Paternity Leave/Maternity Leave - Working with a family

Klingon Hamlet

Here's where I get confused. Ladies have children, take maternity leave, and often return to part-time hours. Men remain in their jobs solidly bar the occasional job-perk of paternity leave of a week.

Dads therefore are likely to stay in their position whereas mums are a potential liability.

Now the question can be raised: is it a business' moral obligation to help sustain society's level of births, by accommodating female worker's gender-specific rights, or should more traditional home-maker/hunter-gatherer type situations be encouraged?

I mean, if kids bond closer to their mothers, surely the mothers staying home should be encouraged? Or is this a form of oppression?

Also, if a lady decides to have achild AND return to fulltime work, is this slightly selfish? Knowing the child will be educated/reared from an early age by a well-paid stranger?

I am genuinely for equal rights and encourage it. But I wonder sometimes are these rights exercised in an irresponsible fashion on a family/corporate level.

Personally I'd rather one parent stays home with the child. Personally, I've found children bond with both parents differently and equally. I believe one should opt to stay home, and the other work. It's a good balance.

I suppose the question arises: what if the mom goes back to work---does she take a year off first? What about the dad? What about the employer?

metrovelvet

For your last question KH I know of one couple who are very soon going to have to decide which one going to have to stay home because the logistics are just too unworkable. However even with that, the mother who is now expecting will be taking a year off, four years after taking her other year off and two different employers later, for the baby and the baby's needs. I think if this particular woman were stuck at home all day with two kids she seriously would have a breakdown. So my guess the dad will be staying at home, who has a great career in his own right. As it is they are going to have to hire someone to take the first one to school because they wont have time to. Its ridiculous. You cannot have it all. Thats what sucks about having choices.

There is just not enough room in one household for all those dreams.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

That's an across the board problem in this country top to bottom. The staff all think they are doing you a favor by showing up on time, from plumbers to salesmen for your bin collection. THere is no sense of customer or client satisfaction here.

It should be about service and I know we laugh at americans but at 21 I was taken thru jfk to catch a connecting flight by an air hostess and her cop friend. the hostess had noticed a mistake on my ticket and got me on my connection.

Its more a value system that is not embedded here.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Here's where I get confused. Ladies have children, take maternity leave, and often return to part-time hours. Men remain in their jobs solidly bar the occasional job-perk of paternity leave of a week.



Dads therefore are likely to stay in their position whereas mums are a potential liability.

I think we need to take off the gender goggles and say there are women who are career motivated too and women who are mothers who work in areas such as sales or with their own businesses who cant take time off.

there are also people who are not parents of both genders who must be very pissed of with the situation.

so what we are talking about people who are commited to their jobs and thise who are not

so why should the enthusiastic carry the unethusiastic

Personally I'd rather one parent stays home with the child. Personally, I've found children bond with both parents differently and equally. I believe one should opt to stay home, and the other work. It's a good balanceI suppose the question arises: what if the mom goes back to work---does she take a year off first? What about the dad? What about the employer?

ideally -if you can afford it and many cannot

thats not always possible or even feasable and the guy as breadwinner is old hat too -for all sorts of reasons.

parents should not be guilt tripped to stay at home either and if the woman is the higher earner .....:cool:

Klingon Hamlet

@Metrovelvet: Do you suppose this is why some companies are inherently sexist? That some companies prefer to invest in male employees over female,due to the cost and interruption caused by maternity leave/switches to part-time?

Also, I think TBH if one has a great career and one has an on/off one, the on/off should ditch the job and stay home---man or woman. Have to be practical sometimes too.

Klingon Hamlet

CDfm wrote: »

ideally -if you can afford it and many cannot

thats not always possible or even feasable and the guy as breadwinner is old hat too -for all sorts of reasons.

parents should not be guilt tripped to stay at home either and if the woman is the higher earner .....:cool:

It's not guilt tripping. I'm saying one parent should stay home IMHO. Man or woman.

Why have a child and not rear it? If you're not financially stable enough to have a child and rear it, wait a while. If it's a surprise pregnancy, still---childcare is a whopper, alot of couples find it's the same cost to quit the job and stay home. Esecially if they're married---but that's another topic altogether.

eviltwin

I don't know if I would agree with you there KH. Hubby and I both worked when our eldest was tiny, she was minded by a family member and turned out okay.

We were teenage parents on welfare, castigated by society. We were made to feel like scum for not working but when we do we're being unfair to our child? Doesn't make sense.

Your idea might work if mum and dad are married and paying their way but for people like me we'd be damned if we do and damned if we don't

CDfm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

It's not guilt tripping. I'm saying one parent should stay home IMHO. Man or woman.

Why have a child and not rear it? If you're not financially stable enough to have a child and rear it, wait a while. If it's a surprise pregnancy, still---childcare is a whopper, alot of couples find it's the same cost to quit the job and stay home. Esecially if they're married---but that's another topic altogether.

OK society should allow for both

but you cannot look at this isolation from service delivery and what about these folks

there are also people who are not parents of both genders who must be very pissed of with the situation.

eviltwin

As a society we have spent decades learning that women can do what men can do.

Maybe now we need to learn that men can do what women can do ie parent their children.

If we had a more equal society where men and women had access to decent parental leave then that would benefit everyone. Women would be protected re employment and men would not be faced with having to leave their children if they wanted to be the one to stay at home.

Parental leave could be shared or taken by the parent who earns the least thus allowing the higher earner to continue earning.

It would make more sense long term.

Stheno

eviltwin wrote: »

As a society we have spent decades learning that women can do what men can do.

Maybe now we need to learn that men can do what women can do ie parent their children.

If we had a more equal society where men and women had access to decent parental leave then that would benefit everyone. Women would be protected re employment and men would not be faced with having to leave their children if they wanted to be the one to stay at home.

Parental leave could be shared or taken by the parent who earns the least thus allowing the higher earner to continue earning.

It would make more sense long term.

Err do you mean that aside from the likes of impregnating women that women can do what men can?

Self impregnation is not possible, women still need men so that they can have babies.

That aside, women and men these days are for the most part equal in ability in my opinion, be that in the workplace or as stay at home parents etc.

Your point about parental leave is very valid, if it was a case where maternity leave was replaced by parental leave then the state would actually save if the higher earning parent was a woman and the man in the relationship stayed home, they would pay out the same benefit but have more tax coming in due to the higher earning partner still working.

Blows my mind that in these recessionary times they've not thought of that!

I don't think though that your point about protection in the workplace is valid, I suspect that in the majority of cases women would still take parental/maternity leave, thus sustaining the current attitude that women in the workplace of childbearing age are a greater risk than men as they are more likely to take time off to have/mind children.

eviltwin

Well I haven't yet mastered the art of peeing standing up so maybe there are limits

Maybe more women would take time off, maybe they wouldn't. All we have to go on is what is happening now as we speak and as men don't get paid ML then there is no real option but for the mum to stay at home.

But I know that I went back to work after my babies and it wasn't an issue. Most of the women I know with children went back to work too. For most it was what they wanted to do but they felt they couldn't really admit to it.

Basically we don't know unless we try. As you say its financially sound given the state of the country's coffers at the moment and I think most parents would be happy with it.

I hope its not true. I'm currently back in the job hunting market and as a woman of childbearing age I find it very depressing that my experience and education would be overlooked because I might get pregnant even though my family is complete and my days of having children are over.

Klingon Hamlet

CDfm wrote: »

OK society should allow for both

but you cannot look at this isolation from service delivery and what about these folks

Offer them the same rights, as per Equal Rights

CDfm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Offer them the same rights, as per Equal Rights

and who will provide the services cos when we get all gendered up in our little gender factions we will organize everything out of existence

any single no kids out there who feels hard done by out there :cool:

CDfm

eviltwin wrote: »

Well I haven't yet mastered the art of peeing standing up so maybe there are limits

Maybe more women would take time off, maybe they wouldn't. All we have to go on is what is happening now as we speak and as men don't get paid ML then there is no real option but for the mum to stay at home.

But I know that I went back to work after my babies and it wasn't an issue. Most of the women I know with children went back to work too. For most it was what they wanted to do but they felt they couldn't really admit to it.

Basically we don't know unless we try. As you say its financially sound given the state of the country's coffers at the moment and I think most parents would be happy with it.

I hope its not true. I'm currently back in the job hunting market and as a woman of childbearing age I find it very depressing that my experience and education would be overlooked because I might get pregnant even though my family is complete and my days of having children are over.

a huge amount of common sense ET

Klingon Hamlet

When do you think maternity leave will be done away with, replaced by parental leave? It would certainly make things easier for mums who work and dads who stay at home.

Klingon Hamlet

CDfm wrote: »

and who will provide the services cos when we get all gendered up in our little gender factions we will organize everything out of existence

any single no kids out there who feels hard done by out there :cool:

Maybe I'm tired---but I don't understand your post.

I'm saying offer equal parental rights to any gender/sexual orientation. Even keel, no assumptions made, choices are made based on personal ambitions family-wise/job-wise.

CDfm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Maybe I'm tired---but I don't understand your post.

I'm saying offer equal parental rights to any gender/sexual orientation. Even keel, no assumptions made, choices are made based on personal ambitions family-wise/job-wise.

it is all very well making a virtue of family friendly workplaces

but there is no benefit to a lot of people and a downside in service delivery and adds to its cost

lots of occupations cant do that -a farmer ior any of the 15% self employed in the country cannot do it as well as contract or freelance workers

Klingon Hamlet

CDfm wrote: »

it is all very well making a virtue of family friendly workplaces, but there is no benefit to a lot of people and a downside in service delivery and adds to its cost

It exists right now---only it's exclusively available to mums. Are you suggesting abolishing maternal leave altogether?

lots of occupations cant do that -a farmer ior any of the 15% self employed in the country cannot do it as well as contract or freelance workers

Most of these do not get holiday pay or sick pay either. Part and parcel of self-employment. More freedom, less protection.

CDfm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

It exists right now---only it's exclusively available to mums. Are you suggesting abolishing maternal leave altogether?

just off to tll to start a thread

i hope you will weigh in and support me

Most of these do not get holiday pay or sick pay either. Part and parcel of self-employment. More freedom, less protection.

so it is mot available to everyone -you make it sound like a good thing

The Corinthian

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

I mean, if kids bond closer to their mothers, surely the mothers staying home should be encouraged?

Kids will bond closer to whomever is with them the vast majority of the time and any claim that either gender has an advantage in this regard is simply self-indulgent, sexist and unsubstantiated opinion.

Also, if a lady decides to have achild AND return to fulltime work, is this slightly selfish? Knowing the child will be educated/reared from an early age by a well-paid stranger?

My experience of those who moralize on such choices is that they tend to be those who chose one way or the other and wish to demonize the opposite choice so as to validate their own. Working mothers demean stay-at-home mothers, while stay-at-home mothers will vilify working mothers.

In reality I really don't believe it makes that much of a difference to a child. I've probably met more screwed up adults who had a stay-at-home parent than had two working parents, in my life. Indeed, wet nurses and leaving the child with a relative were very commonplace until relatively recently.

eviltwin wrote: »

Maybe now we need to learn that men can do what women can do ie parent their children.

It's a little difficult when crap like a mother's bond with her child is more important than the bond with the father appears to be the prevailing, and unsubstantiated, opinion.

If we had a more equal society where men and women had access to decent parental leave then that would benefit everyone. Women would be protected re employment and men would not be faced with having to leave their children if they wanted to be the one to stay at home.

I think you would need to include equal rights to the child if that is the case - having paternity leave to a child I've no rights to is a tad offensive, IMO.

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Most of these do not get holiday pay or sick pay either. Part and parcel of self-employment. More freedom, less protection.

A good friend of mine is a barrister (and thus self-employed). She loves her work. When she had her daughter, she had an elective cesarean, so as to be able to schedule time off, and was back working (from home at first) a month later. She looks down on mothers who stay at home as not providing financially for them.

A second case involved a woman I know, who had a lackluster career in which, I suspect, she had lost interest. She became a stay-at-home mother, would periodically mention her career and how she'd return to it, but never did and probably never will. She believes that unless a child grows up with the mother at home it will effectively grow up to become a serial killer.

The point of these two examples is not to say one model is better than the other, but to say that I suspect that more often than not people use "the good of the child" as a means to justify their own lifestyle choices.

metrovelvet

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

@Metrovelvet: Do you suppose this is why some companies are inherently sexist? That some companies prefer to invest in male employees over female,due to the cost and interruption caused by maternity leave/switches to part-time?

Also, I think TBH if one has a great career and one has an on/off one, the on/off should ditch the job and stay home---man or woman. Have to be practical sometimes too.

Yes but it extends beyong maternity leave. If they get sniff you have a child then they doubt your commitment. Its about service. They cant call you at the last minute and say "we need you to fly out to california to see our client ASAP." They dont want to hear "i cant find a sitter." Tough ****. The client needs you and thats what we pay you for.

eviltwin

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's a little difficult when crap like a mother's bond with her child is more important than the bond with the father appears to be the prevailing, and unsubstantiated, opinion.

I think you would need to include equal rights to the child if that is the case - having paternity leave to a child I've no rights to is a tad offensive, IMO.

.

Right so having rights for married fathers is out because that will upset the few who can't be bothered to have a relationship with their kids??

I don't know if you are speaking for experience here or not but I'm talking about my situation where my kids dad is my HUSBAND so him not seeing the children isn't an issue and for a man like that who actually enjoys being around his kids parental leave would have been a godsend.

metrovelvet

I think its the opposite eviltwin- that paternity leave for the non cohabiting father is a redundant policy. So paternity leave for married and men who live with their children would be more applicable. Fathers dont have to physically recover from anything.

The Corinthian

eviltwin wrote: »

Right so having rights for married fathers is out because that will upset the few who can't be bothered to have a relationship with their kids??

I think you've completely misunderstood - if anything I suggested the opposite.

The point I made was that giving a man the 'right' to assist the mother is all well and good, but rather insulting if you deny him the same rights as the mother towards the child. It simply maintains the myth than the child is the woman's sole dominion and a man is simply a resource to assist in her raising of the child.

An unmarried father, without guardianship, essentially has the same rights as a hired baby-sitter.

Nevyn

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think its the opposite eviltwin- that paternity leave for the non cohabiting father is a redundant policy. So paternity leave for married and men who live with their children would be more applicable. Fathers dont have to physically recover from anything.

I disagree, where the father to be is caring of the mother to be esp in the last 3/4 of the pregnancy he'll wake when she wakes and would be taking on doing stuff around the house which she physicall can't and then there is the exhaustion of being in hospital for the birth which can be 24 hours plus and a lot of fathers to be stay for that and then take part as much as possible in the hands on of tending to the new born. It is what expected of 'new men' when they be come new fathers.

So why they don't have the rigours of birth and pregnancy to heal up form and recover they still have to face phyical challenges and a level of tiredness which would not be present other then the fact they are expecting a baby.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

I disagree, where the father to be is caring of the mother to be esp in the last 3/4 of the pregnancy he'll wake when she wakes and would be taking on doing stuff around the house which she physicall can't and then there is the exhaustion of being in hospital for the birth which can be 24 hours plus and a lot of fathers to be stay for that and then take part as much as possible in the hands on of tending to the new born. It is what expected of 'new men' when they be come new fathers.

So why they don't have the rigours of birth and pregnancy to heal up form and recover they still have to face phyical challenges and a level of tiredness which would not be present other then the fact they are expecting a baby.

Fair enough but they dont need the same kind of leave the mother does.

Paternity leave then is really a right for the married or cohabitating fathers to be pursued?