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...

I think one reason I got my second job was because I had a 1 year old and could say yes I've had children but I have a nanny and it all works - rather than I might disappear to have babies and never be seen again. Even better I was hired again when I was pregnant with the 3rd.

Thre is a cohort of women who are not very committed to work because their other half earns more who become even less committed when they get pregnant, seem to owe no loyalty to their employer, use any excuse to be off sick whilst pregnant and then mess the employer around by not saying when or if they will be back and meanwhile the employer is left with not being sure how much maternity leave they need to cover or if they should have permanent replacement. By no means all women are like that of course and as someone said below some women can't work to 40 weeks.

I agree, Xenia. When I was pregnant with my second I took every opportunity to remind people that I had ananny, would most certainly be returning, and I had a track record to prove. But, evenstill, HR insisted on paying me out for everything I was owed (including holiday) in case I didn't come back. I felt very much as though I was being pushed out the door with no expectations of ever seeing me again.

It actually annoyed me. In fact, I wonder if they do that to men who go off on paternity leave. I bet they don't.

I had fewer issues than most people as I took 2 weeks off which for a lot of men I know is their standard paternity leave. In fact sometimes they take 3 which I think my brother did as they tack on a week's holiday etc too. With my last my son's father was actually home longer because the baby came at the start of the school holidays and he wasn't back at school until mid Sept.

Your husbands prejudice doesn't guide stats. If you don't want to listen to what they tell you and prefer to listen to your personal prejudices I'll let you two carry on in your little superiority contest. Enjoy.

"I agree, Xenia. When I was pregnant with my second I took every opportunity to remind people that I had a nanny"

i bet everyone really enjoyed you boasting about having a nanny!

What irresponsible HR departments have you been talking to that hire mainly on whether an employee is going to go and have kids? Any decent HR will hire on a far wider basis of ideas. I actually had to argue with the HR where I last worked because they were hiring a huge percentage of women, as they had proved to be more responsible and deal with the job better than many men who were hired and so the office started looking like an Ann Summers party (I was the supervisor and it didn't help my job!!). There was a huge mix of ages and family/no family backgrounds and that was barely taken into consideration, it was down to how well you'd be able to do the job and how professional you could appear (was a sales based business).

Think that the people pushing the idea 'women having babies has set every woman back in the workplace' are actually introducing that idea where it wasn't before.

MT, of course my DH alone does not guide stats. But, he is but one example. I have met many people at my own work who expect young women to start familes and not come back... even if they aren't married. But, come to think of it my choice of a 22 year old was probably not a good one. I think late twenties or ealry thirties people tend to think even ore "oh, her clock must be ticking".

I do not boast about having a nanny. If you read some more of my posts you will soon discover that I am not wealthy. But, I bend over backwards to foot the nanny bill and make self available for work, which in turn will hopefully one day get me out of debt and in a position to buy a house in the crazy London house market. There is a common misconception that nannies are for rich people. But, I would argue that nannies are the only sutiable childcare for someone with a full time job/career. I start work at 7:30 and leave at 6:15. There is no nursery/childminder who will do those hours. And even if there was, it would be a lot more expensive than a live in nanny. So, I am not boasting, but I am getting the word out that I am committed to my career and I will be back... soon.

"What irresponsible HR departments have you been talking to that hire mainly on whether an employee is going to go and have kids?"

I'm not speaking of people in HR. HR does not make hiring decisions alone. The department manager has to give the ok.

I was supposed to go from contract to staff position when I was pregnant with my first child and I was told by myboss, who did not work for HR, that he could hire someone staff knowing that she was pregnant. Illegal? yes. Could I prove it? no. I did nothing because I wanted to go staff and laying a law suit on the company wasn't going to help that goal.

sorry.

"...could not hire someone staff knowing that she was pregnant..."

in answer to the op:
pregnancy and childbrith happen to women, not men.
if men have a major operation they are entitled to sick leave, but perhaps their wives should have an equal right to the time off, lol

Yes, that's why women have 6 weeks on 90% pay but it's also the case that there is no reason a man can't look after his child from month 6 - 12 as most women are "better" by then (obviously a few but sadly a very pathetically low number in the UK, breastfeed after 6 months so that's relevant) and the new rules will help ensure fathers get their chance at home too.

Why do wha I assume are stay at home mothers keep going on about superiority? I have never felt superior to anyone. If I feel anything it's the opposite. I'm the one with the divorce. Whatever you earn and whether ou use a nanny (cheap care for 3 under 5s by the way compared to 3 full time London nursery places) you don't feel superior to anyone. Is that instead those talking about superiority feel "inferior" and if they do they are wrong to feel it.

Mozhe, I think this is a shocking thread. Unless you can honestly say that you have read and tried to comprehend the ideas of those who disagree with your opinions about work being the first priority, then this has served no purpose. It would be useful though if you tried to open your mind up to what other women are saying. Not to hammer you with the obligations of your job here- but it seems wrong that you should be so out of touch with the aspirations/ideals/values of so many women. And by out of touch, I dont mean you have to agree with them, just to appreciate that these are strong genuine moral opinions, not lazyarse methods to 'try it on' by a bunch of shifty swindlers. Because when all is said and done Im sure you exercise a great deal of power over various women, patients and staff, and for you to be sat in a ward round pontificating on matters such as how long a woman should be kept in for/given a sick note for, or just the subtler aspects of assessing someones personality ( so do you see ft mums as drifters/people lacking motivation/coping skills?) when diagnosing/monitering them.....it would be very disturbing if you really were as robotic, condemning, judgemental and rigid as this cartoonish persona that you are posing/posting as.

But if you really are just having a bit of fun, and playing devils advocate.....then shame on you. Someone who tells a sexist/racist joke doesnt get let off the hook by claiming they were just fooling around. Skittish irrelevant spontaneous humour is more revealing than anything else. So even if you feel this is just fooling around, I think you need to muse over the possibility that you really are quite out of touch with a lot of peoples values.

Daydreambeliever

That post was more slanderous than anything I've read which was written by Mohze.

Many many women for many years have said giving too enhanced maternity rights to women but not to men is sexist. It is self evidently so. It is not a joke. It means women if there is a marital discussion obviously stay home even when they are fit enough to be back because if the mother is home there is pay and if the father is home he gets nothing. of course it is very very sexist indeed. No one could say otherwise. Not surprisingly Blair is changing this so we get the 6 months maternity and 6 months paternity leave and the Scandinavian countries have been doing what they can too and lots of measures a foot to get fathers more involved and in particular rights to fathers which are not transferrable to mothers so fathers use them or lose them which has worked abroad.

We are getting there and we don't get there by taking legal steps which make it inevitable sexist patterns continue.

In fact quite a few women need a bit of a push so measures which tend to give men rights to flexible working and to stay home but not to women might actually be the fillip we need for women's own good to get rid of this glass ceiling some experience.

What parts of ddb's post were slanderous?

I thought it was an excellent post.

xenia, in answer to your reply to me, i think 6 weeks is not long enough and 6 months is more realistic. it is after all a major physical event (pg and childbirth), also bf should be encouraged not hindered. after 6 months i agree, mother/father for time off
btw i am not a sahm

daydreambeliever - excellent post.

Can i just say as much of a good idea it would be for men to take six months off work, what the hell is his employer going to do? If he works for a big company then it's not difficult, but if he works for a small business then it cause havoc for the employer. In some jobs men do, there is very specific training involved or finding cover for six months can be hard work. I am not having a go or suggesting no leave should be taken but as these ideas are being thought out, maybe a little bit of thought about the employer wouldn't go amiss?

Icing - you are right, and in any case abusive use of paternity leave is apparently rife in those countries that have it, since posting about this yesterday (see below) I have had quite a few conversations with women from the Netherlands and Scandinavia who all say the same thing - paternity leave is frequently grossly misused by men for personal gain....

I say this because my dp owns a bakery and one of his bakers is going to be taking his 2 weeks perternity leave soon, his hours are 2/3am-10/11am. My dp will have to cover this himself as well as doing his own jobs so for 2 weeks he will be doing 2/3am-5/6pm because you can't employ a temp baker just for 2 weeks because it will take a week to train him in the ways my dp does things at his bakery so it's not worth it.

Icing, you sound very much like you are saying that mens jobs are more important than wonen's job. That is sexism in it's most blatant form.

Should we just have maternity leav for unimportant jobs?

Icing, does your husband not allow his employees to take two week holidays?

Thats not what i am saying at all, it's easier to find cover if the job doesn't entail specific training.

I think you should be able to defer some of it - e.g. where I work you can have up to a year off, so perhaps you could have 6 months off around the birth & then have the other 6 months at a later date, or maybe even in weekly slots?