So what do we think about these parental leave proposals?

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Obviously first thought is "about bloody time too", but on listening, I'm not sure how good the details are.

"It's perfectly possible to work from early on and breastfeed - I have several friends who did this, all you need is a good pump and some determination."

No I'm sorry, just because you know several people who did it, doesn't mean it's "perfectly possible" for everyone. Some women simply cannot express any reasonable amount of milk, with or without a good pump, ever.

I agree with Sakura, that we do need to be extremely cautious at giving fathers rights at the expense of mothers' rights. We've only just gained some of these maternity rights, why are we so eager to give them away to the gender which has over and over again shown that it is not willing to suppport us in our struggle for equality and will commandeer any rights in their favour not our's?

I am all in favour of more rights for fathers, I think there should be more paternity rights - but not at the expense of maternity rights, because we will lose them. We are not yet living in a society where men and women are considered equally valuable and it is simply reckless to pretend we are. What we need, is for men to be entitled to take paternity leave irrespective of how much maternity leave a woman takes - if his relationship as a father to his child, is important enough for him to need paternity rights, then it's important enough for those rights to be in existence regardless of his co-parent's maternity choices.

My posts were a knee-jerk reaction

sorry

I just... how can I put it. A radical feminist analysis still needs to be had, and well, I suppose I don't want to see women devalued more than they are already.

I think the problem for women is not so much access to a career, but a devaluation by society of whatever they happen to do. Which is why all the top writers are men, apparently. And most of the nobel prize winners are men (or they just delete women's achievements as in the case of Rosalind Franklin), or the film-directers or the corporation heads... etc. This is what makes up The System, or The Establisment.

A break for childbirth is not really what's keeping women down is it. It's the devaluation of them as people, which refuses to reward them for their contribution to society or the economy, and painting whatever men happen to do as being superior

So I suppose what I'm saying is I'm not sure that the ideology behind paternity leave is wholly female-friendly, but that's because I'm very cynical, admittedly

I just don't want to see a further devaluation of what women do: be that art, science or childbirth.

Well, the last person anyone listens to is radical feminists, so The Establishment will go ahead and do what it wants anyway. Let's see how it all pans out in thirty years. It could well be all good...But I can't stifle this niggle I've got that all we're going to see is a lot of tired women

X posts HB, I agree with all you've written

I do understand and have sympathy with the points that you have both made. I also think it's very important that these points are raised as that is the beauty of this section, even if sometimes I think they are terribly cynical!

I suppose it's also hard not to see things through the prism of your own life - for me this feels like a great idea. We''l see how it pans out!

Personally I don't think many men will take it, at all, and little will change.

Yes I do see the point of considering this from the radical feminist viewpoint rather than simple gender equality, when the context it's happening in is not one where we are equal.

I would like the idea of extended leave for either/both parents independently of the other, however from a practical point of view I really can't see that happening any time soon, so it does seem to be this or nothing.

Also want to say again that this is not about men vs women, but about sharing the leave between the mother who gives birth and the other parent, who may or may not be a man. I know that probably seems a pedantic point, but I feel it's relevant in thinking about the ideology behind this, and that woman+man is not the only sort of family that exists and is affected by this. It also makes it clear that any argument to protect the mother's rights is not arguing that way because she's female but because she was the one who gave birth. So it's not and shouldn't be fundamentally an argument about male/female equality.

I think this is a reasonable start. BUT:

• it only applies to the second six months, and the second six months is largely unpaid. So, no good for families who can't afford to lose one income for longer than 6 months.

• employers who give enhanced mat leave pay will not have to give enhanced pat leave pay, so again it will remain financially better for the woman to stay off work than the man (even if she is paid more)

• it doesn't allow for both parents to be off at the same time, which surely would be a good thing.

• there is a huge cultural barrier to overcome. The government's own research says only 4 to 8% on men will take this up. This is partly because of money, but also due to culture. My DH works in the financial sector (largely male environment); he is convinced his career prospects would be toast if he took extended paternity leave. And he may well be right.

"I just don't want to see a further devaluation of what women do: be that art, science or childbirth."

But if I felt obliged to be at home for a year because the only alternative was to put my child in paid childcare (which for whatever reason I didn't want to do) but the other parent of the child wasn't able to take leave to look after said child, it would be devaluing what I do wouldn't it?. "What I do" is so much more than having babies. So much more! Babies, growing them, delivering, feeling them, nurturing them has been a hugely important part of my life, but it's only one part, and babyhood is the tiny tip of a huge iceberg when it comes to mothering - the biggest and hardest bits come later IME.

By insisting that I and only I can be the caring parent for a small child you are devaluing ME! I a more than the sum of my generative organs.

I think there is a risk by concentrating so hard on the vital importance of the small amount of time that woman are pregnant and breastfeeding you are in danger of labelling women as nothing more than a walking baby maker.

The patriarchy loves nothing more than a woman who knows her place - 'pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen, was the old cliche. Why would feminism want to do the same thing?

And as for the rights of the father? Don't care too much about that TBH. Call me selfish. I do care about the rights of the mother to be more than simply a mother. And the rights of the child to have a close relationship with both it's parents.

"I a more than the sum of my generative organs.

I think there is a risk by concentrating so hard on the vital importance of the small amount of time that woman are pregnant and breastfeeding you are in danger of labelling women as nothing more than a walking baby maker."

Orm, I think that is a danger, but that shouldn't make us afraid to claim it IYSWIM. Giving away our right to spend time with our babies, isn't going to stop the patriarchy defining us as nothing more than baby-makers. The patriarchy will always fight back against any progress for women, using any arguments against us, but that shouldn't stop us from arguing our cause.

But why see this proposal as a threat? It seems to me to offer as much as it might take away.

Oh I see it as both.

A threat and an opportunity.

Like I say, I don't think it will stop sexism in the workplace - sexism is hydra-headed, as soon as you cut one head off, it grows 2 in its place - and I think that there will be bad consequences for some women - but I think that it will alleviate it to some extent and overall, I hope it will be a positive thing. The idea that men should take paternity leave and look after children is a good thing overall IMO.

I also do think that there is merit in ensuring that men and women can take the time off together for the first few weeks, but that men should have some extended time in the home with the children, where just they look after the child, without the woman there. Otherwise, lots of men are going to use their paternity leave to play- act parenting while women do the real work. (As they currently do at the weekend.)

And yes, before anyoen starts, I know that lots of men do real parenting too. But I'm not talking about those ones.

Ormirian, I agree with you that babies are only one part of a woman's life. But the point I am making is that childbirth is the ultimate act of creation, and it happens to be women who have been gifted with it.
All other "wordly" creations men and women were given in equal measure, give or take. Oooh and it makes the patriarchy furious that they can't control life. Only death. Which is why they're obsessed with wars (death) and controlling female fertility (abortion, marriage, prizing virginity, vilification of "bastards" )

LOVE the hydra-head analogy

Ormirian, the patriarchy loves nothing more than a steady cheap supply of female labour. The industrial revolution was built on cheap female labour, where women were paid a pittance, and had to stand up in the factories, pregnant and barefoot.

Agree with you there sakura. It has driven the patriarchy mad over the millenia that only woman can do this wonderful thing.

But the thing that drives it even madder is woman (and men) who don't conform the easy well-established stereotypes.

ullainga
the majority of leave would I'm sure still be taken by the Mothers therefore as far as I am concerned doing this would 'harm' the majority of families at the expensive of giving a choice to only a very few, not worth it IMHO

also there is ?evidence/a suggestion/? a belief that small children are better cared for in a home environment by either 1 or a very small number of careers, if what I think would happen is correct this policy would then be actively harmful to most families

I'M a SAHM angry rad socialist femmo- not a stereotype
WOmen should absolutely keep chipping away at the system in every which way they can, through their work and careers, but they shouldn't confuse feminism with shopping a la Sex and the City. They were supposed to be liberated women when they were anything but. Those women were patriarchal constructs. From Miranda who looked down on steve because he did the baby work, to Carrie whose life purpose was to get a man who didn't respect her, to Sam who was a parodical charicature of male sexuality super-imposed onto a woman, to CHarlotte the stepford wife.

finance isn't the only career which would be toasted by taking extended pat leave

certainly in my career the unsaid pressure whether form outside or even within would then be 'well he can take pat leave, it's not paid anyway oh sod it I'll go back to work'

I don't buy the 'well it works in Sweden' line we're not Swedish or in Sweden we have culturally different ways of behaving both at home and at work, different childcare and tax different parenting beliefs.......

I read that in Sweden men still dominate in the upper echelons of the corporate world, and women are still overrepresented in the lower end of the economy. Will hunt for the article

Well if I were to have any more babies DH would be sadly disappointed as nobody would be pinching any of my Jeremy Kyle time

"they shouldn't confuse feminism with shopping a la Sex and the City."

Never seen it. Not interested in it from what I've heard. But I think the characters that you mention are no more relevant to most working mothers than to SAHMs. The WOHMs I know are dedicated to the well-being and happiness of their children, they just choose to go about acheiving that in a different way.

I have had enough little comments over the years from some of the people I work with to know that they aren't entirely comfortable with me. I have 3 DC, I work full-time, I do well at my job, I have well-balanced happy kids. That surely shouldn't happen!

my mother worked full time up the career ladder and had five kids. Yes, it certainly made her MIL (my gran) uncomfortable.

I decided on another path, and I don't think my mother or maternal grandmother have quite forgiven me for having children so early. So my path also made people around me uncomfortable. Certainly my peers think there's something wrong with me for becoming a "dull" SAHM, and I myself have real issues with the financial dependence aspect

It's The WOman On the Other Shore isn't it: you have to live in another woman's shoes to know what it's like for her.

The SAHM/WOHM debate is just made up by the media to stop women from feeling solidarity with each other. We all do our best with what we can in the way we can.

It would have been great for us. I didn't WANT to be at home for a year, or even 6 months, with my babies, and DP likes being at home.

In practice he just took unpaid time off, and I went back before I had to, but it was very irritating that we couldn't just pass on my maternity leave to him.

how did this become about SAHM/WOHM?

I don't understand the argument that this proposal harms women. Women can still take just as much maternity leave as before, if they want. They will now have the choice to hand some of that (some or all of the second 6 months) to their partner.

I can see the arguments that this doesn't go far enough in ensuring men play they part in looking after their children. But I really struggle to see how this is a bad thing for women.

Is it somehow anti feminist to suggest that men might be just as good at looking after children as women? If so then I have really misunderstood feminism...