Differences in maternity and paternity leave = massive sexism?

[Ryuk]

Why is leave assigned by parental sex (or on a major/minor division in the case of same-sex couples) instead of per child and divisible at the parents' decision? Isn't it sexist to say that as a female, I can have as much as X time off but my partner can have less? Not everyone needs that much time to physically recover, and some fathers/second partners would prefer to be able to contribute eaqual time.

Is there some kind of campaign for this yet?

The rest of Scandinavia has a similar approach to Iceland, and their economies are ok, probably sounder than the UK actually because people understand that if they want decent public services then they have to pay higher taxes, so the level of government borrowing isn't as high (and they don't feel the need to pay for trident etc which also probably helps), but I digress.

In Denmark the mother gets 14 weeks reserved just for her and the father 2 weeks to be taken at the birth, with a further 14 weeks at full pay that can be taken any time up to the age of 9. This can be taken concurrently with the mother if desired.

Outside of this either parent can opt to take up to a year in total on "day money", basically the same as unemployment benefit, so it depends a bit on how much you earn as unemployment benefit is reliant on you making a contribution to an unemployment insurance scheme, but I'll be getting about £75 - 80 per day when I go on to it (which is of course also taxed!)

Some companies offer enhanced deals over and above this.

In general both parents will take off at least a few months each and it would be considered a bit strange for a father to take no time off at all.

The leave can also be taken as part time working, so for instance you could plan to take 6 months of the year for the mother (14 weeks of which is at at full pay), then maybe 2 - 3 months (plus the 2 weeks at birth) for the father and then the remainder could be spread as a 4 day week for a couple of years.

Of course, childcare is highly subsidised and widely available (around £350 per month for a full time 5 days a week place in Copenhagen), although in some places you may have to travel a bit further to get to a place with a vacancy (maybe even as much as 5km!), but basically everyone wins because employers don't lose their workforce, there's no disincentive to employ women rather than men (who are just as likely to take 6 months off) and parents can take a decent time off without having to worry about the financial consequences (too much), or if they go back to work that the day care is bad for the kids/will swallow up their salary.

BUT, for it to work, you have to have the kind of society that is already organised around it, you could not just introduce it to the UK for instance as the infrastructure isn't there and neither is the political or social will.

It helps to have a strong female participation in politics.

It also helps to have few social inequalities and a well educated population who do highly skilled jobs. And let's be fair, probablythe only reason it works here is because small societies need everyone to be economically active and to produce a future generation of economically active workers, so making it easy to have a family and work is a win-win situation.

Just marking place as at work and want to read it all properly

At the end of the day, it should be up to the parents' who looks after the baby. The mother may have a better paid job than the father, so by the mother staying at home put financial strain on the family. Different people have different opinions, but it should be about choice.

Far easier to make a choice, SurreyDad if the maternity and paternity pay is the same and if the maternity and paternity leave is of equal length.

I think the concept of choiceless choices is helpful in this context:

Copied from StewieGriffinsMom'a post on an earlier thread:

"there is an American Holocaust professor called Lawrence Langer who talks about 'choiceless choices' where choice is made within a specific and limited paradigm [genocide] but that a choice still exists. We can make judgements about the types of choices people make if we understand the constraints to each choice. I've had problems with Langer's theorisation because I do think it limits the agency of individuals to act within their own specific limited paradigm. I think denying agency in the specific choices made is damaging to individuals."

"I've always been interested in this construction of 'choiceless choice' and its relationship to feminism because free choices can not be made unless equality exists however, even within patriarchal structures, we are required everyday to make specific choices even if they are limited through massive inequalities. They are 'choiceless choices' in some ways but agency does exist and people do negotiate that agency in order to make choices for themselves."

I am loving the sound of Iceland!

"Why does my hypothetical right to support my husband for six months while he cares for our children not rank as highly on another woman's right to bf without having to discuss it with her partner?"

What about the right of the baby to be breastfed (if the mother is happy to do so)? Does that not come over and above whatever the father wants?

I agree wholeheartedly with a shift in society to such that children are not only tolerated in the workplace, but welcomed! It would change so much about society for the good IMO.

From a personal perspective I would go with something like, 6 months for the mother and then a further period (maybe 6 months) to be taken by either. Would be nice as well to have the option of both parents being at home together for the first 6 months.

Our family us such that DH would love to be at home with teh children and I am very keen on work, and the opportunity for him to be able to be at home full time with them for 6 months would just be a dream for him TBH.

I can see your point Sakura, but for me this is one area where my personal situation and what I know of my own life and the men in it, over-rides the "patriarchal danger" if you like. I think that many men are kind and good and would love to be with their children more, and that will benefit everyone, and preventing it on the basis of what might possibly happen with divorce seems like a very negative starting point. But then I know that we differ a lot on the subject of motherhood and working and fathers and all of that sort of thing, so I'm not surprised to see a divergence of opinion here.

Whatever happens 2 weeks pat leave is totally bloody ridiculous, it should be 6 min.

I don't think my workplace would be a healthy environment for young children and babies. I'm not alone- I think taking children into many places of work could prove damaging for them.

I haven't, sprogger - I was exploring what you'd written further. Sorry if I didn't write it clearly.

It's also not necessarily either/or- some mothers may want to express and work full time. Sounds like hell on a stick to me, but some might.

I should have said 'And what about...' rather than just 'what about...'.

tethersend - it depends on how strongly you believe in attachment theory. The consumption of breastmilk isn't the only benefit babies/children get from being breastfed. To me, it is vital that I (or DH ie. a parent, but, in the early months, I believe it should be the mother as it is the mother that the baby is separating from) am there to be close to my children for as long as they need me to be, and it is infuriating that it just down to luck that we can afford for me (or DH) to do that; and that for most parents, the decision about when a child is ready to fully separate from his/her parent is decided by the state (ie. by when school starts). I feel lucky to have the knowledge and support (and guts) to not send my children to school and allow them to detach as and when (and how) they are ready.

I think this is where it all gets a bit complicated, as our personal preferences colour so much how we feel about all of this. And it's where people like sakura and I guess you lacking would diverge from how I feel.

it's a tricky one.

I feel that the mother having to take the whole lot is unfair on both the mother and father as it assumes that their feelings and desires and so on will fall along with stereotypical ideas. This is no good for me as in our relationship our gender roles WRT childcare are effectively reversed, and I know we are not alone in this. So from my POV I am not being protected, I'm being confined IYSWIM. As a family unit we feel that it's good for a baby to be with parents for the first year, as a family unit it would lead to most harmony if I do the first 6 months and DH does the second. Lovely for the children too.

It's a tough one, and I can see both sides TBH. I hope this doesn't turn into big row! It's so hard to talk about these things without getting worked up sometimes.

Lacking, I work with children with attachment disorder and have a different view to you on this matter. It would be a really interesting discussion, but I don't want to derail the thread... Look forward to discussing it another time though

Suffice to say that those mothers who do not wish to follow the attachment parenting model in such a way may choose to work full time and express breastmilk in order for their child to receive the health benefits- I was reinforcing the idea of flexible parental leave which can be divided amongst parents as they see fit (after a statutory period of maternity leave), as per the Icelandic model, and didn't want this to necessarily mean a child would not be fed breastmilk if the father becomes the main carer for a period of time.

I get you tethers.

ISNT - I don't see how that diverges. It doesn't assume that at all. I am a libertarian at heart and would never assume to think it would be a good thing to order mothers into a SAHPing role. However, through my work, I am shown over and over again how heartbreaking women find it not to be following their instincts, whether or not they are aware that that is what is causing their heartache. I hear from mothers who are dreading sending their children to nursery; who long to go back to work...but are dreading leaving their children.

Of course fathers often feel like this too; but I think that biologically, somewhere it is undeniable (IMO) that we differ, is in the hormones we produce in the early months of mothering...particularly if we breastfeed and our bodies continue to get hte message that we are mothering a small baby.

When the hormones would naturally start to wind down, as breastfeeding naturally comes to an end, so it happens to be the common time mothers begin to feel the need to be more separate from their children; and children often become ready to separate from their mothers - around 5-7 years of age.

I'm starting to believe, the more I read, and the more I do the work I am trained for, and the more I mother!, that we are essentially the same as men, apart from when we are pregnant and lactating; when our bodies are caring for our more vulnerable babies before they care for us. After they get to an age when their immune system is more developed; their psyche is more ready for independence; they make a natural separation aided by the mother's natural desire to move away from such full-on mothering duties as her hormones change back to their pre-pregnancy state.

I'm not feeling worked up - enjoying the respectful debate

BREASTFEEDING - is it also sexist that (most) men don't have boobs? Or a uterus?

Ha, really restful looking after 4 dcs....

In Sweden they can split their REALLY long parent leave between parents.

Sounds really hard for businesses to cope with. But more to the point, the majority of families the mother takes on the responsibility of the kids (who sorts out what happens when kids off school/hopsital appointments etc). In fact, this applies in every single family I know. Note, it could be that the solution is the dad doin it - but still the mum who has the basic responsibilty of ensuribnmg it's sorted...

tethersend - yes, I see what you're saying. And of course, still getting breastmilk is a huge advantage over not getting it...even if you're not getting mum along with it!

I think that this still all goes along with the idea that a overhauled society, where we live more naturally - children part of the the adult world - would enable 'attachment parenting' (hate that term!) to occur without it compromising the mother's opportunities to be an equal part of the adult world as well.

"In Sweden they can split their REALLY long parent leave between parents.

Sounds really hard for businesses to cope with."

Isn't that why trying to get women to 'fit' into a man's world equally won't work; the only thing that would is changing society completely?

I needed at least 9 months to recover from my pregnancy. I had SPD and my job is quite physical. If I had gone back to work at 6 months I would have been signed off sick.

Having 9 months off meant I could breastfeed PROPERLY. I had a relationship with my baby and not a breast pump. I am crap at expressing and exclusive breastfeeding would have been impossible for me if I had gone back to work early.

Life is unfair and the whole process of having babies is sexist. Its mother nature that makes it sexist.

"Life is unfair and the whole process of having babies is sexist. Its mother nature that makes it sexist"

yip, thems the breaks

I couldn't walk without searing pain for the first 3 months. There needs to be some recognition that pregnancy/labour/BF is hard work. Mother nature has made having babies very unfair.