Inequality in paternity leave

[Msfickle]

I'm 25 weeks pregnant and planning on going straight back to work after my baby is born. I run my own business and earn four times the salary of my husband. It makes perfect sense for him to therefore give up work.

I have just looked into the new paternity legislation and it seems that he is only eligible to apply once the child is 20 weeks old. So basically in order to go on paternity leave he has to give up his job altogether?

Seems to me that this is downright inequality and just another way of insisting that mothers take at least five months maternity leave which whilst great for some is just not practical for others.

I plan to write to Iain Duncan Smith but wondered if anyone else had any thoughts on this?

Unpaid paternity leave would be fine also - statutory is paid by the govt and therefore doesn't cost employers anything.

The longer someone takes the easier it is to cover for them in a way as you can find someone far easier to do a 6-12 month contract than 2 months etc.

I used to live in NZ funnily enough and didn't realise that.

Ms Fickle I can sympathise I earnt more the dh when the dcs.were born it is galling to have to give up the higher wage fora bit. However I would caution you against planning to return imeadiately.I know one person who planned this and she didn't manage it at all. Childbirth even if straightforward takes a massive physical toll. Also most women want to breast feed which takes a while to establish. I honestly think 3 months may be more pratical, if you pay tax and NI I don't understand why you wouldn't get MA for that time. I saved up like crazy in my 1st pregnancy so I could take a decent amount off time could you do that ?. Many morgage companies will give you a morgage holiday, maybe you could try that ?

'your situation is a rare one so you might have to suck it up' is a pretty horrendous thing to say.

why? Its fact. Laws only change if there are alot of people that want them to change. And I think the people that will want to work, and have their partner take baby post partum are a very small minority. Most women, want to spend the first few weeks bonding with their baby AND recovering from childbirth

you call peoples responses "outdated" which I find a bit horrendous!

Noone is judging you, but across the world its the cultural norm for mother to spend the first few weeks with their baby, so shoot me! but thats the way it is

I think you would be better focussing energies on how to make this work for you, and putting in a some contingency for the first 6 weeks at least

I am recalling a problem about slavery I saw where the women slaves had to work post partum, and were graciously allowed by the plantation owners to take breaks to nurse their babies. So I think the fact that we have a law that does provide at least for the first 6 weeks is a good thing

but I am sure you won't agree!

But such a law wouldn't prevent women from being the one to take the time off if they chose. It would simply allow for greater choice. I agree that in practice more women than men would continue to take the time, at least to begin with, because cultural shifts take a long time. But I do think gradually more men would take the time.

Not all women feel physically knocked sideways by birth anyway. I had a straightforward first birth, and even though I had stitches I was home, and out and about within 3 days. If I were running my own business I can quite see that within 2 or 3 weeks I might have wanted to resume that. It is entirely possible to combine bf and working (I went back to work at 12 weeks and bf until one year). And remember if the man were able to take the leave, he could take over night time feeds (mum can express) which means she's not sleep deprived.

Just because something doesn't fit the majority mould does not mean it shouldn't be seriosuslu considered.

then lobby for the law! no skin off my nose. I am just saying that I think its highly unlikely it will get changed as there wont be a huge surge of demand for it, thats all

Well personally I think the 'it's no skin off my nose' line is a poor way of thinking. It doesn't affect me personally either - my kids are nearly grown up- but who knows, it could be my son, or your son in the future desperately wanting to take the time off to support a higher earning wife...

And even where things dont affect your family personally, if you believe in equality then it makes sense to support such issues

That's how things change. I remember colleagues in the workplace literally laughing their heads off at the idea of two week paternity leave coming in.... The idea seemed alien then. Ditto for extended ML. People never imagined women taking an entire year off! These things seem alien until they happen- and then we realise that of course they make total sense

The only thing about changing this that would worry me is that women may feel pressurised by their employer to go back sooner because the father can take the leave instead.

So, I think their should be a minimum that the mother 'has' to take, say 6 weeks, or 12 weeks provided the birth has been straightforward.

But if women want to go back sooner and the father wants to take the maternity leave then why not? Our work offers adoption leave on the same terms as maternity leave, but either parent can take it (not both though)

Would you at least be able to claim maternity allowance if you can't get SMP? Might ease the financial burden a little? Don't know the ins and outs so sorry if irrelevant.

what change said

It took a long time to be able to protect the first six weeks for women, working women often has to return to work very soon after the baby was born, and very reluctantly too I imagine

for this reason, I feel uncomfortable about shifting this law. It does not sit right with me

I am all for paternity leave.

Msfickle you are self employed so you can do as you please. I continued to run a company and look after my first DD. I just didn't pay myself - you can give all your earnings to your DH and claim MA if you choose.

The law is there to protect the new born baby who, whether you agree or not is better off being BF. If you choose not to BF that is up to you, but the law is there for your baby's benefit, not yours.

I believe in equality, but I also believe in recognising fundamental differences between men and women. Men cannot give birth so don't need the physical recovery time a woman needs. Men can't BF, so if the law states they can't take their paternity allowance 'til the baby is 20 weeks then I support that law.

Grown up enough to make that choice

The law would not change to force women back to work! It would simply protect their right but extend the right to give greater choice

Oops lost the first part of that post!
If women want their partner to take the time off, they are grown up enough to make that choice.

Btw returning to work does NOT mean you can't bf.
My friends and I all returned to work at 12 weeks and continued bf. I knew other women from the hospital antenatal lessons who didnt bf and didn't return to work either. I believe the likelihood of bf is connected more to socio economic status, education of mother etc

12weeks is very different to imeadiately which is what OP says she isplanning

Calmlmemrs I couldn't have put it better myself.

A change in law will not change anything for women currently wanting to take 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months or not return at all. It galls me that people fiercely protect their own rights whilst not wanting others to change things to be better for themselves.

Social change does indeed take time and whilst there may be very few people who would take it up at first in time it may change little by little for those that want it. Those that don't - it doesn't affect!!!

I'm not going to turn this into a breastfeeding debate. There are those that do and those that don't and for every piece of research there is a counter piece of research. That is by the by as many women manage to breastfeed and work.

I would staunchly defend my right to choose what is right for myself and my family and if going back to work is right for me then that is what I will do. I don't need a piece of legislation to tell me I need to sit at home for six weeks if I feel able to get up and carry on.

I'm very aware that my birth experience might not be straightforward and that physically I may not be able to get moving as quickly as I'd like to and I'm realistic that I may need to be flexible here.

The judgement that comes from other women when a woman chooses to do something different to her is incredible to me especially when my choices do not affect hers at all.

Yes but it's her choice, and surely parents should be allowed to have as much choice as possible? She can go back at 2 weeks and bf if she wants... She runs her own business so I suspect can be pretty flexible about things. I am sure many women who run their own business would welcome legislation which allows their partner paid leave in the early weeks.

Good luck Ms Fickle I hope it all works out for you.

X posts there- that was to naughtymummy

Its a rare workplace who arent a bit arsey about mn taking the 2 weeks ime they usually try and 'persuade' them to take it as annual leave. I think its very, very difficult to go off if your a man

Hi Msfickle

Just wanted to say (and I've only read the first page so far so forgive me if I've repeating what someone else has already said) - do think about the options for your husband if he does stay at home with the baby for 6 months or longer i.e. if he gives up his job and then looks for a new one.

Plenty of us mothers have had a nightmare trying to find employment after a period as SAHMs and I just wanted to warn you that this could be an issue for your husband too (although I hope not).

Fantastic for you that you are keeping your career on track and that you and your husband are so flexible about which of you does the day-to-day baby care; good on you

I don't agree with enforced leave for women to 'support breastfeeding'. Not all women can or want to breastfeed, and the leave makes no difference to that. And many are able to breastfeed and work anyway. I'm glad we have parental leave, but it's taking the state interference a step too far IMO to say the woman must take x number of weeks because the government thinks she should be breastfeeding (regardless of her individual circumstances).

That's not even what the current law is, anyway. There's nothing to stop a woman going back to work after say 2 weeks, and hiring a nanny - it's just that she can't transfer the parental leave to her partner. Why would having the child's father at home instead of a nanny make any difference to whether the mother breastfeeds or not?

The 'difference between men and women' is irrelevant too, you can't transfer the first part of the leave to a female partner either.

Didn't realise that was to me. I think parental leave should be fully interchangable (we would almost certainly have used it). However I think the very early post-partum period is more akin to sick leave than anything else and should be protected.

noone has judged you, just politely expressed their opinion. Are people not allowed to have a dfferent opinion to you? becuase it lands like when they do they accude them of being judgy

why dont you just outsource to a gestational carrier, job done!

Also there is a world of difference between answearing a few emailsand flying round the world or organising important meetings. Just as an example I was still bleeding after 2weeks and couldn't wear tampax, also I would not have fitted into any of my work clothes.

That was rather uncalled for porcamiseria. Why are you hinting darkly that the op doesn't want to be pregnant and give birth to a child?! She simply wants to do that and then for the baby's father to take charge while she resumes her business

Naughtymummy- I would be very against any concept that ML is akin to sick leave. Sometimes women are sick or have additional problems post birth. But that is a separate issue. The default position should be that giving birth is not an illness, it does not automatically render women incapable and there is no reason why they should be forced to have weeks or months not working. I am not dismissing the problems that some women have. But personally I felt fighting fit (if rather tired) within a few days. And that was with stitches. I had a straightforward birth, I wasn't even in a hospital for it, and frankly if I had run my own business I expect I would have been happy to resume it within a couple of weeks. I think a lot of the reactions on here show a lack of imagination about running ones own business.

It's tricky actually because I'm sure we all agree that a post-partum woman shouldn't be pressured to be back at work before she is physically well enough (which will depend to some extent on the individual pregnancy/birth, and the nature of the job). But the question is how to balance that with not placing unnecessary restrictions on all families.