NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165756/Maternity-leave-cut-allow-fathers-FOUR-MONTHS-paid-leave-says-equality-watchdog.html

Fathers should be paid by the state to stay at home with their children in place of mothers, the Government's equality regulator said today.

It called for parental leave payments that would cost taxpayers £5.3billion to 'tackle the gender pay gap'.

The proposals from the Equality and Human Rights Commission would give fathers months of state-subsidised time off work lasting up until a child's fifth birthday.

The Commission also called for a major extension of paid maternity leave so that mothers would be paid by the state at 90 per cent of their usual earnings for six months after the birth of their child instead of six weeks.

Its chief executive Nicola Brewer said: 'Changing the way we approach parental leave could be one way of tackling the gender pay gap.

'By supporting men to be good fathers as well as good employees, it would also help children to do better at school.'

But the scheme ran into a barrage of criticism from opponents of the idea of persuading men to take the place of women in raising children. One called the scheme 'social engineering'.

And it won a cold reception from the Government. Lord Mandelson's Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said: 'These are difficult times for businesses and families and the EHRC's proposals look to have considerable costs attached to them.'

The Equality Commission said last year that men must get improved paternity leave rights because at the moment employers are wary of giving jobs to women who look likely to take lengthy maternity leave.

The aim of closing the gender pay gap comes at a time when official figures have shown that no difference exists between the pay of men and women until they reach the age of 30.

At that point - the average age at which women have their first child and, in almost all cases, opt to ease off from their careers and devote time to child-rearing, a pay gap does open up.

The Commission's plans would cost taxpayers an extra £5.26billion above the £2.07billion a year that currently goes on parental leave. Employers pay statutory maternity pay to women on leave, and the Government then reimburses them.

Under the scheme, fathers would get two weeks off after their child was born at 90 per cent of pay, followed by four more months before its fifth birthday. Eight weeks of this should be paid at 90 per cent, the Commission said.

Another four months leave, eight of it paid, would be available to be taken by either parent before the child's fifth birthday.

Commission chairman Baroness Prosser said: 'Our idea is to put together all the leave that is available for men and for women and to share it between them.'

She said that women could return to work quicker, leaving babies with their fathers.

'They might not have such a big gap,' she said. 'At the moment lots of women fall out of their careers.'

The scheme was backed with a poll carried out for the Commission which said 54 per cent of fathers of babies said they felt they spent too little time with their children.

But Jill Kirby of the centre right think tank Centre for Policy Studies said: 'The Commission got it right when they said employers are reluctant to hire women of childbearing age, and they are right that this is because of lavish maternity provision.

'But the answer is not to pile more burdens on employers and the taxpayer, but to change the tax and benefit system to ease the burden on parents.'

She added: 'The Commission wants to engage in social engineering and press fathers to stay at home. Better surely to allow parents to share their income tax allowances so they can make their own choices on how to balance work and children.'

The Equality Commission is currently caught up in a major internal dispute. Miss Brewer is quitting for another job, reportedly after disputes over how money is spent with the £70million-a-year quango's chief Trevor Phillips.

Two commissioners have left and another, disability campaigner Sir Bert Massie, is threatening to go.

The CBI called the proposals 'unaffordable'.

Its personnel policy chief Katja Hall said: 'Given the alarming state of the public finances, these plans, which would cost taxpayers an extra £5.3billion, are unaffordable.

'It makes far more sense to focus on encouraging flexible working, which is open to both parents but does not materially increase costs for business and the taxpayer.

'While this report raises some interesting talking points, the proposal to introduce paid parental leave to be shared between parents would be complex and costly for companies to administer.'

I don't know... I'm kind of torn, I guess. Paid Time off is always good, but it looks like the costs will be enormous. What does NSG think? Paternity leave for fathers or no?

I think paternity leave should definitely be available. The exact length and payment scheme and such is for people more knowledgeable than me to decide, but it's utterly sexist and silly to feel that mothers need time at home with their kids and fathers don't.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165756/Maternity-leave-cut-allow-fathers-FOUR-MONTHS-paid-leave-says-equality-watchdog.html



I don't know... I'm kind of torn, I guess. Paid Time off is always good, but it looks like the costs will be enormous. What does NSG think? Paternity leave for fathers or no?

I've only recently found out that Ireland doesn't offer this, and frankly I was shoked.
If I recall correctly, Germany has a law in place that offers a certain amount of time of for parents, but that time can be taken by either the father or the mother.
I guess before I have kids, I'll have to fight for a change of law here, because there's NO WAY I'll be the stay-at-home-mom.
He already agreed to being the stay-at-home-dad, so why shouldn't he be getting the same money I would be getting? How's that fair in any way?

Probably a good thing; it'll help the fathers' rights movement.

It would aid each household with (a) young child[ren] in the long run. Women would be more likely to return to work sooner, which would work for employers. It would help in the issue of childcare costs. In Ontario for instance, there are long waiting lists for childcare spots. If each parent was able to take leave, one after the other, it would save the cost of struggling to find childcare and would allow for parents to save for the eventual costs rather than having to do something immediately for the child.

Why shouldn't the father be given the same right as the mother to have leave to take care of his child(ren), especially if he's willing?

One of the best ideas this governement has had in recent years. If the woman has the better paid or more flexible job it makes sense to let her allow to return to work. I would have happily stayed at home if I got paternity pay. Luckily my company is very good with parental issues and I'm sure they would embrace this.

It's absolutely intolerable that maternity leave could exist without paternity leave. By the way, let's just call it parental leave and quit with the time differentiation that we have in Canada, for example. Maternity leave lasts for 15 weeks with a possible extension of two weeks if the child needs to be hospitalised. Parental leave is a maximum of 35 weeks. So a mother can take 50 weeks. A father, however, cannot under any circumstances access those 15 weeks of maternity leave. A father can only take 35 weeks, if he is the one who stays home with the child.

The justification is that the woman is the one going through the physical process of having the baby, and therefore needs time to recover. Fair enough. Except she also might not need that time. If she only wanted to take two or three weeks off, the rest of the time should be accessible by the father.

It's incredibly sexist, and annoys the living fuck out of me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165756/Maternity-leave-cut-allow-fathers-FOUR-MONTHS-paid-leave-says-equality-watchdog.html



I don't know... I'm kind of torn, I guess. Paid Time off is always good, but it looks like the costs will be enormous. What does NSG think? Paternity leave for fathers or no?

My husband's company had paternity leave with our first child, he took off 3 weeks of the 6. With our second child he was at a different company and had to take his "vacation days" and "personal days" to stay home for the first few weeks.

if you want people to have children you have to make it possible for them to have children. this is part of that.

By the way, it's generally one or the other that gets the leave, not both. The option should be there...that's not fucking social engineering, that's not assuming only women would choose to stay home with a child.

By the way, it's generally one or the other that gets the leave, not both. The option should be there...that's not fucking social engineering, that's not assuming only women would choose to stay home with a child.

Dunno... I'd be happy with both taking the first 3 or 4 weeks, and then one of them taking the rest of the leave. Or alternating. Whichever suits the situation best.

If we want equality, why not?

Dunno... I'd be happy with both taking the first 3 or 4 weeks, and then one of them taking the rest of the leave. Or alternating. Whichever suits the situation best.

This sounds good to me as well. I really think my husband being home with me for the first few weeks was beneficial for me, him and the children.

I don't know... I'm kind of torn, I guess. Paid Time off is always good, but it looks like the costs will be enormous. What does NSG think? Paternity leave for fathers or no?

Sure, why not ? But make it a total amount for mom AND dad - so if daddy takes a month, mom can take a month less and vice versa.

Dunno... I'd be happy with both taking the first 3 or 4 weeks, and then one of them taking the rest of the leave. Or alternating. Whichever suits the situation best. Sorry, what I should have said is that the leave is a set period of time, and can be divided up between the parents in any way they like. Both parents can choose to have leave...say they split the 35 weeks evenly giving them each 17 and a half weeks. They can do it together, or take turns...but it still eats up the 35 weeks.

I didn't want people to get the idea that suddenly parental leave was going to mean that both parents get nearly a year off or whatever.

If I recall correctly, Germany has a law in place that offers a certain amount of time of for parents, but that time can be taken by either the father or the mother.
This.

Sure, why not ? But make it a total amount for mom AND dad - so if daddy takes a month, mom can take a month less and vice versa.

^This.

I don't know... I'm kind of torn, I guess. Paid Time off is always good, but it looks like the costs will be enormous. What does NSG think? Paternity leave for fathers or no?
If this saves just one child from being murdered by a mother with post-partum depression, I'm all for it.

Rock on! Encourage overpopulating the planet!

If I was having a baby with a man who made less money than me I'd be really angry if he could not get paternity leave with the same amount of pay as if he were a woman on maternity leave.

It's absolutely intolerable that maternity leave could exist without paternity leave. By the way, let's just call it parental leave and quit with the time differentiation that we have in Canada, for example. Maternity leave lasts for 15 weeks with a possible extension of two weeks if the child needs to be hospitalised. Parental leave is a maximum of 35 weeks. So a mother can take 50 weeks. A father, however, cannot under any circumstances access those 15 weeks of maternity leave. A father can only take 35 weeks, if he is the one who stays home with the child.

The justification is that the woman is the one going through the physical process of having the baby, and therefore needs time to recover. Fair enough. Except she also might not need that time. If she only wanted to take two or three weeks off, the rest of the time should be accessible by the father.

It's incredibly sexist, and annoys the living fuck out of me.

Those first 15 weeks are essentially sick leave, and (at least in the UK) are not forced to be taken by the mother. But the difference is there for the obvious biological reason.

Put that sexism card down, it does not befit you.

What? There are countries out there without paid paternity leaves? :tongue:



I also has a reliable(!) link to prove teh superiority of Nordic countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_leave#Europe

:D

If this saves just one child from being murdered by a mother with post-partum depression, I'm all for it.

Because a father would never murder his child, just those unstable, emotional wimminz.

Because a father would never murder his child, just those unstable, emotional wimminz.
men dont get post partum depression.

Because a father would never murder his child, just those unstable, emotional wimminz.
You've met the missus, then.

men dont get post partum depression.

Perhaps based on past posts from Myrmi, Im seeing sexism where it isnt there (this time).


Anyway, I dont see why fathers shouldnt get paternity leave. Our notions of gender roles have basically been removed (for the better), and with all these studies showing how important the father being around is, I dont see why not. Besides, God knows the mother could probably use some help around the house as well.

And if it ends hiring discrimination on top of all that , so much the better.

Perhaps based on past posts from Myrmi, Im seeing sexism where it isnt there (this time).


Anyway, I dont see why fathers shouldnt get paternity leave. Our notions of gender roles have basically been removed (for the better), and with all these studies showing how important the father being around is, I dont see why not. Besides, God knows the mother could probably use some help around the house as well.

And if it ends hiring discrimination on top of all that , so much the better.
its an excellent idea. in the modern world men take care of their babies much more than my dad ever did. its good to start from the beginning.

Those first 15 weeks are essentially sick leave, and (at least in the UK) are not forced to be taken by the mother. But the difference is there for the obvious biological reason.

Put that sexism card down, it does not befit you.

What "obvious biological reason" is that? You do know that there are these amazing inventions called "pumps" and "bottles" and "formula," right?

What "obvious biological reason" is that? You do know that there are these amazing inventions called "pumps" and "bottles" and "formula," right?

Yeah, but childbirth is an extremely exhausting process that apparently takes 15 weeks to recover from in addition to whatever time may be spent in the hospital immediately after the birth.

Those first 15 weeks are essentially sick leave, and (at least in the UK) are not forced to be taken by the mother. But the difference is there for the obvious biological reason.

Put that sexism card down, it does not befit you.

Hey, guess what. I was up and around like new after two weeks, each time I spat a child out of my womb. Some women need the 15 weeks, some need a bit longer even because of complications during pregnancy. Some need a few days. Don't give me that obvious biological reasons bullshit.

No, the mother doesn't have to take that time, but if she intends to stay home with the child, it would be silly not to. They are not 'essentially' sick leave, or that's what it'd be called. It's maternity leave, and if the woman does not use it, she loses it. She can not tuck it into the man's parental leave, and frankly, that's bullshit. Pure, and unadulterated. Let the ACTUAL circumstances and desires of the parents decide.

men dont get post partum depression.

These guys (http://www.postpartummen.com/) seem to think they can.

Yeah, but childbirth is an extremely exhausting process that apparently takes 15 weeks to recover from in addition to whatever time may be spent in the hospital immediately after the birth.
I love it when people who have never given birth tell me what it's like.

I love it when people who have never given birth tell me what it's like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d984QlMhXTY

Yeah, but childbirth is an extremely exhausting process that apparently takes 15 weeks to recover from in addition to whatever time may be spent in the hospital immediately after the birth.

Heh, every mother I've known has been physically capable of going back to work inside of a few days for natural birth or a week or two for c-sections. It's not that childbirth isn't exhausting, but barring some really serious complications, it isn't anything close to 15 weeks' worth of exhausting.

Heh, every mother I've known has been physically capable of going back to work inside of a few days for natural birth or a week or two for c-sections. It's not that childbirth isn't exhausting, but barring some really serious complications, it isn't anything close to 15 weeks' worth of exhausting.

I tore like crazy. Two weeks was how long it took me to heal, and I was hardly bedridden until then.

It's nice that the time is there, but I don't see why we can't just roll it all together into a parental leave EITHER gender can access. Chaps my ass it does.

I love it when people who have never given birth tell me what it's like.

Yeah, I was either being sarcastic or honest but I felt too shaky to actually make it clear whether I was or not. I honestly have no clue what I was trying to get across.

Yeah, I was either being sarcastic or honest but I felt too shaky to actually make it clear whether I was or not. I honestly have no clue what I was trying to get across.

Fair enough :p I was more responding to the snarky post by Krytenia, and yours just happened to follow that.

This sounds good to me as well. I really think my husband being home with me for the first few weeks was beneficial for me, him and the children.

It definitely was in my/our case.

Although, I had to do all of mine out of accrued sick/holiday time - which I wouldn't be allowed to do any more (since then, they have put a statute of limitation on accrued time - you lose any that rolls over at the end of the year. Bastards).

But it was so much less of a headache, having both of us home for the first 3 or 4 weeks of each newb.

I guess before I have kids, I'll have to fight for a change of law here, because there's NO WAY I'll be the stay-at-home-mom.
He already agreed to being the stay-at-home-dad, so why shouldn't he be getting the same money I would be getting? How's that fair in any way?

I agree with this. I couldn't be the stay-at-home mum. I would go insane. I am someone who needs to be active and busy.

I also think it's ridiculously sexist that the perception in my country is that mothers need to stay at home with their children and fathers don't. In my view, it certainly contributes to the deadbeat dad syndrome that when a marriage breaks up, many fathers are not considered important to their child's emotional development to the degree that a mother is.

Hey, guess what. I was up and around like new after two weeks, each time I spat a child out of my womb. Some women need the 15 weeks, some need a bit longer even because of complications during pregnancy. Some need a few days.

Hell, some don't even need that. My husband's mother went in for a tubal almost immediately after he was born. One good night's sleep after that, she got up and worked a shift.

Note: I know she's not typical - I'm just agreeing out that maternity leave is not (or should not be) all about physical recovery.

Does that 15 weeks perhaps refer to the last 3-4 monthes of pregnancy? If so, then that might make sense that only the woman gets it.

I agree with this. I couldn't be the stay-at-home mum. I would go insane. I am someone who needs to be active and busy.


And it's a well known fact that stay-at-home moms spend all their time sat around on their fat asses, eating chocolates and watching daytime soaps.

Does that 15 weeks perhaps refer to the last 3-4 monthes of pregnancy? If so, then that might make sense that only the woman gets it.

No, and you can only start your mat leave a maximum of 8 weeks before your due date, though you do have 15 weeks of 'sick leave' available in many cases that and it would be better to take it at that point.

And it's a well known fact that stay-at-home moms spend all their time sat around on their fat asses, eating chocolates and watching daytime soaps.

That's not what I meant and you should know it. But since you clearly wish to make implications based on a few words, I'll elaborate:

I cannot stand the idea of being at home, by myself, with a baby for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I cannot bear the thought of minimal adult conversation, and being tied to a demanding, crying baby. I need intellectual stimulation, I need to be kept busy in ways that being a stay-at-home mother to a baby does not provide.

I have the utmost respect for those women who do take on that role, and do it well, because I know that it would be impossible for me.

That's not what I meant and you should know it. But since you clearly wish to make implications based on a few words, I'll elaborate:

I cannot stand the idea of being at home, by myself, with a baby for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I cannot bear the thought of minimal adult conversation, and being tied to a demanding, crying baby. I need intellectual stimulation, I need to be kept busy in ways that being a stay-at-home mother to a baby does not provide.

I have the utmost respect for those women who do take on that role, and do it well, because I know that it would be impossible for me.

You said you need to be active and busy. In my experience, stay-at-home moms are usually both, especially in the early months. Active and busy, round the clock.

That you're now talking about adult company - which isn't actually precluded in ANY way by mothering 'at-home', and rather nebulous 'intellectual stimulation' - which is easier for stay-at-home moms to find in THIS age than it ever has been - doesn't alter what you said. Mainly because it doesn't expand on it in any meangful way.

In fact - one line out of your post could have saved us both a lot of time and energy: "...I cannot bear the thought of... being tied to a demanding, crying baby". Everything else was hollow rhetoric.

You said you need to be active and busy. In my experience, stay-at-home moms are usually both, especially in the early months. Active and busy, round the clock.

That you're now talking about adult company - which isn't actually precluded in ANY way by mothering 'at-home', and rather nebulous 'intellectual stimulation' - which is easier for stay-at-home moms to find in THIS age than it ever has been - doesn't alter what you said. Mainly because it doesn't expand on it in any meangful way.

In fact - one line out of your post could have saved us both a lot of time and energy: "...I cannot bear the thought of... being tied to a demanding, crying baby". Everything else was hollow rhetoric.

I like the idea of my child being raised in the home by a competent person to promote their intellectual and cognitive development. I don't have the patience with small children to spend the time required to do this. I don't see "adult conversation" as being mother's groups or other types of socialisation available to women who don't want to leave their babies to be raised by childcare workers. I don't want to spend my every moment thinking about what my child needs now. I see adult conversations as being professional conversations, where I am engaged in a range of activities, including planning lessons, meeting with co-workers to discuss literacy plans, meeting with parents and students, conducting on-air lessons, speaking to tourist groups, and a range of other activities. I also see adult conversation as going out with friends and discussing things, without constant worry about where my child is. Adult conversation is conversation where children are not there. I hate going to restaurants where thoughtless parents bring their squalling babies to interrupt my meal. I would not then hypocritically do the same with my child.

I would miss these sorts of activities terribly if I were to take on the role of a stay-at-home mother. I enjoy my job, I enjoy the professional interactions that I have every day. I love designing new and exciting experiences for my students, and learning new ways to do better.

I admit that my wording was perhaps hasty and not the best choice of words. I recognise that stay-at-home mothers are active and busy. They are dealing with a whole range of things. I meant active and busy in a different way than dealing with doctor's appointments, feeding, nappy changes and the exhaustive demands on a mother's time.

Does that expand enough for you?

Tone it down, GnI, sheesh. Fucking uppity men, this is what happens when we let them vote.

And let me also say, I couldn't bear to be a stay-at-home mom either. I'm a much better person and a much better mom when I go out and work, or study, and come home and appreciate my children. I wish I loved being at home with my kids all the time the way some moms do, but that's not me.

I like the idea of my child being raised in the home by a competent person to promote their intellectual and cognitive development. I don't have the patience with small children to spend the time required to do this. I don't see "adult company" as being mother's groups or other types of socialisation available to women who don't want to leave their babies to be raised by childcare workers. I don't want to spend my every moment thinking about what my child needs now. I see adult company as being at work, where I am engaged in a range of activities, including planning lessons, meeting with co-workers to discuss literacy plans, meeting with parents and students, conducting on-air lessons, speaking to tourist groups, and a range of other activities.

I would miss these sorts of activities terribly if I were to take on the role of a stay-at-home mother. I enjoy my job, I enjoy the professional interactions that I have every day. I love designing new and exciting experiences for my students, and learning new ways to do better.

I admit that my wording was perhaps hasty and not the best choice of words. I recognise that stay-at-home mothers are active and busy. They are dealing with a whole range of things. I meant active and busy in a different way than dealing with doctor's appointments, feeding, nappy changes and the exhaustive demands on a mother's time.

Does that expand enough for you?

I wish I could be a stay-at-home dad.

I like my job well enough, but I'd love to be at home with the babies 24/7, to be honest. I can still get all the interactions I crave from people outside of my work. Most of the people I comminicate with with any regularity, I communicate with in several different fashions, anyway - so meeting up with people during the day (with baby in-tow) or chatting online to my family back-home (my family are several thousand miles from me), or calling one of my friends are all still options, with or without kids.

And I can get education with baby. I can get socialisation with baby. I can go to a gym that watches babies. There are even jobs I can do with baby, many of them, without leaving the house - meeting the 'stay-at-home' criteria.

So what does it really come down to, then?

Which sacrifices each of us would be willing to make? Which of us can 'stand' changing nappies?

So what does it really come down to, then?

Which sacrifices each of us would be willing to make? Which of us can 'stand' changing nappies?

You're treading dangerously close to offending me here, please expand on wtf you're trying to get across.

You're treading dangerously close to offending me here, please expand on wtf you're trying to get across.

It sounds like he's taking a shot at people who'd rather work than be a stay-at-home parent.

But that doesn't seem quite right.

Tone it down, GnI, sheesh. Fucking uppity men, this is what happens when we let them vote.

As a wise philosopher once said:

"I'm having a woman's period."

(Red Dwarf 1:3)

I wish I could be a stay-at-home dad.

I like my job well enough, but I'd love to be at home with the babies 24/7, to be honest. I can still get all the interactions I crave from people outside of my work. Most of the people I comminicate with with any regularity, I communicate with in several different fashions, anyway - so meeting up with people during the day (with baby in-tow) or chatting online to my family back-home (my family are several thousand miles from me), or calling one of my friends are all still options, with or without kids.

And I can get education with baby. I can get socialisation with baby. I can go to a gym that watches babies. There are even jobs I can do with baby, many of them, without leaving the house - meeting the 'stay-at-home' criteria.

So what does it really come down to, then?

Which sacrifices each of us would be willing to make? Which of us can 'stand' changing nappies?


Different personalities, different people. Neesika said what I've been trying to say, a lot more concisely. I'm the type of person who would grow to resent a child that I had to take everywhere with me, or be around 24/7. I feel that my relationship with my child would benefit from me being the working parent.

I know there are a lot of options for stay-at-home parents nowadays, such as gyms that mind children, movies that have babes in arms sessions, and the like, but I just don't feel that it's the same as being able to leave the house without the child and come home to them after a day apart.

Your situation sounds like friends of mine - the woman loves her job, and loves being out of the house and appreciates her family the more for not being there 24/7. The man, OTOH, loves being at home with his children, could not think of doing anything else. And that's just what I am looking for when I finally have children - my opposite number. I love my job, love my opportunities for socialising, and love the ability to be by myself (I am an only child, so my me time is really important to me). Then again, maybe I'm just scared of responsibility.

It sounds like he's taking a shot at people who'd rather work than be a stay-at-home parent.

But that doesn't seem quite right.

You're right.

That doesn't sound right.

And let me also say, I couldn't bear to be a stay-at-home mom either. I'm a much better person and a much better mom when I go out and work, or study, and come home and appreciate my children. I wish I loved being at home with my kids all the time the way some moms do, but that's not me.

glad I'm not the only one who feels like this. I don't know how our mothers (I teach at a school of distance education, so our mothers and fathers teach their children for the most part, and we support them) can handle being around their children all the time. I'd kill them.

I think paternity leave should definitely be available. The exact length and payment scheme and such is for people more knowledgeable than me to decide, but it's utterly sexist and silly to feel that mothers need time at home with their kids and fathers don't.

^^^This

You're right.

That doesn't sound right.

Indeed. Which, of course, is why people kind of want to figure out what's trying to be said.

You're treading dangerously close to offending me here, please expand on wtf you're trying to get across.

I'm not sure how to respond, to be honest. My comment wasn't addressed to you, I'm pretty sure, so I obviously wasn't targetting you for some kind of 'offence'.

You picked out the last two lines of my post, and - well, that pretty much cut through to what I was saying. What sacrifices is a person willing to make? IS changing nappies a big deal to you?

If it is - don't be a stay-at-home mom. If those sacrifices would make you miserable, don't be a stay-at-home mom.


Of course - not everyone gets the choice. I happen to be the sort of person that would happily stay home, and my wife happens to be the sort of person who it drives crazy - but that's just the way it is, until we can find some other way.


What I wasn't buying was the idea that stay-at-home moms are not active or busy. Or - in the latter version - that being a mom suddenly makes you a social outcast and pariah, incapable of getting an education, or socialising with friends.

Like I said, I obviously didn't set out to offend you. Indeed, had someone said "you're going to offend Neesika with that post", I'd probably have laughed in their faces.

I think this is a good idea, both parents should have the chance to be with their child and leave from work should not be restricted to one gender only. It's interesting how they mention that people are reluctant to hire womyn because they might get pregnant and have to go. How is that fair? At least this way, that sort of prejudice wouldn't exist.
I think that both parents should get leave for about four to six weeks, and then a certain amount of time for either parent after that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165756/Maternity-leave-cut-allow-fathers-FOUR-MONTHS-paid-leave-says-equality-watchdog.html

I don't know... I'm kind of torn, I guess. Paid Time off is always good, but it looks like the costs will be enormous. What does NSG think? Paternity leave for fathers or no?
Having paternity leave available - not mandatory, just available - will put a huge dent in inequity in the long term.

I'm not sure how to respond, to be honest. My comment wasn't addressed to you, I'm pretty sure, so I obviously wasn't targetting you for some kind of 'offence'.

You picked out the last two lines of my post, and - well, that pretty much cut through to what I was saying. What sacrifices is a person willing to make? IS changing nappies a big deal to you?

If it is - don't be a stay-at-home mom. If those sacrifices would make you miserable, don't be a stay-at-home mom.


Of course - not everyone gets the choice. I happen to be the sort of person that would happily stay home, and my wife happens to be the sort of person who it drives crazy - but that's just the way it is, until we can find some other way.


What I wasn't buying was the idea that stay-at-home moms are not active or busy. Or - in the latter version - that being a mom suddenly makes you a social outcast and pariah, incapable of getting an education, or socialising with friends.



I never said that being a stay-at-home mum meant that you weren't active and busy, or that it made you a pariah or incapable of getting an education. What I implied was that it made these things significantly harder, and I wasn't prepared for that. My mother was a stay-at-home mother and in many ways, she is someone I look up to as an exemplar. I just happen to know that I need time-out from the 24/7 hours that my mother worked, because I don't have her infinite time, patience or fortitude. She educated herself, became active in the community and had a great social life, all while making me the person I am today. I would not do as great a job as she has as a stay-at-home mother. I would be a lot closer to being a great mum as a working mother.

Sorry, what I should have said is that the leave is a set period of time, and can be divided up between the parents in any way they like. Both parents can choose to have leave...say they split the 35 weeks evenly giving them each 17 and a half weeks. They can do it together, or take turns...but it still eats up the 35 weeks.

I didn't want people to get the idea that suddenly parental leave was going to mean that both parents get nearly a year off or whatever.

I fully agree with this. It ought to be a fixed amount of time that can be taken by either of the parents, or both. But the fact that there ought to be a choice who wants to stay home shouldn't mean that the available amount of time suddenly gets doubled.

By the way, it's generally one or the other that gets the leave, not both. The option should be there...that's not fucking social engineering, that's not assuming only women would choose to stay home with a child.

Well the opposition is center right political leaning , I think they assume only a woman would stay home with their children; after all its the man's job to kill the Mastodon and lug the meat home.

Conservatives still do live in caves and kill animals for food right?

And it's a well known fact that stay-at-home moms spend all their time sat around on their fat asses, eating chocolates and watching daytime soaps.

No, they tend to spend their time with the extended family and the child. Almost exclusively.
It would drive me insane. I'm just not that into babies... I do like children, but babies bore the face off me. He loves them, so let him do that.

I don't know... I'm kind of torn, I guess. Paid Time off is always good, but it looks like the costs will be enormous. What does NSG think? Paternity leave for fathers or no?

I think it should be mandatory for the father to take exactly the same amount of leave the mother takes. Not at the same time, of course. Just to level the things, have the father care for the kid, too, and give the mother more time on her workplace.

I wouldn't support that kind of thing here. Employers can give whatever time they like to whomever they like, but the government shouldn't be regulating minutiae like that. Fathers can choose to use their sick days or vacation time if they like, and employers would do well to throw in a couple weeks, but that's about all I'd think should be expected.

I wouldn't support that kind of thing here. Employers can give whatever time they like to whomever they like, but the government shouldn't be regulating minutiae like that. Fathers can choose to use their sick days or vacation time if they like, and employers would do well to throw in a couple weeks, but that's about all I'd think should be expected.

Yes, after all why would it be in the interest of the state and society to give people some assistance if they decide they want kids?
Let them see where they can find the time themselves.

And let me also say, I couldn't bear to be a stay-at-home mom either. I'm a much better person and a much better mom when I go out and work, or study, and come home and appreciate my children. I wish I loved being at home with my kids all the time the way some moms do, but that's not me.

To provide the other side of this same coin:

I'm the child of two working parents. My parents were both back to working full time when I was 2 weeks old. And I wouldn't have had it any other way.

I know the stay-at-home parent thing works for a lot of families, and I'm not bashing it in the slightest, I just get sick of people talking about how parents like mine are "part-time parents" or whatever. It's like people can't say nice things about stay-at-home moms without bagging on MY mom.

I completely support laws requiring that parents get parental leave. It should go without saying that it's great for new parents to get to spend some time with their kid, both in terms of the parents and in terms of what the kid needs. But I hate to see this topic become a debate over stay-at-home vs. working parents...it almost always goes in that direction. :P

Yes, after all why would it be in the interest of the state and society to give people some assistance if they decide they want kids?
Let them see where they can find the time themselves.

The government can and does. I'm talking about excessive regulation.

The government can and does. I'm talking about excessive regulation.

Men and women should both have the equal opportunity for parental leave, yes or no?

Forget about the whole up to 5 years thing for a minute and tell me yes or no to the real question.

What "obvious biological reason" is that? You do know that there are these amazing inventions called "pumps" and "bottles" and "formula," right?
And these help to get the baby out...how?

No, really, I'm intrigued. I want diagrams.

Hey, guess what. I was up and around like new after two weeks, each time I spat a child out of my womb. Some women need the 15 weeks, some need a bit longer even because of complications during pregnancy. Some need a few days. Don't give me that obvious biological reasons bullshit.

No, the mother doesn't have to take that time, but if she intends to stay home with the child, it would be silly not to. They are not 'essentially' sick leave, or that's what it'd be called. It's maternity leave, and if the woman does not use it, she loses it. She can not tuck it into the man's parental leave, and frankly, that's bullshit. Pure, and unadulterated. Let the ACTUAL circumstances and desires of the parents decide.

I meant that the pre-birth time is due to the mother actually carrying the baby. It makes no sense for the father to have this time as paternity leave - though if required carer's leave is understandable.

Clearly, the obvious biological reasons I was thinking of weren't that obvious. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I meant that the pre-birth time is due to the mother actually carrying the baby.

To be fair, unless the mother works in hard physical labor or there are complications, she very likely doesn't need any pre-birth time off. Most of the women I know worked right up until the day they went into labor.

But yes, if time off is needed pre-birth for pregnancy complications, it does seem pretty clear that a man wouldn't need the same time, just as a woman isn't exactly going to need time off after a vasectomy.

And these help to get the baby out...how?

No, really, I'm intrigued. I want diagrams.

Did your mother spend fifteen weeks in labor with you? That poor, poor woman...

To provide the other side of this same coin:

I'm the child of two working parents. My parents were both back to working full time when I was 2 weeks old. And I wouldn't have had it any other way.

I know the stay-at-home parent thing works for a lot of families, and I'm not bashing it in the slightest, I just get sick of people talking about how parents like mine are "part-time parents" or whatever. It's like people can't say nice things about stay-at-home moms without bagging on MY mom.

I completely support laws requiring that parents get parental leave. It should go without saying that it's great for new parents to get to spend some time with their kid, both in terms of the parents and in terms of what the kid needs. But I hate to see this topic become a debate over stay-at-home vs. working parents...it almost always goes in that direction. :P

I completely agree with this. My mother was a stay-at-home mother, which was the absolute best thing for me. But many of my friends had working parents, and their parents were the best for them. Yes, there are some parents who work who put their careers first, just as there are some who don't who put their interests first. TBH, I don't think that stay-at-home parents and working parents can be compared in terms of which is better. They are different, each with their own challenges.

I completely agree with this. My mother was a stay-at-home mother, which was the absolute best thing for me. But many of my friends had working parents, and their parents were the best for them. Yes, there are some parents who work who put their careers first, just as there are some who don't who put their interests first. TBH, I don't think that stay-at-home parents and working parents can be compared in terms of which is better. They are different, each with their own challenges.

On top of that trying to compare them with examples will only show that some parents are good at parenting while others aren't.

I could go into a discussion and show why children who have one stay at home parent turns out to be better then one who has both parents working whose child turned out on drugs and with a shitty job. But then I could show similar examples but with the different home structure.

As far as I'm concerned, there should be no such thing as paternity or maternity leave. If you want to be a mother, be a mother. If you want a career, have a career. Do not pop a kid out and leave it to be raised by a babysitter or daycare for the next eighteen years. That kind of bullshit is the cancer that is killing Western society.

As far as I'm concerned, there should be no such thing as paternity or maternity leave. If you want to be a mother, be a mother. If you want a career, have a career. Do not pop a kid out and leave it to be raised by a babysitter or daycare for the next eighteen years. That kind of bullshit is the cancer that is killing Western society.

Thats merely another opinion. I grew up with no dad and a working mom, I am a perfectly fine responsible and law abiding individual; the people who grew up next door had two parents, one was a stay at home mom the other the 'average' provider dad. One joined a gang at 16 and was shot dead, another is serving his third term in prison for selling drugs, and their daughter has been arrested on suspicion of prostitution more than once and has 5 children to 5 different men. Your assertions are worth nothing.

Thats merely another opinion. I grew up with no dad and a working mom, I am a perfectly fine responsible and law abiding individual; the people who grew up next door had two parents, one was a stay at home mom the other the 'average' provider dad. One joined a gang at 16 and was shot dead, another is serving his third term in prison for selling drugs, and their daughter has been arrested on suspicion of prostitution more than once and has 5 children to 5 different men. Your assertions are worth nothing.

Your anecdotal evidence is no match for his cold,hard...er...anecdotal evidence...

*cough*

Your anecdotal evidence is no match for his cold,hard...er...anecdotal evidence...

*cough*

He didn't even provide that...

He didn't even provide that...

I don't need to provide evidence when the truth is firmly on my side.

I don't need to provide evidence when the truth is firmly on my side.

:rolleyes: And what is truth without evidence?

:rolleyes: And what is truth without evidence?

Oh, oh, oh, I know that one... "an unsupported opinion", right?

As far as I'm concerned, there should be no such thing as paternity or maternity leave. If you want to be a mother, be a mother. If you want a career, have a career. Do not pop a kid out and leave it to be raised by a babysitter or daycare for the next eighteen years. That kind of bullshit is the cancer that is killing Western society.

So by that logic, men who want to be fathers should stay at home? Should it be a matter of whoever wants the kid more stays at home and gives up their career? Why should women be the only ones to make this sacrifice otherwise? Tradition?

Oh, oh, oh, I know that one... "an unsupported opinion", right?

Go to the top of the class. You can has gold stars.:D

I completely agree with this. My mother was a stay-at-home mother, which was the absolute best thing for me. But many of my friends had working parents, and their parents were the best for them. Yes, there are some parents who work who put their careers first, just as there are some who don't who put their interests first. TBH, I don't think that stay-at-home parents and working parents can be compared in terms of which is better. They are different, each with their own challenges.
In my opinion, the only situation that is categorically shitty is the one in which somebody is forced or guilted into staying home with the kids.

It's not about whether or not "women" should stay at home with kids. In fact, the entire problem is the assumption that there should be ANY one path in life that is best for "women." Women are not a hive mind and will not all be happy about the same things.

Some women would love to stay home with their kids. Some women would be miserable that way. Some women don't strongly care one way or the other. The one thing that all these women have in common is that they will all be labeled "bad mothers" for one reason or another. :P

As far as I'm concerned, there should be no such thing as paternity or maternity leave. If you want to be a mother, be a mother. If you want a career, have a career. Do not pop a kid out and leave it to be raised by a babysitter or daycare for the next eighteen years. That kind of bullshit is the cancer that is killing Western society.
And y'all should listen to Bryn, cause he's a troll who knows his bullshit.

Do not pop a kid out and leave it to be raised by a babysitter or daycare for the next eighteen years.

I'm pretty sure that if I dropped an 17 year old off at the daycare my kids went to, they would have been looking for an employment application.

What strange world do you live in where kids require babysitting or daycare for that length of time? My kids were 5 when they started school.

I'm pretty sure that if I dropped an 17 year old off at the daycare my kids went to, they would have been looking for an employment application.

What strange world do you live in where kids require babysitting or daycare for that length of time? My kids were 5 when they started school.

I'm sure Bryn will inform us that school counts as daycare. Allowing anybody other than a child's biological parents to educate it is IRRESPONSIBLE and DESTROYING WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

I'm actually a proponent of kids going to daycare/early childhood care outside the home. I think that very few parents have the background and education to provide high quality early childhood ed, and that most kids as young as 18 months would actually benefit from high quality pre-school in a classroom environment.

Of course, I'm one of those working mothers who has never not been a working mother, was raised by a working mother, and had grandmothers that had careers, also, so the destruction of western civilization is a tradition that runs deep in my family.

I'm actually a proponent of kids going to daycare/early childhood care outside the home. I think that very few parents have the background and education to provide high quality early childhood ed, and that most kids as young as 18 months would actually benefit from high quality pre-school in a classroom environment.

Of course, I'm one of those working mothers who has never not been a working mother, was raised by a working mother, and had grandmothers that had careers, also, so the destruction of western civilization is a tradition that runs deep in my family.

My mom stayed at home. She actually taught me how to read and write and count before I started kindergarten (but then my mom studied early childhood education in uni). I did go to preschool for a bit, but it was a thing that was just one or two half days a week and I think it was more to get me used to socializing with other kids and make a mess somewhere that wasn't at home (and probably give my mom time to go grocery shopping/tidy the house/have a bit of a life [I don't know what she did during this time]).

I'm actually a bit torn on whether I want a full time career when I have kids. I might almost want to do a part time thing and then half-homeschool them such that they end up knowing enough to do well in university (I'm disappointed with curriculum reforms in this province which results in kids not learning calculus in high school). But then this is incompatible with my current career path (which is something that interests me greatly)... so... at least it's not something I have to worry about in the near future?

My parents taught me how to read before I was in pre-school as well...actually the story goes that they didn't explicitly teach me, but that I picked it up. I was a fluent reader by the time I started pre-school and ended up skipping grades and all that precocious kid nonsense largely as a result of it. My own children were in the same situation. Their father and I taught them at home, they also learned at daycare/preschool. I learned some educational techniques from their teachers that I was able to carry through with at home, and shared some of my work with them. A good parent/caregiver-educator/child relationship is collaborative.

I like that my son and daughter are growing up seeing our values in action -- that their learning is a collaborative process and that once they are old enough to realize this (which they now are) that they, ultimately, are the drivers of that process. Their dad and I both come from families that value life-long learning so what some people call "home schooling" we simply know as normal parenting.

However, I also recognize that not all people are raised in that kind of environment, or with those values, or have the economic status to be able to easily do this, and fewer still have the access to the high-quality of childcare that my own children received. I think all children have the right to have that, and parents who do not have the background (whatever that may be) to provide that for their children should be better supported.

I like that my son and daughter have seen us as parents equally willing and responsible for everything from dirty diapers, to school events, to balancing our careers and our family.

It's all an intensely personal decision, and I don't pass judgement on people one way or the other for the path they choose. I just think the choices should be there for people.

Also, all this stuff about the "choice" to stay home or not is pretty classist.

For a fuckton of families, it's not a choice either way.

Some women HAVE to stay home because there is no childcare option available, or because the money the woman could make if she worked wouldn't be enough to cover the childcare they'd need during her work hours.

Other women can't stay home because their paycheck is needed too badly, and there's some option for childcare (be it a family member, an older child who can watch the baby, or whatever) that can help them squeeze by.

It's a luxury to even be able to debate the choice. :(

Also, all this stuff about the "choice" to stay home or not is pretty classist.

For a fuckton of families, it's not a choice either way.

Some women HAVE to stay home because there is no childcare option available, or because the money the woman could make if she worked wouldn't be enough to cover the childcare they'd need during her work hours.

Other women can't stay home because their paycheck is needed too badly, and there's some option for childcare (be it a family member, an older child who can watch the baby, or whatever) that can help them squeeze by.

It's a luxury to even be able to debate the choice. :(

This is what I said earlier. If it was all about 'choice', the stay-at-home parent in my home would be reversed.

Some women HAVE to stay home because there is no childcare option available, or because the money the woman could make if she worked wouldn't be enough to cover the childcare they'd need during her work hours.

We actually just had a woman resign from the company for this very reason. It was cheaper for her to be unemployed and taking care of the kids herself than it was for her to have a job and pay day care

Also, all this stuff about the "choice" to stay home or not is pretty classist.

For a fuckton of families, it's not a choice either way.

Some women HAVE to stay home because there is no childcare option available, or because the money the woman could make if she worked wouldn't be enough to cover the childcare they'd need during her work hours.

Other women can't stay home because their paycheck is needed too badly, and there's some option for childcare (be it a family member, an older child who can watch the baby, or whatever) that can help them squeeze by.

It's a luxury to even be able to debate the choice. :(

Indeed. I reject the implication that a working mother is "putting her career first" and that stay at home moms are the only "full time moms", for the most part unless you're some sort of sociopath you do what you feel is best for your child.

I know very few working moms who put their kids behind their job. In fact I don't think I personally know any.

Hell, some don't even need that. My husband's mother went in for a tubal almost immediately after he was born. One good night's sleep after that, she got up and worked a shift.

Note: I know she's not typical - I'm just agreeing out that maternity leave is not (or should not be) all about physical recovery.
I was up the same day with both my C-sectoins, probably could have gone back to work.....would have been in pain and uncomfortable due to other postpartum ick, but I could have. My doctor would have been pretty pissed off though.

I don't need to provide evidence when the truth is firmly on my side.

No, I provided evidence that you are false regardless of it being anecdotal or not and you just say "The truth is on my side" your using the same argument as the Catholic Church has been for over 1,000 years; and that one don't ride with most of NS either. You're opinion is an opinion and that's all you can say about it, factually your opinion is wrong.

No, I provided evidence that you are false regardless of it being anecdotal or not and you just say "The truth is on my side" your using the same argument as the Catholic Church has been for over 1,000 years; and that one don't ride with most of NS either. You're opinion is an opinion and that's all you can say about it, factually your opinion is wrong.
Show of hands, who's surprised that Bryn is a drive-by troll?

Follow up question. Why are right-wing trolls so much more likely to be drive-by cowards? My theory is that their beliefs are, by necessity, always broken down into extremely simple one-liners, which makes them tailored perfectly for drive-by trolling.

Show of hands, who's surprised that Bryn is a drive-by troll?

Follow up question. Why are right-wing trolls so much more likely to be drive-by cowards? My theory is that their beliefs are, by necessity, always broken down into extremely simple one-liners, which makes them tailored perfectly for drive-by trolling.

*Hands up*

But the truth is on his side! :p

PATERNITY Leave?!?! Seriously, wtf?

How far we have fallen since the fifties where men were men and women were women. The natural biological order is being subverted by feminist indoctrination, defended in the political sphere by liberals who will stop at nothing to destroy the values that made this country great.

All this media bullshit about the "new man" is distorting the desires of men. The father contributes half his DNA to the child, but no, this participation isn't enough for the bra-burning dykes. No...men should care about their families, provide for them emotionally and pitch in with household chores. And now, most ridiculous of all, this idea that its ok for men to stay off work to perform the duties of a woman? What next? Men caring about whether the woman enjoys sex? This politically correct bullshit will bring the destruction of Western civilization. No society can survive such decadence and subversion of the natural order. Sometimes I can really understand why the terrorists hate us.

PATERNITY Leave?!?! Seriously, wtf?

How far we have fallen since the fifties where men were men and women were women. The natural biological order is being subverted by feminist indoctrination, defended in the political sphere by liberals who will stop at nothing to destroy the values that made this country great.

All this media bullshit about the "new man" is distorting the desires of men. The father contributes half his DNA to the child, but no, this participation isn't enough for the bra-burning dykes. No...men should care about their families, provide for them emotionally and pitch in with household chores. And now, most ridiculous of all, this idea that its ok for men to stay off work to perform the duties of a woman? What next? Men caring about whether the woman enjoys sex? This politically correct bullshit will bring the destruction of Western civilization. No society can survive such decadence and subversion of the natural order. Sometimes I can really understand why the terrorists hate us.

It's April 2nd now.

It's April 2nd now.

Its always 1st April in my mind. Incidentally, its also always Hammertime *dances*