Is maternity leave sexist ?

[mozhe]

I think so.....surely it should be parental leave that is available to both parents,( or maybe even members of the wider family network, like grandparents ? ), and there should be financial incentives to encourage both parents to take it. What do other people think ? Instead of trying to make maternity leave longer should we not focus on supporting parents back into work sooner and providing better/cheaper/more appropriate childcare...

Show you the mountain? Forgiove me if I just recommend a few books and ask you to do the actual reading

Here's a few books for you, do you think you'll ever read them?

Why is Sex Fun - Gerard Diamond
Mothernature - Sarah Blaffer Hrdy
The Blank Slate - Steven Pinker
The Moral Animal - Robert Wright
The Ant and the Peacock - Helena Cronin

I could type you complete psychology sylabus'..a whole new world for you to discover

No evidence to support what theory M?

"that the children of WOHMS will suffer mental ill health in later life."

Firstly, what is a WOHMS?

Secondly, there is lots of evidence that insecurely attatched infants suffer mental health and social problems in later life.

But those can be children of stay at home or working parents. Children who have two loved parents they see regularly and a carer like a nanny, granny, sibling or nursery worker don't suffer at all and indeed often benefit. You don't get that dreadful clinginess some children whose mother has made their life which actually can be a huge burden on a child later.

Look I can't spend all my time on here trying to reason with you, when you are clearly arguing from an unreasoned stance. Life is too short, talk on MN all you want - you don;t make policy.

havent read all replies, but no not sexist. Men dont give birth, men dont breast feed. I am looking forward to having 10 months off work once the baby arrives, HELLLOOOO can you say "attachment". I work bloodly hard in my job, and no i wont be rushing back, god its only last few years so mnay woman have gone back to work, what happened to being a mum being good enough reason to stay at home?

l

I know but in the brave new world Blair is bringing in mothers will get 6 months and then father's can take 6 and may be your other half would like those 6 months once you're back? Obviously not all men will and some won't be allowed by their wives even. And it's not "off". It's harder than work being at home in some ways.

should add there is research to support children are better off with one main carer than many, and yes I would love DH to have more time off after baby comes, as would he, but someone has to pay bills!

But MT isn't that where the policy is going - that women give birth and fee so yes they get that firts time off etc and then men can have 6 months after the woman's sixz months so the policy is that men are as good as women at looking after children and fair modern sexually neutral stance which recognises the huge attachments many fathers have to their under 1s and their attachment to them. So the policy is towards general neutral leave for under 1s and a jolly good thing too.

..no, all I think the research showed was that children in bad nurseries - state ones with huge turnover of staff were under more stress. That was then misconstrued by those factions in society who want to keep women chained by guilt to the home. Then other research showed some advantages to children of having a number of attachments which most children have anyway - most at the very least bond with their fathers never mind grannies etc. and also those in nursery school from 3 also do better than at home one to one with over protective mother.

Insecure disorganized attachment IS damaging but there isn't any evidence that the children of WOHMS,( Working Outside Home Mothers...)are more likely to suffer that...My children are definitely securely attached.Happily.

The only research i read was about placing under 2s in day nurseries instead of mums or child minders, children over 2 did well in nurseries. L

Mohze, you said: "Rattleskuttle- childbirth should not be equated to a major op ! Unless of course you have a c/s....otherwise no, it is a normal/natural part of a woman's life."

just because something is natural doesn't make it easy. my own experiences, those of friends and what i have read all lead me to believe that it's not unusual for recovery after childbirth to take a long time, whether by caesarean or otherwise.

i would not tell you what you should or should not say.

...how am I telling you what to say ?

lis, yes I saw that too but I'm not sure it said it harmed them. It said they were more stressed. It was rather poor state nurseries not the ones most working mothers choose and the staff turnover was high. Also some of us particularly with loads of children find a nanny is cheaper who comes each day and that is different again. I wanted that - the child - tiny baby in its own home with the one nanny it had always known and had so that's me thinking for my children home with one nanny was better than a nursery.

"and also those in nursery school from 3 also do better than at home one to one with over protective mother."

is that based on any research you have read Xenia? or is it anecdotal?

harpsichordcarrier - Xenia's right on "nursery" (pre-school) from age 3 and in fact most developed countries are moving that way if they aren't there already. I was reading an article about Susie Buffett (daughter of Warren) and her foundation which works to provide pre-school education in the US, which is very behind in that way. The idea is that children who attend pre-school are properly prepared for school aged 5/6 (depending on country) and learning to read and write. It is very hard for mothers/other carers to provide proper preparation for school in a home setting.

However, at 3, children ideally shouldn't be away from home all day while a parent is working - it should be pre-school, for a few hours max.

Xenia - I think you are being ridiculous. My partner is highly bonded with all his children, sees them nearly every day of the year, does masses with them while your ex-husband barely sees his children... who are you to comment on normal families or healthy relationships?

Your trouble is that you equate SAHM with female submission = bad, WOHM with female liberation = good. But it's just not that simple. Maybe you should catch up with some reading/travel the world a bit to understand how the world has moved on since you left school in the 1970s...

Xenia, when Anna says "the world" I think she is referring to Planet Anna.

monkeytrousers - yes, thank you for the support. I'm quite confident on this issue too.

I do understand that for mothers who don't spend much time with their children as babies it is a highly sensitive issue, and the ones that shout loudest about it being the "right" model must, somewhere inside, have doubts about what they are doing, or why would they be so incredibly vocal?

I have every sympathy with mothers who have to return to work very quickly after a birth for economic reasons. Actually, I do also believe that children quickly understand whether their parents are working for the good of the family (ie to put food on the table and a roof over their head) or for selfish reasons (they don't like being with babies) and that that influences their relationship. Far harder to feel that your mother doesn't really like being with you than that she has to spend some time away each day to earn money for food and rent.

mozhe - I would have expected someone as highly qualified as a psychiatrist to be able to sort through the arguments in a thread and respond in a rational, logical way - that's analysis. If you think it's OK not to be analytical, that's very, very worrying indeed - did you just read your medical textbooks, learn them by heart, and now apply the theories without standing back and assessing them?

Oh, grow up Anna. I'm getting tire of you taking pot shots at people that aren't related to the topic at hand.

And your argument that people go on and on about t topic because they doubt their choices could apply to you better than anyone else on this thread.

"Women have a critical biological role in child bearing, not child rearing."

What are you basing this assumption on? Wishful thinking? Because that is all it is,

General neutral leave may be mooted, but under vigerous debate from medical professionals and academics I don;t think it will be supported by that community - the political community is a different thing all together, but thankfully, they are listening to scientific opinion more these days.

Swapping primary carer roles after 6 months is not the best option for an already securely attached infant.