Following on from the Oliver James discussion...

[funnysinthegarden]

how about a campaign to promote the adoption of legislation granting equal working rights for both men and women? Inc equal Paternity/Maternity leave etc?

Count me out. Women give birth; women breastfeed. Men don't. Therefore women should be entitled to more paid time off than men.

Wow, that is so on it's head. Don't you realise that until both men and women are expected to share equal responsibility for childcare, then women will never have equal rights in the workplace, or at home for that matter

Wasn't one political party going to change it so couples could split maternity leave so mums could take six months and then dads could take 6 months? Best idea ever if you ask me.

DF, you are speaking my language. Until men are allowed to take equal responsibility for their children, then we will just keep having the same old arguments about childcare.

BTW don't care which party graps the nettle, it just needs grasping!

grasps not graps!

I would be in favour of a 60/40 split. There should be some recognition, in law, that pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding is hard work.

I can't really see the benefit of both parents potentially messing up their careers. It couldn't be compulsory because, realistically speaking, mothers need the time more than fathers. And if it was voluntary then men would have a very hard time persuading their employers that it didn't equal lack of commitment. I can't see it working. Although it might be of benefit to the ageing workforce, as employers would become reluctant to employ anyone of average child-rearing age, man or woman.

i absolutely agree FITG, i actually still find it quite shocking that DH and I couldn't decide ourselves which of us was best placed to be at home with our baby - that decission was taken for us purely based on our genders. Surely we should be able to decide.
TheCrakcFox, i think families should be able to decide what split works best for them - if, for e.g. a 30/70 split works best for my family, why on earth can we not have that flexibility?! As things stand, I could take up to a year off, DH only 4 weeks.

you can't mess up a career in 6 months! Anyway - some of us have jobs not careers.

Try telling that to some working women on here - being passed over for promotion, etc.

I'm with Elasticwoman. Women give birth and breastfeed. Most mothers want to spend the first few months with their baby and most babies need their mother most the time for feeding etc.

Gaelicsheep, that is precisely the point. As it stands employers are reluctant to employ women of childbearing age. That covers any woman from the age of 19 to 40plus. Why shouldn't men be subject to the same prejudice?

If employers did not know whether it would be the men or the women in their employ who would be taking the time off to care for their children, then they could not discriminate.

We will only break through that glass ceiling when men have rights equal to that of women.

jellybeans if women and men had equal rights, then individual families could choose who stayed at home for the first say 9 months to suit their needs. Noone here is saying that giving birth and breastfeeding is a walk in the park

I can see no benefit in a mother feeling forced into going back to work before she's ready, and I think that could happen. Let's not forget that giving birth, feeding, etc. is an incredibly draining process - physically and mentally - and many women need that 6 months simply to recover. Many families can't afford more than 6 months no matter who's taking it - the maternity pay situation is too crap. In our case we'd be talking about splitting 3 months and 3 months, and there's no way on this earth I'd be going back after 3 months.

As it would be a choice and not a necessity for men, I really can't see it not being viewed as a lack of commitment to their career. I'm not saying that's right.

GS the point is that men and women would have equal rights ie employers would have to give paternity an maternity leave on equal terms to both parents, including pay.

I admit it is a big ask, but why not? And if not then we will just keep having the same old arguments, which centre around how crap mothers are for putting their children in childcare

But at the end of 9 months paternity/maternity leave the baby would still be put into nursery. Oliver James would still not approve.

at the end of the 9 months maternity/paternity leave the other parent would exercise his/her right to take their 9 months leave.

BTW 9 months is hypothetical, it could be 18 months each and so satisfy even the most harsh parenting guru

But like I said, paternity leave would be a choice not a necessity, so I don't think many men would be risking taking that up. I don't think things can ever be truly equal in this respect - not until men can have the babies (if only!)

This differential does only apply for the first few months of a child's life. After that it really doesn't matter a jot which parent is working. I don't think accepting that mothers need maternity leave more than fathers need paternity leave should be preventing an understanding by society that either parent can look after 1, 2 or 3 year old perfectly well.

"BTW 9 months is hypothetical, it could be 18 months each and so satisfy even the most harsh parenting guru "

That really would be lovely but will never, ever happen. Not enough money.

Personally I'd like most of all to see decent maternity pay for 6 months, including at least some full pay, in recognition of the invaluable job being done in that time. Pigs might fly though.

That would have been infinitely more helpful than the pointless extension of the pathetic SMP to 9 months.

In my experience pregnancy was disabling - I felt I now knew what it would be like to be an old lady. Childbirth went well for me - but I still needed several months to get back to normal physically, every time. And that's not including the hormonal/emotional recuperation. Breastfeeding took several weeks to establish and I would not want to feed my baby any other way.

If men and women had equal and interchangeable parental leave and rights, there would be pressure on women to go back to work earlier - to the detriment of their own health and that of their babies.

I think it is sad that so many women are under pressure to go back to work too soon after childbirth.

As long as maternity pay is less than 100% of normal pay it sends out the message that looking after a baby is less valuable than working.

I would love this bit of legislation, because it would mean my daughter was still at home with a parent, instead of being with a childminder.

Babies need their mums (and mums need their babies!) but surely either parent is better than no parent - and that's not acknowledging that men miss their newborn children when they go back to work, too.

Current legislation is lovely - but useless for families in which the woman is the high earner, or when the woman has to go back in to work or risk serious issues with the company they work for.

My husband could easily have taken the time from his job, we'd have felt the drop in his salary far less than mine, even on the stat rate, and I could have expressed for him as easily as for the CM.

Not an option at the mo, so my four month old is with a CM, instead of her Dad.

I again agree with elasticwoman
'If men and women had equal and interchangeable parental leave and rights, there would be pressure on women to go back to work earlier - to the detriment of their own health and that of their babies.'
That is what worries me about it too.