How might it change our whole society if both men and women were equally responsible for...

[SpeedyGonzalez]

...childcare?

I'm referring specifically to taking career breaks - long or short-term - for one's own children. If our whole culture assumed that each partner was equally responsible, how would our society look?

Like Sweden?

There they have 480 days parental leave and mothers and fathers are expected to share the 480 days equally. It is possible for one parent to take up to 420 days of the total leave, but the remaining 60 days are then reserved for the other parent.

www.thelocal.se/14022/20080829/

Both dh and I would love that.

Exactly like Sweden, David51. And Denmark. And probably Norway and Finland, too.

I imagine one effectt would be that childcare would be valued more by everyone, and so you'd see more males going into careers working with young children.

There's a book I read some years ago, set on a fictional planet, where all the people are hermaphrodites, and can all become pregnant. It describes how society is set up with organised child care in the workplace and a system to cater for it. Very interesting ideas explored in that book.

Unfortunaely, I don't remember the title of the book (I read it at least 13 years ago) but I'm fairly sure it was by Ursula Leguin.

The Left Hand of Darkness

Sounds intriguing, alexpolis. Thanks for the tip!

well done for finding it! All I really gave you was the name of the author. But that's the right one. I used to read lots of her books years ago. She uses science fiction backgrounds to explore lots of issues.

Actually, I'm glad you found the title! Time for a reread, I think!

I think it'd be great, I think both parents working part-time and having equal childcare responsibility is the ideal

Neither sacrificing their careers, so neither is financially reliant on the other. One doesn't have the responsibility of being main carer.

So if the relationship did end both could support the children and carry on working as well.

But I still see a lot of women who want to be sahms or go part-time, and the man stay full-time.

I think they'd have to be a big shift in men and women's views on who should look after the children most.

Hereforlife - yes, I agree that it's the ideal, and it's suddenly occurred to me that it might have an effect on house prices as people's household incomes would fall.

I also think (or would like to think) that we'd be less stressed about lots of things - it would eventually change our focus from 'live to work' to a 'work to live' culture. Which would mean less productivity in the narrow sense measured by most businesses, but a better overall balance in terms of how we view life and ourselves. Hence less stress. Also lower productivity is better for the environment, broadly speaking.

alex - thanks for the suggestion, I've never read any of her work but now I'm intrigued!

this subject is one reason why the EU is the feminists friend - the EU Parliament voted a couple of months back on statutory maternity leave which could be shared with the father. I wasn't as generous as Sweden's (I think it was 5 months) but it was better that the current UK provision at any rate, and it would have been higher had some of the proposals passed.

Naturally all the UK papers kicked off about how the EU was interfering and try to steal our sovereignty

I think it would cause a lot of arguments as everyone would be fighting to be the one to stay at home and look after the kids.

I think maybe if it was exactly even their would be less arguments but if you had to organise it between the 2 of you it would just cause too many disagreements.

I would hate it. I think it depends entirely on the couple and who is more ambitious, who likes being at home, earns more etc. If it suits them people can do it now. I loved having the giant part of care and having career breaks and would have been really upset to be the one who had to go out to paid work.

I don't think that would be the case, noodle. After all, couples negotiate loads of areas in a (healthy) relationship and this would just be one more. And obviously, there would be factors (apart from pure preference) affecting who took the most leave, such as different salaries/stages in careers etc. If both couples wanted to be SAHPs, maybe they could take turns with the arrival of more DCs....

There would have to be a seismic shift in how employers viewed their employees.
Given how unprepared many are to deal properly with the time off needed for the physical necessity of birth and breastfeeding, I can't imagine them being that thrilled with having to "accommodate" the male half of the population as well.

But why do you think that responsibility isn't equal now? - why let society dictate your choices as a family. E.g. in my relationship both my husband and I took equal time off work after DS was born, which imo was very equal. We didn't let society dictate to us who should be responsible

Doesn't seem much support for equal childcare does there?

Tbh I think the majority of women still want the man to carry on working and the woman to go part-time or sahm.

And why not? If the choice was given see plenty of your children or go to work? I know what I'd choose.

The patriarchy has done a fantasic job though.

allnewtaketwo - you're right of course, but how many jobs allow for a man to take 240 days off? The fight for decent mat leave and the right to come back to your job is still not won (with so many women discriminated against while pregnant/on mat leave). I cannot see it being quite that straightforward for most men, when indeed it isn't for a lot of women yet, even with legislation.

'InmaculadaConcepcion '

I see it as I gave birth to them that gives me more of aright to doss around more with the kids. Nobody in their right mind is going to choose working over staying at home with the kids. I think it would cause too much resentment. I definitely wouldnt want things to change.

Also with subsequent DCS most mums have gone part time as they want to be with their kids so it wouldnt work financially to swap round after baby 1.

Hereforlife said 'think it'd be great, I think both parents working part-time and having equal childcare responsibility is the ideal

Neither sacrificing their careers, so neither is financially reliant on the other. One doesn't have the responsibility of being main carer'

Oooh - you have described my family set up! However, I would caution that is does take self discipline to resist the lure of material possessions over a quality home life. I was tempted into applying for a very well paid FT job, thinking of bigger house, better holidays etc etc. Fortunately I wasn't successful and I won't make that mistake again.

Our life is perfect. We have time for the children and time for each other (days off coincided yesterday and we went for a hillwalk together in school hours, bliss)

Only downside is the effect on our pensions, but we will have to worry about that later and I cannot imagine either of us regret these precious years.

Sorry dont know how your name ended up in apostrophes there I copied and pasted it

ithaka - not many people could afford that set up though

Equal rights to parental leave sounds like a great idea. It would mean there was no perceived disadvantage to employing women over men.

However, in practice what I think would happen is firms would just discriminate against parents (ie discriminate equally against fathers and mothers). In my experience of corporate life, firms took umbrage at anyone who expressed any need for a life outside the firm. The higher up the corporate ladder and the higher the pay the more this pressure to show loyalty and commitment was expected. If men had equal rigts to parental leave I think those men that took it would see their career suffer compared to men who didnt. The pressure would always be there for men not to take parental leave and for most couples the decision would still be for the mother to give up her career especially if she had already slipped behind the father in the pay scale.

This might be less so in the public sector and lower pay scale jobs but men who want to make it to the top of corporate life have to show a complete commitment to the firm. Anyone who refuses to work late, go away for weekend networking events, client dinners, etc, etc is marked out as 'not fully commited'. Men discriminate againt other men who are not part of their gang and lets face it the men at the top of corporate life tend to be the type that have a SAHM and woudl never consider taking time off themselves. Indeed I once got asked 'what is wrong with your wife' when I asked for flexible time to look after our DSs.

Having two parents trying to climb the corporate ladder is impossible in my view because firms will not accept the levelof flexibility required to allow it. I know a few 'power couples' where the man has taken a back seat to the woman's career. It is usually the other way round - but someone has to do it or the alternative is 24/7 nanny cover.

Truth is firms don't like employees who have commitments outside work. They dont want to give people flexible working patterns but they expect them to turn up whenever they demand it and stay late if necessary. The flexibility firms want is all one way traffic. Parents can't be flexible like that and accomodating them in the workforce is a pain in the neck as far as firms are concerned.

Surely this is about what people want to happen, rather than it won't work because it's not like it now.

If more women were high up in companies hopefully they wouldn't follow these unfamily friendly practices.

Saying this is the way it is, it can't change is a bit wet.

Saying I don't want it to change I'm happy the way it is, is a bit different.

And I don't see a big demand for change.

True enough, BB, but there are huge numbers of parents, including those who own and manage these firms so if it became a cultural norm that both parents can take leave, do you think perhaps some of those attitudes might change?

DH and I both worked for the same firm when I got pregnant. We were on the same salary and almost certainly could have elected to do a job share post DC if we had both wanted to. Our boss is a father himself and very sympathetic - as he was from the moment I told him I was pregnant and continues to be supportive ie giving DH the day off with no fuss when he needed to look after DD while I was in hospital. This is a small business, but our boss shows with the right mindset, it's perfectly possible to be flexible.

In answer to noodle I agree that many women will prefer to be SAHMs given the choice, but as you see above, DH and I had an equal opportunity to be SAHPs and although DH was more than happy to be a SAHD, he acquiesced to my own preference to be SAHM for the time being. We didn't fall out about it, just discussed what we wanted and came to an agreement.

So now we live on one salary and although we live in Spain where the cost of living is a bit less than in the UK, DH's salary is fairly modest even by Spanish terms. But we're not extravagant people and we're happy this way (DH's job has a 9-day fortnight with most of the office time done in the mid-afternoon - evening so he still gets to spend a lot of time with me and DD).

But yes, neither of us is currently paying into a pension and that is one aspect of the set-up that does concern me.

I don't see a big demand either

We both work you have to be pretty rich to live off one salary. I do less hours though and want to keep it that way. Neither of us have ever stayed at home and I only had 10 days maternity leave last time. Its what I had to do at the time. This time round though I definitely want the maternity leave I have earnt it!