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?

Also I had the quickest recovery of all my freinds. It was a massive shock to me just how physically limited I was after the birth,it was the part noone had even mentioned before. I am assuming this is OPs first baby so I thought she might not be aware of these things (as I wasn't. However of course she can live her life anyway she wants. Forwarned is forarmed.

I was a tad rude, I concur

But I think the OP has been very offensive. I really resent being accused of "juging her" and "being outdated" when I just have a different view on postpartum care

It really fucking riles me TBH

hide thread time

There are also significant health benefits to bf for the mother, so also safegaurds mothers health

Why are you riled about it? The proposals people have suggested would not change a THING for women who want 3/6/12 months off. It would simply allow greater choice for many women who feel fine fairly quickly after birth, and who want to resume working. It's not about post partum care at all. It does not change a thing for women like you who are ha

Happy with the law as it stands! That's why it's so weird that you are getting so worked up about it

Im not remotely riled. I don't mind if the law changes, as I said we would probrably have used it. What I am saying to OP is that assuming and planning that she can be back at work (whatever that might mean) imeadiately (her words) may not be pratical. Only 40% of first time Mums have an uncomplicated delivery, she has on average 30% chance of c-section (no driving for 6 weeks). 10% of babies need some form of special care. To not consider that these things could happen and prevent her from going back imeadiately I think is a mistake.

As my analogy with sick leave, people take sick leave for elective proceedures (knees, hips, eyes) they are not "sick" either but are having time off to recooperate.

Joining thread to rant briefly that I am well educated and socoieconomically quite happy ta. And I'm a SAHM who chose to formula feed. Babe is happy, thriving and afaik his jaw is fine

Baby needs nourishment and he gets it - bf mafia can eff right off with their condescending and frankly ridiculous assumptions on every effing thread that even mentions bf.

I apologise to OP for that comment

I am mainly riled as OP seems to think people that dont agree are outdated

I work FT, and my DP is full time carer for my small ones. I am HUGELY supportive OPs decision to have her DP care for her little one, I wish her well

I do however feel that the initial months are quite a sacred time, and I would feel uncomfortable about a law that may imping on that time-thats all

Why is it if anyone mentions bf (which is hugely relevant to the early post-partum period. Someone yells nazi ? Defensive much ?

But you haven't explained how a law which PROTECTS the rights a woman currently has, and EXTENDS more choice to her partner, are 'impinging' on anything?!

Ps naughtymummy- wasn't addressing you with the 'riled' comment

Porca the issue I have with your view is that you seem to assume that extending people's rights would somehow threaten existing rights. No one has suggested such a thing.

If this were to become a change to legislation, women could carry on as they are if they still want to take the time off.

I'm afraid if on an individual level, some women would feel threatened by the fact that other women would take only a couple of weeks off and their partner would be main carer, then that's tough, legislation can't be dictated by irrational worries. Women should feel secure in their partnership and as a parent to make their own decisions. If a woman trusts a man enough to have a child with him, surely she can trust him enough to have an intelligent grown up dialogue about how their domestic set up runs?

And for the record- no this isn't a bf thread- I don't know why that got brought up tbh- I think a misconception that if you work you can't bf

It's not true that in Canada all the leave is transferable between parents. The first 17 weeks are maternal leave only (intended for the mother's recuperation and establishment of BFing.) The next 35 weeks can be taken by either parent.

I do however feel that the initial months are quite a sacred time but not everyone agrees with you so can we not have the choice so we all get to do what we want?

callme

I would feel very sad if we went so far, that it became the norm for women to only take 2 weeks off. and that some people may pressurise women to take less mat leave, as hey "your DH can care for them instead"

but thats my opinion, just an opinon!

There's also the point that such legislation would put women and men on a more equal footing. If it were accepted that it might be the man taking an extended period of leave immediately after the birth, there would be less likelihood of employers worrying about employing women of childbearing age. They would know it could equally well be the man who has some time out.

Great for the equality cause all round.

X posts there. Well- you're entitled to your opinion but personally I wouldn't feel sad if a woman wanted to get back to work, perhaps running her own business, after two weeks, and dad was caring for the baby. What's to be sad about? Lovely for all 3 people concerned. No one has suggested for a moment that women would feel pressurised to get back to work. Their rights would be protected in law.

But to plan for such a senario does ' nt account for the women with the best will in the world not being able to return to work, or not being the best thing for her health.

maybe I am being sexist, assuming only a woman can care for a newborn?

But I think for me, I think we should encourage as a minium the six week period, if nothing else but for the mother!

fuck, after DS1 I could not even sit down for 3 weeks!

But the woman could have 6 weeks off IF she wanted it porca! Or 6 months.

This is about treating women (and their partners) with respect to acknowledge that if they don't feel they need it, they aren't pressurised by the current inequality of legislation to take it.

And no, I certainly don't think only women can care for newborns.

Blimey I had no more idea than my dh what to do with mine. I don't think id ever even held a new born before.

We both learned together.

So what you are proposing is being able to decide after the birth how to split the leave . I think employers would realy struggle to wear that tbh

Maybe a compromise would be move it from 20 weeks (and I can see OPs point) to 8

gavel!