early days.

Having read the article, I agree there is a case for parental leave to be taken by whichever parent wants to/needs to, but I think we are then in danger of even more discrimination against women in the work place and that women who do take the time off are seen as lesser beings somehow because they didn't go back to work, norks a dripping, eight weeks post partum.

Equally the women that do for whatever reason, be it need or want, are denigrated for being unmaternal or uncaring.

I think it will be several generations yet before there will be total equality for parental rights.

And then there are poor saps like me who would love to go back to work, but the childcare costs involved make it completely unviable economically, before we even get to the fact that as a rare woman in a male dominated profession, part time/flexible time is just not seen as an option

Do people think paternity leave for the self-employed should be available? (Do people even know it currently isn't?)

Yes it should UQD, and no I didn't realise it wasn't. I just assumed there would be an equivalent to the maternity allowance that can by clamined by women who aren't entitled to SMP.

That's exactly it TYV - if I had been able to transfer my leave entitlement to dh, we could have had the dc at home for longer, rather than at nursery. As I work from home would have been much easier to stop & feed, rather than stop and pump too! (I do this on the 2 days they are at home)
Horton - I think a year with flexibility would be ideal, yes.
Lack - thanks re the pic

The essentials of paternity leave in 2009:

-Currently, working fathers are entitled to two weeks? paid Paternity Leave.

-They need to give 15 weeks? notice and to have worked for an employer for at least 26 weeks.

-There is currently no equivalent for self-employed fathers.

-Father or mother can claim up to 4 weeks? unpaid Parental Leave in the year after the birth.

-In the first five years of parenthood you can claim up to 13 weeks.

-You can also request flexible working once you have been with the same employer for 26 weeks.

-Your employer must give a good reason for refusing your request.

-You also have the right, in theory, to take time off work for family emergencies.

"Do people think paternity leave for the self-employed should be available? (Do people even know it currently isn't?) "

Yes eventually, I would give a self employed dad £116 a week for two weeks. But I think that allowances for self employed women on maternity leave need to be established first.

I really don't believe it is for society at large (and that includes the childless) to subsidise parental leave that is not directly related to pregnancy, post-partum recovery and breastfeeding within the remit of what is currently called "maternity leave".

I do think that there is a case for subsidised parental leave (for either parent) for the purposes of childcare but I think that that is a separate issue to the pregnancy/post-partum/breastfeeding leave that should be about the absolutely necessary healthcare of new mothers and babies.

Does that make sense?

And I think it is immensely helpful to separate out what we are talking about.

Does having a father off work for a few weeks and able to contribute to baby's welfare by being there, giving support, doing jobs and generally easing the burden count as "directly related"? Or not? Just to clarify.

No. It doesn't. The father doesn't require leave to recover from childbirth nor to breastfeed.

I have nothing against fathers taking leave to support mothers/babies btw. I just want to clarify what we are talking about and what society as a whole should or should not subsidise.

Fine to make the distinction, as long as it works both ways - if fathers are not going to be paid for parental leave they should not be criticised for not being able to take it.

So Anna, what about my situation?
I could not afford to take time off at 117 a week, nor was I allowed to transfer that amount to dh so he could take time off (which we could afford to do)
We were penalised because the 'wrong one' of us is the main breadwinner.
Do you agree there should be some element of flexibility if parents want to use it?
If the mother cannot take the leave, surely transferring it to the father is better than the child having to go to childcare?

so Anna, would you take away a chunk of maternity leave from healthy, formula feeding mothers because it's not directly related to your remit? That's the logical conclusion of your argument.

• notwitholding the fact I think 6 months fully paid plus a further 6 months subsidised would be much better!

I think that women should get better and longer financial cover for "post-partum recovery and breastfeeding leave". I think that this is a critical health issue for women and babies and that society loses sight of this while we talk about "maternity" and "paternity" leave which gets confused with "childcare" leave.

i think a father is able to contribute to child's welfare
it was only with proper rest and support that my milk supply got established -- and that meant DH stepping up to the plate and me doing very little apart from BF during those first few weeks.
this is more crucial when there is no immediate family or help around