Paid paternity leave mooted

iptba

I thought this probably deserved its own thread

Minister backs paid child leave for fathers

Move would let fathers play more active role in family life, says Fitzgerald

Prof Peter Moss from the University of London said policymakers needed to reflect on what kind of leave Irish society wanted for families and what the rationale behind these measures should be.

He suggested that Ireland could consolidate all existing leave – including parental leave – and follow the Icelandic “birth leave” model, which provides equal entitlement to leave for both parents.

It has five months of maternity leave, five months of paternity leave and two months of shared leave. The parent receives about 80 per cent of their income during leave, subject to certain conditions.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/minister-backs-paid-child-leave-for-fathers-1.1945817

Seriously?

That would be a fantastic development if it ever happened.

Certainly for my two guys leave wasn't an option, though I can't see anything as generous as the Icelandic version happening here.

Gael23

I don't think it will ever happen but would be fantastic if it did.

fits

ryanf1 wrote: »

I don't think it will ever happen but would be fantastic if it did.

why not? It happens in many European countries.

Seriously?

Though the following quote from the minister shows how it will most likely work:

"I favour an approach whereby the mother remains in control of the leave but can decide to share some of it after the compulsory period with her partner."

She, along with Ms Fitzgerald, expressed concern that any approach could “water down” existing maternity leave.

So its likely to be less about equality and more about 'enabling' women.

martinn123

Prof Peter Moss from the University of London said policymakers needed to reflect on what kind of leave Irish society wanted for families and what the rationale behind these measures should be.

He suggested that Ireland could consolidate all existing leave – including parental leave – and follow the Icelandic “birth leave” model, which provides equal entitlement to leave for both parents.

It has five months of maternity leave, five months of paternity leave and two months of shared leave. The parent receives about 80 per cent of their income during leave, subject to certain conditions.

I wonder who carries the cost of this 12 months in total of leave.

As a self-employed person, could I expect 80% of income to be provided by the State, or does this only apply to Public Servants, and employees.

How does this work in practice.?
How would a small Business cover these costs.?

Gael23

fits wrote: »

why not? It happens in many European countries.

This is Ireland we live in.
I do agree with that quote from Frances Fitzgerald. There are some women who wish to go back to work sooner than 6 months, on the other hand there are Dads that would like to be able to spend time at home also

Pawwed Rig

Seriously? wrote: »

"I favour an approach whereby the mother remains in control of the leave but can decide to share some of it after the compulsory period with her partner."

May I present the Minister for Equality. :rolleyes:
Yes guys you can have leave if your partner says it is ok. Otherwise Tough

Morgase

The model put forward by the minister isn't perfect, but it's baby steps (pun intended!) to get any parental leave at all enshrined for fathers. I would hope that one day in the not too distant future we would see something like the Icelandic model in Ireland, although I'm not holding my breath.

pwurple

Seriously? wrote: »

Though the following quote from the minister shows how it will most likely work:

"I favour an approach whereby the mother remains in control of the leave but can decide to share some of it after the compulsory period with her partner."

She, along with Ms Fitzgerald, expressed concern that any approach could “water down” existing maternity leave.

So its likely to be less about equality and more about 'enabling' women.

I imagine the fear about it being watered down is about women requiring some amount of time to recover after pregnancy and childbirth. Going back to work when your stitches are about to burst if you move too much, because it makes more financial sense, is what they are trying to prevent.

I'd entirely welcome any form of paternity leave. Optional, shared, compulsory or otherwise.

fits

Seriously? wrote: »

Though the following quote from the minister shows how it will most likely work:

"I favour an approach whereby the mother remains in control of the leave but can decide to share some of it after the compulsory period with her partner."

She, along with Ms Fitzgerald, expressed concern that any approach could “water down” existing maternity leave.

So its likely to be less about equality and more about 'enabling' women.

ryanf1 wrote: »

This is Ireland we live in.
I do agree with that quote from Frances Fitzgerald. There are some women who wish to go back to work sooner than 6 months, on the other hand there are Dads that would like to be able to spend time at home also

Contact them! Let your feelings be known. This is a necessary step on the road to enhanced fathers rights.

Pawwed Rig

pwurple wrote: »

I imagine the fear about it being watered down is about women requiring some amount of time to recover after pregnancy and childbirth. Going back to work when your stitches are about to burst if you move too much, because it makes more financial sense, is what they are trying to prevent.

I don't think that is it at all. Of course there is a certain recovery time needed but the current leave of 6 months is many multiple of the recovery time required. The problem with this model will be that employers will be putting pressure on people not to take it. Maybe not direct pressure but implied pressure as in there is a promo going and Mary and Sue are both going for it. Sue only took a month maternity whereas Mary was gone for 5 months leave yadda yadda. It needs to be a minimum amount of obligatory leave for each partner with a balance divided up as the couple sees fit.

Unfortunately with the current state of play the only gains men will get here is where it can be demonstrated that women will benefit.

Gael23

fits wrote: »

Contact them! Let your feelings be known. This is a necessary step on the road to enhanced fathers rights.

Im a member of Fine Gael so I might do one better. I can propose it as a motion for discussion at our next conference!

pwurple

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't think that is it at all. Of course there is a certain recovery time needed but the current leave of 6 months is many multiple of the recovery time required. The problem with this model will be that employers will be putting pressure on people not to take it. Maybe not direct pressure but implied pressure as in there is a promo going and Mary and Sue are both going for it. Sue only took a month maternity whereas Mary was gone for 5 months leave yadda yadda. It needs to be a minimum amount of obligatory leave for each partner with a balance divided up as the couple sees fit.

Every woman and pregnancy and recovery is different. That's why the 6 or 10 months is too short for some women (especially those who get PND), but others would be good to go back in 6 weeks. Trouble is you can't tell in advance, so yes, it does all have to be a minimum obligatory amount.

Unfortunately with the current state of play the only gains men will get here is where it can be demonstrated that women will benefit.

If that's the way it has to be, then bring it up that way. I can frame it anyway people want as long as it comes along sometime in my lifetime.

-It's for women to get a break from childcare as well.
-it's better for the woman if daddy is able to put little snookems down for a nap as well sometimes.
-it's Less likely for women to be overlooked in the workplace if men are equally as likely to go on leave for their children.
-Better flexibility gives families the freedom to make better financial decisions (like the man taking some paid leave instead of the woman taking unpaid leave she doesn't want)... Ps, this one means more tax for the exchequer as well.


It's good for everyone. I could do a similar set for children, men, the taxman, whoever.

eviltwin

Isn't the current system of maternity leave tied in with issues relating to breastfeeding? Can't see many new mums who are nursing being able to manage if they are back at work full time. Mothers do need a certain amount of recovery time especially those who develop post natal depression so I'd hate to see mothers who maybe need more time off being guilted into going back to work early but its a step in the right direction. My husband was lucky enough to be home full time for the first six months after our last child was born and it was of immense benefit to everyone.

Pawwed Rig

pwurple wrote: »

Every woman and pregnancy and recovery is different. That's why the 6 or 10 months is too short for some women (especially those who get PND), but others would be good to go back in 6 weeks. Trouble is you can't tell in advance, so yes, it does all have to be a minimum obligatory amount.

You are confusing maternity leave and sick leave. Pregnancy is not a sickness and is dealt with separately within legislation. PND should be covered under sickness rather than maternity. By your rationale then all should be given the maximum 'just in case'.

pwurple wrote: »

If that's the way it has to be, then bring it up that way. I can frame it anyway people want as long as it comes along sometime in my lifetime.

But why should it have to be like that? Surely we should argue that it is for the benefit of the father to be able to spend time with his child and for the benefit of the child to bond with their father. In an equal society we should not have to pander to vested interests in the manner you are suggesting. This lady is the Minister for Equality after all. Her suggest seems tio be that mothers are more equal than fathers.

kunst nugget

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This lady is the Minister for Equality after all. Her suggest seems tio be that mothers are more equal than fathers.

The problem is that there are certain issues where the mother is going to be more equal than the father - if the couple choose to breastfeed being the obvious one. As much as I'd love equality when it comes to lactation, biology just doesn't give me the choice. I'll be honest, if I had been given the option to spread the leave between the two of us, I probably would have given my wife all our leave to allow her to breastfeed for as long as possible in comfort. The fact there is absolutely no paid paternity leave (even a token 5-10 days) is a disgrace though.

Pawwed Rig

kunst nugget wrote: »

The problem is that there are certain issues where the mother is going to be more equal than the father - if the couple choose to breastfeed being the obvious one. As much as I'd love equality when it comes to lactation, biology just doesn't give me the choice.

That is a fair point but could be addressed by employers providing facilities for breast feeding mothers. I would have been quite happy to push jnr up to see mammy a couple of times a day. This is not feasible for some though due to other government policies of scattering the work force as widely as possible in an unsustainable manner.

Bear in mind there are other ways to breast feed rather than direct mouth to nipple. It is not suitable for everyone but pumps can be an effective option.

Hey there will always be reasons NOT to do something but I doubt anyone can see a downside to a Dad spending time with their child. Since I went back to work I see my son for 1 hour in the morning and then put him to bed when I get home. Did we not vote recently to enshrine the rights of a child in the constitution? Surely the right to have parents is a basic right?

kunst nugget

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Hey there will always be reasons NOT to do something but I doubt anyone can see a downside to a Dad spending time with their child. Since I went back to work I see my son for 1 hour in the morning and then put him to bed when I get home. Did we not vote recently to enshrine the rights of a child in the constitution? Surely the right to have parents is a basic right?

I never said there was a downside to a Dad spending time with their Dad. I outlined why I would have sacrificed taking time off because ultimately I feel it would have been more beneficial to the child. Other people would have different opinions and I do think parental leave should be flexible to reflect this. I think it should require the consent of both partners and not just the mother's - that is nonsensical imo. A minimum amount of paternity leave should be in place of at least two weeks - it's time you're never going to go back but if we're going to have shared leave I do believe that the minimum maternity leave should be more than paternity leave because mothers go through the physical act of birth. Iirc, a mother is uninsured to drive a car for 6 weeks after a caesarean - I think that would be a fair point to start from.

Pawwed Rig

kunst nugget wrote: »

I never said there was a downside to a Dad spending time with their Dad.

Sure. My point was a general one rather than aimed at you.
Personally I was lucky in that I took 4 months off after the birth of my little boy. It is not time I would have traded for anything. Problem is most people can't afford that much unpaid leave*


*not sure I can afford it myself but sure it's done now :pac:

fits

kunst nugget wrote: »

The problem is that there are certain issues where the mother is going to be more equal than the father - if the couple choose to breastfeed being the obvious one. As much as I'd love equality when it comes to lactation, biology just doesn't give me the choice. I'll be honest, if I had been given the option to spread the leave between the two of us, I probably would have given my wife all our leave to allow her to breastfeed for as long as possible in comfort. The fact there is absolutely no paid paternity leave (even a token 5-10 days) is a disgrace though.

A colleague of mine recently took five months paternity leave after his wife took the first stint. He came into the office every day around lunch so junior could get his lunch.(mum works in same office). so it can be doable

eviltwin

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is a fair point but could be addressed by employers providing facilities for breast feeding mothers. I would have been quite happy to push jnr up to see mammy a couple of times a day. This is not feasible for some though due to other government policies of scattering the work force as widely as possible in an unsustainable manner.

Bear in mind there are other ways to breast feed rather than direct mouth to nipple. It is not suitable for everyone but pumps can be an effective option.

Hey there will always be reasons NOT to do something but I doubt anyone can see a downside to a Dad spending time with their child. Since I went back to work I see my son for 1 hour in the morning and then put him to bed when I get home. Did we not vote recently to enshrine the rights of a child in the constitution? Surely the right to have parents is a basic right?

Employers already have to provide support to breast feeding mothers but its not always practical. First you can't always be available when the child needs a feed or you need to pump, second you can't always expect to be able to return home or have another person bring the child to you. Pumps are an option but they are not ideal, I tried using one and would pump for hours to get enough milk for one feed, not practical at all. Breast feeding is an important part of the equation, our rates are already the lowest in Europe and many women quit once they return to work because they just can't make it work, we should be wary of making those rates drop even more. I would hope that there could be some way of allowing men and women to share time so there is no pressure on a woman to return to work. There is also parental leave too which very few people seem to be aware of, that could also be used but very few people do.

pwurple

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You are confusing maternity leave and sick leave. Pregnancy is not a sickness and is dealt with separately within legislation. PND should be covered under sickness rather than maternity. By your rationale then all should be given the maximum 'just in case'.

I didn't want to get specific, but there are most definitly post-pregnancy situations which require longer recovery, but are not illnesses. Most 2nd and 3rd degree childbirth tears are fairly serious. C-section recovery can be rough.

But why should it have to be like that? Surely we should argue that it is for the benefit of the father to be able to spend time with his child and for the benefit of the child to bond with their father. In an equal society we should not have to pander to vested interests in the manner you are suggesting. This lady is the Minister for Equality after all. Her suggest seems tio be that mothers are more equal than fathers.

Cutting off your nose to spite face though with that attitude. Fight it on whatever terms they want.

It IS better for women too, so the argument that it isn't good for women is very easily blown away. If you can't even bring yourself to actually say that it might benefit a woman, even if the result is to get men paternity leave, then I think that's a bit sad.

Pawwed Rig

pwurple wrote: »

If you can't even bring yourself to actually say that it might benefit a woman, even if the result is to get men paternity leave, then I think that's a bit sad.

With respect this is the usual type of shaming that occurs where men try to stand up for themselves.

newport2

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

With respect this is the usual type of shaming that occurs where men try to stand up for themselves.

The issue with the minister's current proposal of leaving it in the mother's control is that I can see men being referred to as selfish, etc if they "take" some of their partner's leave.

They should leave maternity leave pretty much as it is and bring in a number of months for men.

newport2

pwurple wrote: »

It IS better for women too, so the argument that it isn't good for women is very easily blown away. If you can't even bring yourself to actually say that it might benefit a woman, even if the result is to get men paternity leave, then I think that's a bit sad.

Of course it's better for women, both at home and in the workplace. A mother who has just given birth and is recovering and trying to look after a newborn baby with two other toddlers running around while Dad's at work is a situation I've seen many times, but should never be allowed to happen.

Unfortunately, our only hope of getting it written into legislation is through equality and women's groups applying pressure about it. There are no men's groups of any credible size to lobby the government, any attempts to set up a men's rights group would be ridiculed/vilified by certain elements of the media. Politicians only pander to large groups of people that they think can damage them, men are not seen collectively as a group.

Seriously?

The logical scenario is to divide leave with the mother getting a set amount at the start and the father receiving an allowance which can be taken after that point. Then allow the father to decide if their quota can be transferred to the female.

Let’s be honest here, quite a number of mothers use maternity leave not simply because someone has to look after a young new born, but because they like being with them at that young age.

The same is it may surprise people is also true of men, but we're expected to forgo that closeness to support both mother and child(ren) to the expense of our relationship with them.

pwurple

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

With respect this is the usual type of shaming that occurs where men try to stand up for themselves.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

There are numerous ways to attack this issue. Where did I 'shame' anyone for standing up for themselves? That's exactly what you need to do! Blow the ridiculous 'it's bad for women' thing out of the water with some common sense. It's easily done.

Why would you not address every and any argument against paternity leave. They are easily obliterated, because paternity leave is great! I think it's a fairly poor position from a political/debating stand, to not address a point, no matter how ridiculous it is.

eviltwin

Seriously? wrote: »

The logical scenario is to divide leave with the mother getting a set amount at the start and the father receiving an allowance which can be taken after that point. Then allow the father to decide if their quota can be transferred to the female.

Let’s be honest here, quite a number of mothers use maternity leave not simply because someone has to look after a young new born, but because they like being with them at that young age.

The same is it may surprise people is also true of men, but we're expected to forgo that closeness to support both mother and child(ren) to the expense of our relationship with them.

I think your idea of the set allowance with an option to transfer the allowance is a good one but mothers should have the option of being able to transfer theirs to dad if he wants it.

Your right that a lot of mothers who stay home only do so because they want to, not because they need to. They see it as their right as mothers but don't give much thought to the feelings of their partners.

I think part of the problem is that while women will talk very openly about the emotional impact of returning to work men tend not to do so, I don't know if that is men just being stoic or if they don't feel it the same as women. I think we have to acknowledge that men are not judged as harshly as women for returning to work, I wonder what society would say about a woman who makes a choice to go back to work before her maternity leave is up.

Pawwed Rig

To bring the analogy to the extreme, should Martin Luther King have emphasised the benefits to white people of black emancipation or should he just point out that discrimination against black people is wrong?
Were activists for female equality ‘sad’ where they didn’t emphasise the benefit for men more than the unfairness to women when campaigning for equality of opportunity? The shaming occurs where someone is described as sad for wanting rights for their own sake rather than wanting rights to benefit someone else.

PEACEBROTHER

Do Fathers get paid for parental leave as of now ?

I know there employer doesn't pay them but somebody said they would get money back from PRSI ?????

pwurple

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

To bring the analogy to the extreme, should Martin Luther King have emphasised the benefits to white people of black emancipation or should he just point out that discrimination against black people is wrong?
Were activists for female equality ‘sad’ where they didn’t emphasise the benefit for men more than the unfairness to women when campaigning for equality of opportunity? The shaming occurs where someone is described as sad for wanting rights for their own sake rather than wanting rights to benefit someone else.

No, they weren't 'sad', because they took it and used it like I am suggesting!

The abolition of slavery groups used arguments about wealth generation... Based on their slaves earning, and hence spending .

Female equality groups had to allay the fears of the time about the effect on men's jobs, specifically. The industrial revolution, the world wars... Remember? Part of the driving was that more women working would ease mens workload by helping out in factories.

Seriously?

pwurple wrote: »

Part of the driving was that more women working would ease mens workload by helping out in factories.

So they were easing the workload on men to facilitate them getting shipped off to be killed on the battlefield; with allies like those...

kunst nugget

Seriously? wrote: »

With allies like those...

Yes, because World War 2 was obviously an elaborate plan to get women into the workplace. Suffragettes had brainwashed Hitler into invading Poland…

Pawwed Rig

pwurple wrote: »

The abolition of slavery groups used arguments about wealth generation... Based on their slaves earning, and hence spending.

MLK did not campaign against slavery.

pwurple wrote: »

Female equality groups had to allay the fears of the time about the effect on men's jobs, specifically. The industrial revolution, the world wars... Remember? Part of the driving was that more women working would ease mens workload by helping out in factories.

The world war issue had little to do with female equality and more to do with a pragmatic approach of forcing as many men as possible to the front to be slaughtered on the battlefields of Europe and Asia. The plan was for women to go back to the home when all the soldiers returned. This failed due to alot of reasons partly due to equality groups but mostly due to the lost generation of young men that were now dead.

PEACEBROTHER wrote: »

Do Fathers get paid for parental leave as of now ?

I know there employer doesn't pay them but somebody said they would get money back from PRSI ?????

No

Some employers will pay it but there is no statutory entitlement.

Seriously?

kunst nugget wrote: »

Yes, because World War 2 was obviously an elaborate plan to get women into the workplace. Suffragettes had brainwashed Hitler into invading Poland…

Yes clearly that's what I was implying, next time I'll use handy sarcasm icons.

On the suffragrettes front; White Feather
"This was joined by prominent feminists and suffragettes of the time, such as Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel. They, in addition to handing out the feathers, also lobbied to institute an involuntary draft of men, including those who lacked votes due to being too young or not owning property.[4][5][6]"

So feminists where hardly the helpful allies that pwurple was implying.

keane2097

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

To bring the analogy to the extreme, should Martin Luther King have emphasised the benefits to white people of black emancipation or should he just point out that discrimination against black people is wrong?
Were activists for female equality ‘sad’ where they didn’t emphasise the benefit for men more than the unfairness to women when campaigning for equality of opportunity? The shaming occurs where someone is described as sad for wanting rights for their own sake rather than wanting rights to benefit someone else.

It was and is an obviously valid and worthwhile point that racism degrades both the victim and the perpetrator.

It's a very good thing to make people on all sides of an argument aware of the various benefits for everyone.

It almost seems like the attitude is you don't want paternal leave unless the reasons you are getting it are the reasons you want to be getting it, which is overly idealistic at very best, but comes across more as childish than anything.

Pawwed Rig

keane2097 wrote: »

It almost seems like the attitude is you don't want paternal leave unless the reasons you are getting it are the reasons you want to be getting it, which is overly idealistic at very best, but comes across more as childish than anything.

I believe in equality and think all people should be treated the same under the law unless there is good reason. Now some have put forward points where men and women are not equal with respect of tears, recovery, breast feeding etc but when it comes down to it the State still believe that women are more suited to childcare than men. This (imho) is not true and discriminates against men as we are not given a chance to bond with the child or make many of the decisions around the health of the child. I can give you loads of reasons why paternity care would benefit women and children but why can the concerns of men not be considered? If that is childish then I am guilty. I would refer you to my point in post #24

keane2097

I'm going to break your posts into smaller bits because I agree with most of it.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I believe in equality and think all people should be treated under the law unless there is good reason.

No arguments there.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Now some have put forward points where men and women are not equal with respect of tears, recovery, breast feeding etc but when it comes down to it the State still believe that women are more suited to childcare than men.

You're presenting this sentence strangely.

The part about tears, recovery, breast feeding seems reasonable. The bit about the State believing that women are more suited to childcare than men seems like it's probably correct as well.

I'm not sure why you're combining the two though, as if the idea that women have a certain biological need for recovery time post-pregnancy and believing that women are more suited to childcare than men are two cheeks of the same arse. They aren't.

I'm sure we can all accept the first proposition without accepting the second?

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This (imho) is not true and discriminates against men as we are not given a chance to bond with the child or make many of the decisions around the health of the child.

Of course I agree with this as well, which is why moves towards paternal leave is to be welcomed. If the goals of the move are to help women exclusively, then that's a twisted way for the proposer to look at things for sure, but is that really what you think the attitude is here?

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I can give you loads of reasons why paternity care would benefit women and children but wht can the concerns of men not be considered?

As above, is it really the case that the only reason paternal leave is being looked into is to benefit women?

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

If that is childish then I am guilty. I would refer you to my point in post #24

I think what's happened here is that you have taken the reference to the ways in which this would benefit women by the minister as an implication that that is the main (or even only) reason why this is being looked at.

I saw your post #24 and found it jarring to read at the time. What I took from pwurple's post was that there seems to be a feeling on this thread that referring to how this will benefit women is an automatic dismissal of the rights of men, which seems a massive overreaction to me (that's where childish came from, should have articulated better).

Like, the idea here is that we should be happy that this helps everyone, rather than complaining that the reason it's being done isn't exclusively to benefit men, which seems to be all that's being done ITT.

pwurple

Seriously? wrote: »

So feminists where hardly the helpful allies that pwurple was implying.

You have it arseways. I'm not saying suffragettes were allies, I'm saying they harnessed mens aims (make more weapons) to get what they wanted (women in the workplace).

Which btw, is how politics has always worked, and will always work. You need to MOTIVATE people to support you, by there being something in it for them.

Maybe that's just the cynic/machiavellian in me.

Seriously?

pwurple wrote: »

You have it arseways. I'm not saying suffragettes were allies, I'm saying they harnessed mens aims (make more weapons) to get what they wanted (women in the workplace).

Which btw, is how politics has always worked, and will always work. You need to MOTIVATE people to support you, by there being something in it for them.

Maybe that's just the cynic/machiavellian in me.

I'm happy to concede they advanced through the expenditure of males lives

Not sure you can also attribute to men solely the aim of making war.

keane2097

Seriously? wrote: »

I'm happy to concede they advanced through the expenditure of males lives

Not sure you can also attribute to men solely the aim of making war.

The point being made is about how incremental gains are made on social issues.

Arguing over who wants to make wars doesn't seem like it is a very sensible way to advance this particular discussion.

pwurple

Seriously? wrote: »

Not sure you can also attribute to men solely the aim of making war.

Didn't think I had? Pretty sure it's a handy to have a working weapon of some sort if you do end up being on a war front though. I reckon that's a reasonable aim.

Seriously?

keane2097 wrote: »

Arguing over who wants to make wars doesn't seem like it is a very sensible way to advance this particular discussion.

It actually ties into your position about leave, from the ministers own mouth we can infer that the granting of leave to men is solely to advantage women.

Otherwise why would they suggest that only the females decides if the leave should be granted.

That they wrapping it up in a false blanket of concern for fathers isn't a reason we should automatically accept it.

Sure you should be glad you're getting anything, don't worry about the why.

keane2097

Seriously? wrote: »

It actually ties into your position about leave, from the ministers own mouth we can infer that the granting of leave to men is solely to advantage women.

Otherwise why would they suggest that only the females decides if the leave should be granted.

That they wrapping it up in a false blanket of concern for fathers isn't a reason we should automatically accept it.

Sure you should be glad you're getting anything, don't worry about the why.

You go and deliberately omit the part of my post that mentioned incremental improvements on social issues. I think you might be missing the point.

Also, I think what you have chosen to infer from the minister's statement appears to me to be the most anti-male slant possible.

Do you really believe her attitude to this is that she couldn't care less about men and this is nothing but "a false blanket of concern for fathers" being pursued only because it will help women?

newport2

Seriously? wrote: »

It actually ties into your position about leave, from the ministers own mouth we can infer that the granting of leave to men is solely to advantage women.

Otherwise why would they suggest that only the females decides if the leave should be granted.

Currently women hold most of the cards when it comes to parenthood. To have any hope of getting changes made it is essential that women in general buy into what is being proposed.

Perhaps this is why it is being presented like this by the minister? If it was presented as something purely to benefit fathers, it would probably be met with more resistance.

keane2097

newport2 wrote: »

Currently women hold most of the cards when it comes to parenthood. To have any hope of getting changes made it is essential that women in general buy into what is being proposed.

Perhaps this is why it is being presented like this by the minister? If it was presented as something purely to benefit fathers, it would probably be met with more resistance.

The point as much as that is the possibility that some women may jump to the conclusion that this will negatively impact them, rather than just that it won't benefit them.

As pwurple has said, when making a change it's vital to give everyone something to root for in it. It should really easy in this case.

Seriously?

keane2097 wrote: »

You go and deliberately omit the part of my post that mentioned incremental improvements on social issues. I think you might be missing the point.

I think its a given that if it helps men that most people here (myself included) support it, but I don't think people should be happy with simply incremental improvements which are simply by-products from further helping the advantaged group.

keane2097 wrote: »

Also, I think what you have chosen to infer from the minister's statement appears to me to be the most anti-male slant possible.

I don't believe I am.

keane2097 wrote: »

Do you really believe her attitude to this is that she couldn't care less about men and this is nothing but "a false blanket of concern for fathers" being pursued only because it will help women?

I wouldn't go that far, rather to take pwurples theme, she's not motivated to help men but rather motivated to assist women. Her position reads to me as if women want to they can allow their partners assist by granting them use of their leave.

keane2097

Seriously? wrote: »

I think its a given that if it helps men that most people here (myself included) support it, but I don't think people should be happy with simply incremental improvements which are simply by-products from further helping the advantaged group.

This move is massively more beneficial to men than women. I think trying to argue that the benefit to men is a lucky run-off is outrageous.

Seriously? wrote: »

I wouldn't go that far, rather to take pwurples theme, she's not motivated to help men but rather motivated to assist women. Her position reads to me as if women want to they can allow their partners assist by granting them use of their leave.

If you read the article carefully, there are two proposals being put forward by the minister.

The first is that men be granted paid leave for the first two weeks after their child is born. This is nothing to do with the woman.

The second is to do with the leave the woman is currently granted after the compulsory period. At the moment, only the woman can take that. The minister is proposing that the couple may decide to share it, with the woman - whose leave it is full stop at the moment - being the one to make the final decision.

It doesn't seem like a terribly sexist thing to allow a woman to decide whether to share her own leave or not.

pwurple

Seriously? wrote: »

Her position reads to me as if women want to they can allow their partners assist by granting them use of their leave.

You read wrong. My position is that a family, or a couple, should be able to decide what suits them best. Both. Equal say.
Women do need some minimum time to recover from a pregnancy and any damage from childbirth, but beyond that, whatever suits for the family.

What would be most flexible, would be one set bank of time (make it six to ten months as it is currently, to avoid employers knickers getting in a twist) that is divisible as the couple choose. So they can take it concurrently, or one after the other, or some overlap, or just the woman on her own if that suits.

And most of all, do NOT make it be at the discretion of the father's employer, because that just makes it vanish into thin air.

Seriously?

pwurple wrote: »

You read wrong. My position is that a family, or a couple, should be able to decide what suits them best.

I was refering to the minister, my bad gammer mangled the message.