Who is for equal parenthood?

[Himalaya]

(this comes off the other equality thread but wanted to start it as a Q in it's own right).

So much of the inequality between men and women in society comes down to the structures and assumptions that push us in such different direction when we become parents together, and it starts with maternity leave.

Sooooo.... Here is my manifesto.

1. 1 months maternity leave for women giving birth.
2. 6 months parental leave for new parents to be taken anytime in first 3 years (with some flexibility for both employer and employee) . An individual employment benefit/right - non transferable.
3. Redesign school hours and terms and wrap around childcare to fit modern lifestyles rather than harvestime and mothers as main carers.
4. build/retrofit cities so that affordable housing, good schools and commercial centres are close together.
5. free chocolate

Does anyone go for that? Is there any county like that?

Would you support a cut in female maternity leave and an equalisation of parental leave?

Xenia - I think you have missed the point. It isn't about the supremacy of women with money over others - hiring a surrogate for money isn't about the equality of women. The issue is whether men and women can be truly equal. I believe they are equal but different and that unless men had babies physically the playing field is therefore not flat - it cannot be flat unless men suffer the same hormonal surges that pg brings.

Your argument also does not take account of the need some women have to conceive and bear the child as a rite of passage into motherhood. I prefer to see families as supportive and economic units where labour is divided in a way that best supports the physical and emotional needs of all the family and which remains independent from state support and dictat.

Unless you earn about £100 a week or in some job with enhanced maternity rights the 6 weeks at 90% pay (and very very little after that) means mean and women are for practical purposes treated pretty much the same. Obviously the rich can afford to swam around at home for 6 months or more on £135 a week but most people cannot afford that unless they have saved up or have a rich partner.

I don't understand this statement - I am lucky enough to get enhanced maternity pay for the first 18 weeks (6 weeks @ 90%, plus 12 weeks at 50% + SMP which equates to around 65% of my normal salary). I have had the full 9 months paid maternity leave so around 5 months of it has been at SMP rates only.

We have continued to have DH's wage, but I am the main wage earner with a take home around 35% more than his.

Despite a drop in income of of 45% since going onto SMP only, we have managed fine and have only had to tap into a small amount of our savings (we saved up enough to be able to have access to the difference between my salary and SMP for the five months, but haven't even needed to use a full months worth of this).

We are not rich and DH does not earn a huge salary, but neither do I only earn £100 a week.

I understand Xenia, that you are quite a high earner in a self-employed business? Forgive me for saying so, but you do seem to be a little out of touch with regards what are more typical earnings and budgets.

CDeT I agree - you have done it the way it should be done to give yourself a choice.

But the point of this thread is about equality in parenting.

Fathers should be extended the same rights as mothers. If the mother chooses to go back to work before 20 weeks with the mother returning to work why shouldn't the SMP be offered to the father rather than the mother?

Not everyone has a bad labour and a long period of recovery. Not everyone wants to take a long period of time off. I'm relatively happy with the arrangement we've chosen - it suits us. We can afford to support the baby without govt or employer support. My only gripe is that we should have the same entitlements as everyone else.

I've our into the system and paid 40% tax. That's why we have a welfare state - to put in and then get out again when it's needed

As for your general situation married, you probably have worked hard but there is no way you could have taken 8 years off of you hadn't married someone who made a salary that could you support you both. Not everyone in life can be a high achiever or a high earner. No matter how hard you work some people will never have enough money. Should they lose the right to have children? Is that how feminism works in your eyes?

But, DH and I have made equal but different contributions to our family. If women were better facilitated to work and switch mat/pat leave before 20 weeks how many threads do you think there would be about women being the right to ebf?

I brought a lot of capital (self made) to the relationship and that is what allowed my DH to continue with his chosen career as a man without means. The only well heeled end of the choice was that we took out a mortgage when we moved to buy a large family house for the family we both wanted. We could have stayed in the old house and if so, I could still have had 8 years at home (or more) because there would have been no mortgage to pay and DH's potentially very unreliable income at that time would have sufficed. Equally I could have done the same if I had married a teacher or a nurse or a fireman but I fell in love with DH.

Marriedinwhite - SMP isn't state support anymore than a state pension is state support - it's employee social insurance - you pay in your NI - you have entitlements which are related to employment.

Enhanced maternity pay isn't a state benefit either it is an employment benefit offered by some employers as part of their conditions of employment. They offer it to women who are fit to work(beyond pregnancy recovery) but chose to stay at home a bit longer with a
baby. They do not offer the same benefit to male employees who might equally well want to take the time at home caring for their child. I think that's probably going to get challenged at some point.

Married - you are coming at the whole topic from your own more privileged point of view. You worked hard and made alot of money which allowed you choices. What about all the people out there that work hard to bring home very little and could never ever hope to save up enough money to take a significant amount of time off? Should they not be entitled?

I dont disagree with married general point that people should be responsible for their own lives but the average salary is 26k and house prices are high which does leave much room for planning.

That said people should still do what they can.

Clarie, why don't you understandi t? I said most people get £135 a week after the 6 weeks at 90% pay and that most people cannot afford to lvie on that and tehrefore in practice male and female rights are pretty much equal and reflect the 6 weeks process of birth recovery.

if you get enhanced maternity pay (and I hope I as a tax payer am not paying for that) which is 65% of salary afterr the 6 weeks that's great for you but it's not what most people get. After 6 weeks they go down to £135 a week which is (£7k a year) not a very big sum and is probably not enough for most people with a mortgage and paying for childcare for one child already to live on.

So if you think people get 65% of pay they don't. It's £135 a week so I suspect I am more in touch than you are with what women on maternity leave are paid.

Creches in all offices! I would have gone back to work from maternity before a year had DC been down the hall and I could check on her throughout the day.

Do you really, really think it is nice for little babies to spend all day in their parents' office?

The thought petrifies me. I wanted my baby at home, in the park, with her granny... not in an institution.

Creches take babies out all the time,. London is full of sweet little toddlers being pushed to parks and having a lovely time with those caring for them.

I had a nanny at home and it suited us (and is cheaper if you havse 3 under 4 anyway) but I don't think a baby suffers, particularly as many people's homes in the crowded UK are not that good anyway. The children of the poor do badly (not all but many) and by age 3 is it obvious. Those in those types of environments at home do better in childcare.

I don't think SMP is a state support or that the old age pension is. SMP is funded by working people and quite rightly paid to people who have worked and intend to work. I do not think that wrap around care, funded by the state, or retrofit cities have anything to do with economic independence or choice - neither does free chocolate.

What helps people to be truly independent is ensuring they have good functional literacy and numeracy skills, supporting people to live within their means, limiting credit and good, high quality social housing interspersed in the streets where we all live rather than centralised on out of town ghettos. What is wrong with saving up to have a family or setting yourself up so you don't have to depend on others when a family comes along?

That's interesting about London creches, Xenia. Paris creches are not allowed to take children off the premises.

My children's nursery takes them out almost every day. Had to sign a form that I was happy for them to do it, which I of course am.

Xenia - I don't think most people get 65% - I said I was lucky enough to get it for a further 12 weeks after the initial 6 at 90% (and it only equates to 65% - it's actually 50% of my salary plus SMP).

However, for the remaining 5 months of the 9 I have had SMP only.

You said:

"Obviously the rich can afford to swam around at home for 6 months or more on £135 a week but most people cannot afford that unless they have saved up or have a rich partner."

My point is we are neither rich, my DH is not a high earner (in fact draws a self employed wage that is quite a bit below the national average) and while we have some savings we have not really had to use them and yet I have managed to have 9 months off. True we have had to make some sacrifices and be a bit more careful with money, but there has been no discernible drop in our distinctly middle class lifestyle.

As far as I can tell, this is typical of most of my friends and family who have had babies, none of whom are particularly wealthy or have high earning partners yet all of whom have had at least 6 months off work after having their babies.

I don't think having at least 6 months off is unusual and as higher rate tax payers only account for 10% of working age adults in the UK, it is fair to say that most of those that do have the time off are not rich and do not have high earning DP's. They must therefore be managing on £135 per week plus whatever (non-rich) partners earn.

This idea that there is no way anyone could possibly manage on £135 a week without being rich, having a high earning DP or thousands in savings seems to be one that is commonly espoused by those who themselves are higher earners for whom £135 is not a lot, but who don't realise for those of us who are not higher rate tax payers it is quite a bit (for me it is just over a quarter of my take home pay and I earn around 35% more than the average UK wage).

To dismiss £135 per week as 'very little' is extremely disingenuous to those of us for whom it is actually quite substantial (and yes, I do consider 25% + of my take home pay substantial)

The average pay is £20,000 so that's about £384 before tax a week and maternity pay £135. I still think a lot of young couples with a mortgage and paying for childcare for child 1 which they cannot suddenly cease when child 2 comes along other wise they lose the nursery place or nanny find the £135 not enough to cover expenses. However I agree that some people will manage. You are right that some people also live very much within their means.

£135 a week is £7k a year. There are not that many women who work full time inthe UK who make that as it is half the minimum wage.

But many can and do manage in the short term to be able to spend a few months at home with their newborn (oh and average salary is about £24.3k now I think)

I guess it doesn't really matter as I think we agree that maternity leave should be able to be transferred to the father IF that is what works for an individual family.

I do however maintain that this should not be to the detriment of existing rights e.g, no reduction in time that a women could potentially have as maternity leave (as per the OP's suggestion of making it 6 months for mom, six months for dad and non-transferable) and no reduction in SMP - so if the mom does return to work and transfers the leave to dad, he should get the payment up to current limits.

I would also like to see it ensured that if the leave does get transferred to dad then dad gets the same employment protection rights that women currently get.

When I was on mat leave with No 2 we reduced No 1's hours to one day a week, and as soon as funding for over 3yo's kicked in to 2 days a week. Since you're still getting childcare vouchers whilst on SMP without the value being deducted from SMP, nursery whilst on the SMP part of my maternity leave turned out to be pretty much free. Nursery had no problems with us reducing the hours for a fixed period of time, especially as they knew we'd be taking two full time places again afterwards. Maybe London is different.

Clairedetamble

But if SMP, SPP etc is an employment entitlement it shouldn't be dependent on what your partner does/doesn't do.

e.g. currently a dad whose partner is a student is not entitled to get any transferable paternity leave/pay, since there is none to transfer.

Yes I agree on same employment protection rights.