Is Statutory Maternity Leave sexist?

[Pregnantabroad]

Instinctively I feel like statutory maternity leave is sexist but I'm struggling to articulate my argument. Any thoughts?

Sexist in what way? Towards men? Or women?

I thought it got changed to parental leave which can be shared?

I sort of understand - two people create a baby, one does the carrying, birthing and often feeding (and usually the vast majority of early care), that one also takes the hit financially. Is that what you mean?

Do you mean the mandatory mat leave for 2/4 weeks that is not optional? Or the general concept of leave to care for a new member of the family?

Why would it be sexist? Surely it's to allow mum to recover from the birth and bond with baby. When I had DD I felt like I'd been hit with a bus for a month afterwards whilst I recovered

You mean the bit that says "you must take 2 weeks’ leave after your baby is born (or 4 weeks if you work in a factory)."?

It reads at first look a bit patronising in mandating something when no other medical or biological cause gives such a prescriptive rule to an adult. I suspect the history is as protection from pushy employers though.

Oh did I get totally the wrong end of the stick?

TBH about the only time I have felt more fortunate than DH because of my sex was when I was on maternity leave.

I mean sexist in that it is unfair on women to pay them so little. IE full pay for a year would be equality.

If that were to happen the leave would be shorter. It's public money remember.

Why is full pay for a year equal? Why is either sex entitled to a year off work on full pay to stay at home with their baby?

An employer can't pay someone full pay when they are not doing their job?! [hmm. It would be unfair on the employer surely.

Sorry - just realised that my opening line was not clear at all! My question should have read: Is it sexist that women have to take a massive pay cut (through SML) in order to have children? And therefore, is it sexist of companies not to offer more than SML?

Would that not be unfair for those who choose not to have children? Maybe they could just have a random year off work and be paid for a full year?

Isn't the rate of pay the same for men who share parental leave? I don't know how that bit works as my children are older but I thought it was a lot more equal now.

I survived on MA as I'm self employed. It was same amount as stat pay. Most people I know got more from their employer at least for the first months.
I think stat may pay should be set at equivalent to NMW.

Women fought for mat leave - it's not sexist!

It wouldn't be financially viable for small companies to offer enhanced mat leave.

Who would finance full pay for a year? Some large organisations offer enhanced maternity pay for a certain amount of time, but I guess many SME s couldn't afford that and if mandated would just look to avoid employing women altogether.

All interesting thoughts.

Oh, I was right. Phew.

I agree that a year's full pay would be unaffordable, and unfair in those who don't or can't have children. However, it is true that having a child means a woman takes an immediate financial hit - in any fair relationship that's shared but that's not mandated. And longer term women's career progression is delayed by maternity leave and parenting. So OP has a point about sexism though I think capitalism is largely at fault. More family time would benefit men, women and children.

So long as women bear children and men don't, things will never be completely equal.

But women DONT HAVE TO take a massive pay cut? It's parental leave not maternity leave now.

You're welcome to stroll right back to work and leave the father with the baby for a year on statutory pay.

So no it's not sexist.

I live in Sweden. We have equality when it comes to working and having a baby. Parental leave is approximately 6 months for each parent. Statutory pay is 80% of your salary for the whole period. Majority of employers top it up to 100%. Plus you can take your leave when you like in the first 8 years.

When DS was born my DH took a month off. Then worked a 3 day week until he was 6 months old and then a 4 day week until he'd used up all his days, at about 18 months.

The pay should be 100% for as long as the woman needs to recover from the birth. I don't know, four weeks or so?

Pretending that giving birth doesn't have a massive impact on a woman's health is stupid and, yes, sexist.

That parental leave is not paid well enough is not technically sexist, though I suspect it mainly affects women. But it is stupid. Germany, at least, is worried about low birth rates, and ... yeah, well, I can see why people aren't choosing to have more babies.

But women DONT HAVE TO take a massive pay cut? It's parental leave not maternity leave now.

I know a gay couple who are adoption, one will be a sahd for a year while the other works.

What is sexist is that the reason more women stop at home is they earn less than their male partner.