UK Paternaty Pay - how generous is your employer?

[[email protected]]

I am expecting my first child in June and have enquired about what
paternity payment I will get.

It turns out that I get the statuatory 2 weeks at =A3100 and my employer
will subsidise the first week to make it up to my normal pay. (ie I get
one week off at full pay, if I want the other then I get =A3100 for the
second week)

I know that it was only a couple of years ago that any kind of
paternaty leave was introduced, but I am interested in how this
compares with other large UK companies (especially retail)

..=2E.please let me know if your company exceeds/falls short of this level
paternaty.


Many thanks

David Bevan

http://www.davidbevan.co.uk

[Robert Powell]

My employer is much better than that.

100% pay first week
90% pay second week

Any other time over those two weeks can be added from holiday allotment if
requested, with no problems.

Company is a large IT based one though

Regards

Bob

> wrote in message
oups.com...
I am expecting my first child in June and have enquired about what
paternity payment I will get.

It turns out that I get the statuatory 2 weeks at £100 and my employer
will subsidise the first week to make it up to my normal pay. (ie I get
one week off at full pay, if I want the other then I get £100 for the
second week)

I know that it was only a couple of years ago that any kind of
paternaty leave was introduced, but I am interested in how this
compares with other large UK companies (especially retail)

....please let me know if your company exceeds/falls short of this level
paternaty.


Many thanks

David Bevan

http://www.davidbevan.co.uk

[xbox snippets dot com]

My wifes employer gives :

90 % for the first six weeks, then it drops a bit I forget what to/

Simon

[Buzzy Bee]

On 15 Mar 2005 09:10:15 -0800, wrote:

>I know that it was only a couple of years ago that any kind of
>paternaty leave was introduced, but I am interested in how this
>compares with other large UK companies (especially retail)

My husband's employer ~(local government) pays full pay for one week
and 102.80 (Statutory Paternity Pay) the second week.

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7th May 2003, 17 hours. http://seoras.farr-montgomery.com
DS2: Lachlan Alan, 28th February 2005

[Mamma Mia]

my dh's in aus a day or two off, that is all. he is allowed to take some
holidays, gets 4 weeks pa of those

c

> wrote in message
oups.com...
I am expecting my first child in June and have enquired about what
paternity payment I will get.

It turns out that I get the statuatory 2 weeks at £100 and my employer
will subsidise the first week to make it up to my normal pay. (ie I get
one week off at full pay, if I want the other then I get £100 for the
second week)

I know that it was only a couple of years ago that any kind of
paternaty leave was introduced, but I am interested in how this
compares with other large UK companies (especially retail)

....please let me know if your company exceeds/falls short of this level
paternaty.


Many thanks

David Bevan

http://www.davidbevan.co.uk

[Linz]

"xbox snippets dot com" > wrote in message
k...
> My wifes employer gives :
>
> 90 % for the first six weeks, then it drops a bit I forget what
> to/

Isn't that maternity pay? The OP asked about paternity pay.

[Linz]

> wrote in message
> oups.com...
>I am expecting my first child in June and have enquired about what
>paternity payment I will get.

I work in a university, and the standard paternity pay is two weeks at
full pay. Which is pretty generous. Also, they like you to take at
least one of those weeks straight after the birth, but you can take
the rest up to 56 days later, so you can split the leave and take some
when you may find it more helpful - can't speak for anyone else, but
my Mum came to stay when the baby born, for a fortnight, so I didn't
need OldBloke at home as well. However, two months later when we
wanted to do a "round Britain tour of the families" the week came in
very handy!

[Portia]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
I am expecting my first child in June and have enquired about what
paternity payment I will get.

It turns out that I get the statuatory 2 weeks at £100 and my employer
will subsidise the first week to make it up to my normal pay. (ie I get
one week off at full pay, if I want the other then I get £100 for the
second week)

I know that it was only a couple of years ago that any kind of
paternaty leave was introduced, but I am interested in how this
compares with other large UK companies (especially retail)

....please let me know if your company exceeds/falls short of this level
paternaty.


Many thanks

David Bevan

http://www.davidbevan.co.uk


Mr DH (American based company) would have had two weeks at £100. This would
have had such an impact on our income (as my maternity pay was also a bit
woeful) that he only took one week off.

Love
Portia
xxx

[xbox snippets dot com]

"Linz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "xbox snippets dot com" > wrote in message
> k...
>> My wifes employer gives :
>>
>> 90 % for the first six weeks, then it drops a bit I forget what
>> to/
>
> Isn't that maternity pay? The OP asked about paternity pay.

OOps

in that case then two weeks at 90 %

Simon

[J M Kemp]

In article . com>,
writes
>I am expecting my first child in June and have enquired about what
>paternity payment I will get.
>
>It turns out that I get the statuatory 2 weeks at £100 and my employer
>will subsidise the first week to make it up to my normal pay. (ie I get
>one week off at full pay, if I want the other then I get £100 for the
>second week)

UK Civil Service gives you two weeks full pay. £100 isn't even half of
minimum wage, better than nothing I suppose, but not good.

--
Jas

Hot Blood & Cold Steel - WW1 Skirmish in no mans land
http://www.cold-steel.org/ free rules download

[Patrick Mullin]

My employer (medium size software house) stuck to the statutory minimum of
100-odd a week. Then again, I believe I was the first employee to take
paternity leave!

Patrick

[matthaus.huber]

"can't speak for anyone else, but my Mum came to stay when the baby born,
for a fortnight, so I didn't
need OldBloke at home as well."

Who do you mean by Old Bloke? Your father? In case you meant the father of
your child, i.e. your husband, why do you speak in such a derogatory style
about him?

> I work in a university, and the standard paternity pay is two weeks at
> full pay. Which is pretty generous.
And how does paternity leave and paternity pay compare to maternity leave
and pay?
[ we live in times of equality!]

mjh
B.Sc.Education

"Linz" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >I am expecting my first child in June and have enquired about what
> >paternity payment I will get.
>
> I work in a university, and the standard paternity pay is two weeks at
> full pay. Which is pretty generous. Also, they like you to take at
> least one of those weeks straight after the birth, but you can take
> the rest up to 56 days later, so you can split the leave and take some
> when you may find it more helpful - can't speak for anyone else, but
> my Mum came to stay when the baby born, for a fortnight, so I didn't
> need OldBloke at home as well. However, two months later when we
> wanted to do a "round Britain tour of the families" the week came in
> very handy!
>
>

[Penny Gaines]

matthaus.huber wrote:

> And how does paternity leave and paternity pay compare to maternity leave
> and pay?
> [ we live in times of equality!]

Any man giving birth deserves as much time to recover as any woman
giving birth.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

[jenn' skates]

In message >, matthaus.huber
> writes
>"can't speak for anyone else, but my Mum came to stay when the baby born,
>for a fortnight, so I didn't
>need OldBloke at home as well."
>
>Who do you mean by Old Bloke? Your father? In case you meant the father of
>your child, i.e. your husband, why do you speak in such a derogatory style
>about him?

Why should it be a problem how someone refers to their partner? As I
understand it it's simply a term of affection or a nickname, given that
lots of people on usenet refer to members of their family by untraceable
names or initials why get involved?

>
>> I work in a university, and the standard paternity pay is two weeks at
>> full pay. Which is pretty generous.
>And how does paternity leave and paternity pay compare to maternity leave
>and pay?
>[ we live in times of equality!]
Yes, we do live in times of equality in lots of things, but as far as I
know fathers do not have to allow their abdomens time to shrink, their
uterus' time to return to normal size, their lactation time to regulate,
their hormones time to stop surging, their back time to recover, or
their lochia time to stop. That's after a nice easy birth. We can
start to think about episeotomys (sp) or caesarians at a later point if
you really think that any part of child bearing is even vaguely
approaching the ideals of equality.

--
Jenn
UK
Mum to L - 01/99, M 04/02 and J 05/04

[dragonlady]

In article >,
jenn' skates > wrote:

> In message >, matthaus.huber
> > writes
> >"can't speak for anyone else, but my Mum came to stay when the baby born,
> >for a fortnight, so I didn't
> >need OldBloke at home as well."
> >
> >Who do you mean by Old Bloke? Your father? In case you meant the father of
> >your child, i.e. your husband, why do you speak in such a derogatory style
> >about him?
>
> Why should it be a problem how someone refers to their partner? As I
> understand it it's simply a term of affection or a nickname, given that
> lots of people on usenet refer to members of their family by untraceable
> names or initials why get involved?
>
> >
> >> I work in a university, and the standard paternity pay is two weeks at
> >> full pay. Which is pretty generous.
> >And how does paternity leave and paternity pay compare to maternity leave
> >and pay?
> >[ we live in times of equality!]
> Yes, we do live in times of equality in lots of things, but as far as I
> know fathers do not have to allow their abdomens time to shrink, their
> uterus' time to return to normal size, their lactation time to regulate,
> their hormones time to stop surging, their back time to recover, or
> their lochia time to stop. That's after a nice easy birth. We can
> start to think about episeotomys (sp) or caesarians at a later point if
> you really think that any part of child bearing is even vaguely
> approaching the ideals of equality.

Paternity leave isn't about physical healing/medical necessity.
Actually, often maternity leave isn't, either: many women would be
perfectly capable of returning to work within a week. For that matter,
people get this leave when they adopt babies. The leave is about
tending to the needs of a newborn, and about settling a new member into
the family.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Linz]

"matthaus.huber" > wrote in message
...

Top-posting corrected. Matthaus, you have a BSc, use your study skills
to learn how to post properly.

> "Linz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >I am expecting my first child in June and have enquired about
>> >what paternity payment I will get.
>>
>> I work in a university, and the standard paternity pay is two
>> weeks at full pay. Which is pretty generous. Also, they like you
>> to take at least one of those weeks straight after the birth, but
>> you can take the rest up to 56 days later, so you can split the
>> leave and take some when you may find it more helpful - can't
>> speak for anyone else, but my Mum came to stay when the baby born,
>> for a fortnight, so I didn't need OldBloke at home as well.
>> However, two months later when we wanted to do a "round Britain
>> tour of the families" the week came in very handy!

> "can't speak for anyone else, but my Mum came to stay when the baby
> born, for a fortnight, so I didn't need OldBloke at home as well."

If you'd posted correctly, you wouldn't have needed to requote that,
you know.

> Who do you mean by Old Bloke? Your father? In case you meant the
> father of your child, i.e. your husband, why do you speak in such a
> derogatory style about him?

You assume OB is my husband. Why is that?

You also assume that 'OldBloke' is derogatory. It's not. It's his
Usenet nickname and has been for, oh, a good four or five years.

>> I work in a university, and the standard paternity pay is two
>> weeks at full pay. Which is pretty generous.

> And how does paternity leave and paternity pay compare to maternity
> leave and pay?
> [ we live in times of equality!]

Tell you what, Matthaus, you go and use the study skills you should
have developed doing that "B.Sc.Education" to do some research of your
own and come back and report on your findings.

[Lucy]

"matthaus.huber" > wrote in message
...
> And how does paternity leave and paternity pay compare to maternity leave
> and pay?
> [ we live in times of equality!]

This has been addressed here in the US, at least by my employer. We now no
longer have maternity leave nor maternity pay, just disability leave.

I imagine if a new father could convince his doctor to certify that he is
physically incapable of working after his wife has given birth, he could
also get disability pay.

Lucy

[[email protected]]

My employer pays woman for 14 weeks after child birth, but only pays
men for 1 week. As you point out woman have several medical conditions
to recover from. If this is sexually equal policy though then it
implies that all woman take 13 weeks to recover from birth and then
both men and woman get a 1 week quality time bonding with baby.

I know us men are famous for underestimating the effort of childbirth,
but 14 weeks at full pay does seem more like 4 weeks of recovery (ie
sick pay) followed by 9 weeks of 'bonding with baby' time (ie paternity
pay) which is 9 weeks more than I get as a man.

....plus if I wanted to be a really modern man and take a full year off
work then unlike a woman I wouldnt have a job to go back to!

Its as though they are saying childcare is a womans job, youre a man so
go back to work! - is this what they mean by equality?


Thanks for the replies so far!


David Bevan

http://www.davidbevan.co.uk

[Ericka Kammerer]

wrote:

> My employer pays woman for 14 weeks after child birth, but only pays
> men for 1 week. As you point out woman have several medical conditions
> to recover from. If this is sexually equal policy though then it
> implies that all woman take 13 weeks to recover from birth and then
> both men and woman get a 1 week quality time bonding with baby.
>
> I know us men are famous for underestimating the effort of childbirth,
> but 14 weeks at full pay does seem more like 4 weeks of recovery (ie
> sick pay) followed by 9 weeks of 'bonding with baby' time (ie paternity
> pay) which is 9 weeks more than I get as a man.

In the US, standard "disability" leave for a pregnancy
(which is mainly driven by the physical recovery time) is 6 weeks
(usually 8 weeks for a c-section).

> ...plus if I wanted to be a really modern man and take a full year off
> work then unlike a woman I wouldnt have a job to go back to!
>
> Its as though they are saying childcare is a womans job, youre a man so
> go back to work! - is this what they mean by equality?

I don't know about UK policy. In the US, women tend to
get the standard disability leave (which may not be at full salary).
If someone's been with a company long enough (a year, maybe?) and
the company is big enough (50+ employees?) the Family Medical Leave
Act says that men or women can take up to 12 weeks and be guaranteed
their job back, but that time off is unpaid. Additional maternity
or paternity leave in the US isn't common :-/

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Mary Ann Tuli]

wrote:
> My employer pays woman for 14 weeks after child birth, but only pays
> men for 1 week. As you point out woman have several medical conditions
> to recover from. If this is sexually equal policy though then it
> implies that all woman take 13 weeks to recover from birth and then
> both men and woman get a 1 week quality time bonding with baby.

No, it's not just physical recovery, it's time to establish a
breastfeeding relationship.

> I know us men are famous for underestimating the effort of childbirth,
> but 14 weeks at full pay does seem more like 4 weeks of recovery (ie
> sick pay) followed by 9 weeks of 'bonding with baby' time (ie paternity
> pay) which is 9 weeks more than I get as a man.
>
> ...plus if I wanted to be a really modern man and take a full year off
> work then unlike a woman I wouldnt have a job to go back to!
>
> Its as though they are saying childcare is a womans job, youre a man so
> go back to work! - is this what they mean by equality?

I think there are some small efforts to counter this inequality. It will
take time but it's a start.

Mary Ann
>
>
> Thanks for the replies so far!
>
>
> David Bevan
>
> http://www.davidbevan.co.uk
>

[jenn' skates]

In message
>,
dragonlady > writes
>In article >,
> jenn' skates > wrote:
>
>Paternity leave isn't about physical healing/medical necessity.
>Actually, often maternity leave isn't, either: many women would be
>perfectly capable of returning to work within a week. For that matter,
>people get this leave when they adopt babies. The leave is about
>tending to the needs of a newborn, and about settling a new member into
>the family.

I know that many women don't need time to heal, but others do, and if
it's a legislated thing then it must attend the needs of those who need
time.

FWIW I do whole heatedly agree that paternity pay / leave should be
better, and that after the first couple of weeks it would be nice if
either parent could take the leave, however the basic fact remains that
women may need time to recover physically. Men will not need that time.
Emotions are a different matter though.
--
Jenn
UK
Mum to L - 01/99, M 04/02 and J 05/04

[jenn' skates]

In message . com>,
writes
>My employer pays woman for 14 weeks after child birth, but only pays
>men for 1 week. As you point out woman have several medical conditions
>to recover from. If this is sexually equal policy though then it
>implies that all woman take 13 weeks to recover from birth and then
>both men and woman get a 1 week quality time bonding with baby.
>
>I know us men are famous for underestimating the effort of childbirth,
>but 14 weeks at full pay does seem more like 4 weeks of recovery (ie
>sick pay) followed by 9 weeks of 'bonding with baby' time (ie paternity
>pay) which is 9 weeks more than I get as a man.

Good point - it took me a week or so to recover after the two standard
deliveries, but after the c-section it was definitely months rather than
weeks. There is the issue of breast feeding, but I don't know how to
factor that in.
>
>...plus if I wanted to be a really modern man and take a full year off
>work then unlike a woman I wouldnt have a job to go back to!

I was told I wouldn't have a viable job after maternity leave - I could
have gone back to the required 'equivalent' job, but would have needed
training etc at a lower pay scale. I wondered about the legality of
that but as I didn't want o go back and dropped it.
>
>Its as though they are saying childcare is a womans job, youre a man so
>go back to work! - is this what they mean by equality?
>
>
>Thanks for the replies so far!
The benefits system, however, doesn't discriminate (I think) I know a
couple of stay at home dads on inc. support who are coping as well as
mothers on I S.

It's a thorny issue, but it's not really an equality issue IMO.
--
Jenn
UK
Mum to L - 01/99, M 04/02 and J 05/04

[dragonlady]

In article >,
Mary Ann Tuli > wrote:

>
> No, it's not just physical recovery, it's time to establish a
> breastfeeding relationship.

I might buy that if it were only available to women who are
breastfeeding.

Since "maternity leave" is often avaliable to women who adopt (most of
whom do not breastfeed, though I know there are exceptions), I believe
that fundamentally it has less to do with biology and more to do with
the need to spend time with the baby.

If a particular woman actually needs time off to recover from a
difficult birth, why not call it sick time instead of maternity leave?

And give women and men the exact same amount of time off to do the baby
bonding thing.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Ericka Kammerer]

dragonlady wrote:

> If a particular woman actually needs time off to recover from a
> difficult birth, why not call it sick time instead of maternity leave?

In the US, most companies actually give disability leave
after a birth. Lots of people *call* it maternity leave, but
often the written company policy specifies something like "six
weeks of disability leave following a vaginal birth."

Best wishes,
Ericka

[Banty]

In article >, Ericka Kammerer says...
>
>dragonlady wrote:
>
>> If a particular woman actually needs time off to recover from a
>> difficult birth, why not call it sick time instead of maternity leave?
>
> In the US, most companies actually give disability leave
>after a birth. Lots of people *call* it maternity leave, but
>often the written company policy specifies something like "six
>weeks of disability leave following a vaginal birth."
>

My firm calls it "pregnancy termination leave", chillingly. It's left up to
individual sites, but common practice is 4 weeks vaginal birth, 4 weeks induced
abortion or miscarriage (really!), 6 weeks C-section if physician writes that
it's needed. I did too well after my C-section...

Any other leave is under the family leave act or a concatonation of vacation
time, etc. (which they're pretty flexible about). There is an adoption plan
with its own leave - I don't recall exactly how much.

There is also a leave after adoption, as part of a specific plan for adoptive
families.

But, in all that, there is no actual official 'maternity leave'.

Banty

[Caledonia]

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
> dragonlady wrote:
>
> > If a particular woman actually needs time off to recover from a
> > difficult birth, why not call it sick time instead of maternity
leave?
>
> In the US, most companies actually give disability leave
> after a birth. Lots of people *call* it maternity leave, but
> often the written company policy specifies something like "six
> weeks of disability leave following a vaginal birth."
>
> Best wishes,
> Ericka

And sick time (or 'paid time off') is typically paid and limited to X
days regardless of circumstance; short-term disability leave is
frequently not paid nor limited to a specific time frame but determined
by the diagnosed disability.

Caledonia

[jenn' skates]

In message
>,
dragonlady > writes
>In article >,
> Mary Ann Tuli > wrote:
>
>>
>> No, it's not just physical recovery, it's time to establish a
>> breastfeeding relationship.
>
>I might buy that if it were only available to women who are
>breastfeeding.
>
>Since "maternity leave" is often avaliable to women who adopt (most of
>whom do not breastfeed, though I know there are exceptions), I believe
>that fundamentally it has less to do with biology and more to do with
>the need to spend time with the baby.
>
>If a particular woman actually needs time off to recover from a
>difficult birth, why not call it sick time instead of maternity leave?
>
>And give women and men the exact same amount of time off to do the baby
>bonding thing.
This makes sense - but it would require a complete rewrite of the
current laws and this Govt. seem more happy to apply short term partial
fixes rather than long term solutions :(

I do think that the current laws are very out dated, and perhaps years
ago mothers did need more time, and employers were less likely to give
time off if it wasn't legislated for?

I think someone mentioned that in the US maternity leave is covered
under disability leave - that seems to be the wrong name for it to me,
as does sick leave, but the idea seems right - time off if you need it
to recover.


--
Jenn
UK
Mum to L - 01/99, M 04/02 and J 05/04

[Penny Gaines]

Banty wrote:

> My firm calls it "pregnancy termination leave", chillingly.**It's*left*up
> to individual sites, but common practice is 4 weeks vaginal birth, 4 weeks
> induced abortion or miscarriage (really!), 6 weeks C-section if physician
> writes that it's needed.**I*did*too*well*after*my*C-section...

So you got zero weeks? :-)

> Any other leave is under the family leave act or a concatonation of
> vacation time, etc. (which they're pretty flexible about).**There*is*an
> adoption*plan with its own leave - I don't recall exactly how much.

Last time I checked (which admittedly was a long time ago), in the UK
you didn't have the right to take odd days off because your child was
sick - I think in the US you can do that. These days in the UK,
parents of young children are entitled to ask for flexible working
patterns, but I don't know that it would enable someone to take time
off without notice.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

[Chris French]

In message >, jenn' skates
> writ
>
>I was told I wouldn't have a viable job after maternity leave - I could
>have gone back to the required 'equivalent' job, but would have needed
>training etc at a lower pay scale. I wondered about the legality of
>that but as I didn't want o go back and dropped it.

It certainly was illegal for them to say that
--
Chris French

[dragonlady]

In article >,
jenn' skates > wrote:

> In message
> >,
> dragonlady > writes
> >In article >,
> > Mary Ann Tuli > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> No, it's not just physical recovery, it's time to establish a
> >> breastfeeding relationship.
> >
> >I might buy that if it were only available to women who are
> >breastfeeding.
> >
> >Since "maternity leave" is often avaliable to women who adopt (most of
> >whom do not breastfeed, though I know there are exceptions), I believe
> >that fundamentally it has less to do with biology and more to do with
> >the need to spend time with the baby.
> >
> >If a particular woman actually needs time off to recover from a
> >difficult birth, why not call it sick time instead of maternity leave?
> >
> >And give women and men the exact same amount of time off to do the baby
> >bonding thing.
> This makes sense - but it would require a complete rewrite of the
> current laws and this Govt. seem more happy to apply short term partial
> fixes rather than long term solutions :(
>
> I do think that the current laws are very out dated, and perhaps years
> ago mothers did need more time, and employers were less likely to give
> time off if it wasn't legislated for?
>
> I think someone mentioned that in the US maternity leave is covered
> under disability leave - that seems to be the wrong name for it to me,
> as does sick leave, but the idea seems right - time off if you need it
> to recover.

I'm older than you, and remember when it was legal to terminate someone
for even BEING pregnant, and it finally got written into laws that women
could use disability leave for maternity.

Heck, I remember when it was legal to ask what form of birth control you
were using (or if you were sexually active, if you were single) in job
interviews. And how many kids you had, and if you planned on having
more, and all sorts of things! (Of course, minimum wage for women was
lower, and it was still legal to pay women less than men for identical
jobs.)
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Patrick Mullin]

"Penny Gaines" > wrote in message
...
> Any man giving birth deserves as much time to recover as any woman
> giving birth.
>
> --
> Penny Gaines
> UK mum to three

You owe me a keyboard....

[Banty]

In article >,
dragonlady says...
>
>In article >,
> jenn' skates > wrote:
>
>> In message
>> >,
>> dragonlady > writes
>> >In article >,
>> > Mary Ann Tuli > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> No, it's not just physical recovery, it's time to establish a
>> >> breastfeeding relationship.
>> >
>> >I might buy that if it were only available to women who are
>> >breastfeeding.
>> >
>> >Since "maternity leave" is often avaliable to women who adopt (most of
>> >whom do not breastfeed, though I know there are exceptions), I believe
>> >that fundamentally it has less to do with biology and more to do with
>> >the need to spend time with the baby.
>> >
>> >If a particular woman actually needs time off to recover from a
>> >difficult birth, why not call it sick time instead of maternity leave?
>> >
>> >And give women and men the exact same amount of time off to do the baby
>> >bonding thing.
>> This makes sense - but it would require a complete rewrite of the
>> current laws and this Govt. seem more happy to apply short term partial
>> fixes rather than long term solutions :(
>>
>> I do think that the current laws are very out dated, and perhaps years
>> ago mothers did need more time, and employers were less likely to give
>> time off if it wasn't legislated for?
>>
>> I think someone mentioned that in the US maternity leave is covered
>> under disability leave - that seems to be the wrong name for it to me,
>> as does sick leave, but the idea seems right - time off if you need it
>> to recover.
>
>I'm older than you, and remember when it was legal to terminate someone
>for even BEING pregnant, and it finally got written into laws that women
>could use disability leave for maternity.
>
>Heck, I remember when it was legal to ask what form of birth control you
>were using (or if you were sexually active, if you were single) in job
>interviews. And how many kids you had, and if you planned on having
>more, and all sorts of things! (Of course, minimum wage for women was
>lower, and it was still legal to pay women less than men for identical
>jobs.)


I remember when they terminated a pregnant woman when she could not stand facing
a wall, toes touching the wall, standing straight up, without her belly touching
the wall. Then she would be 'showing', and it was supposed to be unseemly to be
working.

That went away in the '70s with the Equal Opportunity Act (I think it was..),
because there are a fair number of men who cannot meet that requirement.

Banty (who has a couple of funny stories about working in a microelectronics
fab, wrapped head to toe in low-particulate garb, when pregnant..)

[dragonlady]

In article >,
Banty > wrote:

> In article >,
> dragonlady says...
> >
> >In article >,
> > jenn' skates > wrote:
> >
> >> In message
> >> >,
> >> dragonlady > writes
> >> >In article >,
> >> > Mary Ann Tuli > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it's not just physical recovery, it's time to establish a
> >> >> breastfeeding relationship.
> >> >
> >> >I might buy that if it were only available to women who are
> >> >breastfeeding.
> >> >
> >> >Since "maternity leave" is often avaliable to women who adopt (most of
> >> >whom do not breastfeed, though I know there are exceptions), I believe
> >> >that fundamentally it has less to do with biology and more to do with
> >> >the need to spend time with the baby.
> >> >
> >> >If a particular woman actually needs time off to recover from a
> >> >difficult birth, why not call it sick time instead of maternity leave?
> >> >
> >> >And give women and men the exact same amount of time off to do the baby
> >> >bonding thing.
> >> This makes sense - but it would require a complete rewrite of the
> >> current laws and this Govt. seem more happy to apply short term partial
> >> fixes rather than long term solutions :(
> >>
> >> I do think that the current laws are very out dated, and perhaps years
> >> ago mothers did need more time, and employers were less likely to give
> >> time off if it wasn't legislated for?
> >>
> >> I think someone mentioned that in the US maternity leave is covered
> >> under disability leave - that seems to be the wrong name for it to me,
> >> as does sick leave, but the idea seems right - time off if you need it
> >> to recover.
> >
> >I'm older than you, and remember when it was legal to terminate someone
> >for even BEING pregnant, and it finally got written into laws that women
> >could use disability leave for maternity.
> >
> >Heck, I remember when it was legal to ask what form of birth control you
> >were using (or if you were sexually active, if you were single) in job
> >interviews. And how many kids you had, and if you planned on having
> >more, and all sorts of things! (Of course, minimum wage for women was
> >lower, and it was still legal to pay women less than men for identical
> >jobs.)
>
>
> I remember when they terminated a pregnant woman when she could not stand
> facing
> a wall, toes touching the wall, standing straight up, without her belly
> touching
> the wall. Then she would be 'showing', and it was supposed to be unseemly to
> be
> working.

When I was in high school (the late 60's) there was some concern when
the school allowed a pregnant teacher to continue teaching, even after
she was showing. Mind you, she was almost 40 and had been married for
about 10 years, but enough parents remembered when that just Wasn't Done
to bring it up.
>
> That went away in the '70s with the Equal Opportunity Act (I think it was..),
> because there are a fair number of men who cannot meet that requirement.
>
> Banty (who has a couple of funny stories about working in a microelectronics
> fab, wrapped head to toe in low-particulate garb, when pregnant..)
>

I'd like to have seen that!

I've never even seen DH in his clean room garb, but I'd love to. I
offered to put ears and a tail on so he could go in looking like the
Easter Bunny, but, alas, such embellishments are not allowed.

Where did they find maternity clean room suits? Or did you have to just
order a much larger size and put up with the lack of a decent fit?
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Banty]

In article >,
dragonlady says...
>
>In article >,
> Banty > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> dragonlady says...
>> >
>> >In article >,
>> > jenn' skates > wrote:
>> >
>> >> In message
>> >> >,
>> >> dragonlady > writes
>> >> >In article >,
>> >> > Mary Ann Tuli > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, it's not just physical recovery, it's time to establish a
>> >> >> breastfeeding relationship.
>> >> >
>> >> >I might buy that if it were only available to women who are
>> >> >breastfeeding.
>> >> >
>> >> >Since "maternity leave" is often avaliable to women who adopt (most of
>> >> >whom do not breastfeed, though I know there are exceptions), I believe
>> >> >that fundamentally it has less to do with biology and more to do with
>> >> >the need to spend time with the baby.
>> >> >
>> >> >If a particular woman actually needs time off to recover from a
>> >> >difficult birth, why not call it sick time instead of maternity leave?
>> >> >
>> >> >And give women and men the exact same amount of time off to do the baby
>> >> >bonding thing.
>> >> This makes sense - but it would require a complete rewrite of the
>> >> current laws and this Govt. seem more happy to apply short term partial
>> >> fixes rather than long term solutions :(
>> >>
>> >> I do think that the current laws are very out dated, and perhaps years
>> >> ago mothers did need more time, and employers were less likely to give
>> >> time off if it wasn't legislated for?
>> >>
>> >> I think someone mentioned that in the US maternity leave is covered
>> >> under disability leave - that seems to be the wrong name for it to me,
>> >> as does sick leave, but the idea seems right - time off if you need it
>> >> to recover.
>> >
>> >I'm older than you, and remember when it was legal to terminate someone
>> >for even BEING pregnant, and it finally got written into laws that women
>> >could use disability leave for maternity.
>> >
>> >Heck, I remember when it was legal to ask what form of birth control you
>> >were using (or if you were sexually active, if you were single) in job
>> >interviews. And how many kids you had, and if you planned on having
>> >more, and all sorts of things! (Of course, minimum wage for women was
>> >lower, and it was still legal to pay women less than men for identical
>> >jobs.)
>>
>>
>> I remember when they terminated a pregnant woman when she could not stand
>> facing
>> a wall, toes touching the wall, standing straight up, without her belly
>> touching
>>the wall. Then she would be 'showing', and it was supposed to be unseemly to
>> be
>> working.
>
>When I was in high school (the late 60's) there was some concern when
>the school allowed a pregnant teacher to continue teaching, even after
>she was showing. Mind you, she was almost 40 and had been married for
>about 10 years, but enough parents remembered when that just Wasn't Done
>to bring it up.
>>
>> That went away in the '70s with the Equal Opportunity Act (I think it was..),
>> because there are a fair number of men who cannot meet that requirement.
>>
>> Banty (who has a couple of funny stories about working in a microelectronics
>> fab, wrapped head to toe in low-particulate garb, when pregnant..)
>>
>
>I'd like to have seen that!
>
>I've never even seen DH in his clean room garb, but I'd love to. I
>offered to put ears and a tail on so he could go in looking like the
>Easter Bunny, but, alas, such embellishments are not allowed.
>
>Where did they find maternity clean room suits? Or did you have to just
>order a much larger size and put up with the lack of a decent fit?

I'll tell you - just like with the fate of these rules under the Equal
Opportunity Act, what's good for the gander is good for the goose. So, there
are *plenty* of gore-tex cleanroom garments available even for this six foot
pregnant lady, because they need to have garments to cover all those six foot
and taller bodies sporting quite protrubant guts. No special order needed for
me at all!

Funny story, when I was standing next to a rather jocular (y'know, the
back-slapping type) type, while he was working on a tool he was assigned to
maintain. He gave me a slap on the belly "hitting the beer huh". Imagine the
reaction when a feminine voice came out of that masked, six foot tall,
pear-shaped gore-tex-wrapped body "I think you made the baby move." There were
about five people there to witness it - Ha haa haa ha! One of my best memories
:)

Banty

[Rosalie B.]

Banty > wrote:

>In article >,
>dragonlady says...
<snip>
>>When I was in high school (the late 60's) there was some concern when
>>the school allowed a pregnant teacher to continue teaching, even after
>>she was showing. Mind you, she was almost 40 and had been married for
>>about 10 years, but enough parents remembered when that just Wasn't Done
>>to bring it up.

I remember that my hs biology teacher told me that the female married
teachers had to tell the school board by the 3rd month if they were pg
and were not allowed to teach if they were 'showing'. That went by
the board when the physics teacher died, and my math teacher had to
teach physics (he was the only faculty member qualified), so his math
class went to another teacher who was pg, and they had to let her
finish the semester - either that or use a permanent sub.

Of course in those days pg girls were not allowed back in the school
at all even if they got married to the father, although the father
could continue and graduate.

>>> That went away in the '70s with the Equal Opportunity Act (I think it was..),
>>> because there are a fair number of men who cannot meet that requirement.
>>>
>>> Banty (who has a couple of funny stories about working in a microelectronics
>>> fab, wrapped head to toe in low-particulate garb, when pregnant..)
>>>
>>I'd like to have seen that!
>>
>>I've never even seen DH in his clean room garb, but I'd love to. I
>>offered to put ears and a tail on so he could go in looking like the
>>Easter Bunny, but, alas, such embellishments are not allowed.
>>
>>Where did they find maternity clean room suits? Or did you have to just
>>order a much larger size and put up with the lack of a decent fit?
>
When dd#2 was pg and flying commercial, they had pg uniforms for the
flight attendants, but there weren't that many female captains, and
they just didn't have the need for them. So she got maternity slacks
as close to the color of the uniform as she could, and then wore the
blouse not tucked in, and the coat open. One of the male pilots
complained to the chief pilot that she didn't look professional, and
he called her on the carpet. She wasn't very big yet, so they didn't
know that she was pg. She was the main support of the family because
her dh was in school. She only had 3 weeks maternity leave btw. She
had managed to horde sick leave and vacation and worked up until the
limit they allowed so she didn't have to take leave without pay for
the pregnancy.

>I'll tell you - just like with the fate of these rules under the Equal
>Opportunity Act, what's good for the gander is good for the goose. So, there
>are *plenty* of gore-tex cleanroom garments available even for this six foot
>pregnant lady, because they need to have garments to cover all those six foot
>and taller bodies sporting quite protrubant guts. No special order needed for
>me at all!
>
>Funny story, when I was standing next to a rather jocular (y'know, the
>back-slapping type) type, while he was working on a tool he was assigned to
>maintain. He gave me a slap on the belly "hitting the beer huh". Imagine the
>reaction when a feminine voice came out of that masked, six foot tall,
>pear-shaped gore-tex-wrapped body "I think you made the baby move." There were
>about five people there to witness it - Ha haa haa ha! One of my best memories
>:)
>Banty


grandma Rosalie

[dragonlady]

In article >,
Rosalie B. > wrote:

> Of course in those days pg girls were not allowed back in the school
> at all even if they got married to the father, although the father
> could continue and graduate.

The double standard is mostly gone.

When my baby brother was in hs, the prom king and queen were a well
liked couple -- who already had a baby. They weren't married. That
brother (an extreme conservative and fundamentalist) was appalled that
the girl was even allowed to attend school, never mind be prom queen.
He was OK with the boy being prom king, however.

I have a hard time understanding that attitude! But I'm glad pregnant
girls are no longer thrown out of high school.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[[email protected]]

Why is in not an equality issue?

....An employer is legally obliged to hold a job open for a woman for 1
year after birth so that she can spend some time at home looking after
the baby, but a man has to return to work after two weeks or loose his
job. Im finacially secure enough to take 6 months to a year off work to
spend time with my family, but cant as I would loose my job. Please
explain how this is NOT and equality issue?

Thanks

David Bevan
http://www.davidbevan.co.uk

[Banty]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>Why is in not an equality issue?
>
>...An employer is legally obliged to hold a job open for a woman for 1
>year after birth so that she can spend some time at home looking after
>the baby, but a man has to return to work after two weeks or loose his
>job. Im finacially secure enough to take 6 months to a year off work to
>spend time with my family, but cant as I would loose my job. Please
>explain how this is NOT and equality issue?
>

In the U.S. either parent can avail themselves of the Family Leave Act.

In the U.K., if what you say is true, then it looks like the inequality is that
the old gender roles are expected to apply. That is, the mother is the one
doing the caretaking of the infant, not so much the father.

So, I agree that this is an equality issue. One thing that moves that sort of
thing to equality (and this applies to custody issues) is for men more and more
to take on the caretaking role. So that eventually it's inconceivable that the
parents be treated differently legally.

So, I take it, if/when you are a father of an infant, you do plan to share
equally in the caretaking (aside from breastfeeding and physically recovering
from pregnancy and delivery, of course). For that I commend you.

Cheers,
Banty

[Chris Bacon]

Banty wrote:
> So, I take it, if/when you are a father of an infant, you do plan to share
> equally in the caretaking (aside from breastfeeding and physically recovering
> from pregnancy and delivery, of course). For that I commend you.

Isn't it the norm? I mention this from a UK perspective. I reckon I
do at least 50% of the "caretaking"!

[Mary Ann Tuli]

Chris Bacon wrote:
> Banty wrote:
>
>> So, I take it, if/when you are a father of an infant, you do plan to
>> share
>> equally in the caretaking (aside from breastfeeding and physically
>> recovering
>> from pregnancy and delivery, of course). For that I commend you.
>
>
> Isn't it the norm? I mention this from a UK perspective. I reckon I
> do at least 50% of the "caretaking"!

You speak for yourself then. The norm in the UK from *my* perspective
is that childcare is not a 50/50 split between the mother and the father.

Mary Ann

[Chris Bacon]

Mary Ann Tuli wrote:
> Chris Bacon wrote:
>> Isn't it the norm? I mention this from a UK perspective. I reckon I
>> do at least 50% of the "caretaking"!
>
> You speak for yourself then. The norm in the UK from *my* perspective
> is that childcare is not a 50/50 split between the mother and the father.

Oh dear. I'm very sorry that you're having problems, hopefully things
will get better.

[Mary Ann Tuli]

Chris Bacon wrote:
> Mary Ann Tuli wrote:
>
>> Chris Bacon wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't it the norm? I mention this from a UK perspective. I reckon I
>>> do at least 50% of the "caretaking"!
>>
>>
>> You speak for yourself then. The norm in the UK from *my* perspective
>> is that childcare is not a 50/50 split between the mother and the father.
>
>
> Oh dear. I'm very sorry that you're having problems, hopefully things
> will get better.

You missunderstand me. When I said my perspective I didn't necessarily
mean my personal situation, but what I see around me.

- children are dropped off at school mainly by mothers
- children are picked up from school mainly by mothers (even more than
in the morning)
- play dates during the school week are arranged mainly by and with mothers
- children are usually escorted to afternoon and early evening activites
by mothers

My personal sitation sees me working full time and my husband being SAH.
No problem at all. I haven't worked it out hour for hour but we're
probably 70% him and 30% me childcare. I would prefer it to swing more
the other way only so both me and DH have more of a balance.

Mary Ann

[Amy]

"Chris Bacon" > wrote in message
...

>>> Isn't it the norm? I mention this from a UK perspective. I reckon I
>>> do at least 50% of the "caretaking"!
>>
>> You speak for yourself then. The norm in the UK from *my* perspective
>> is that childcare is not a 50/50 split between the mother and the father.
>
> Oh dear. I'm very sorry that you're having problems, hopefully things
> will get better.

That's very patronising - the way I read Mary Ann's post was that as a
general rule childcare is not a 50/50 split, not that this was the case in
her family personally. And she is right - in the majority of families in
the UK, rightly or wrongly, I think you will find that it is the mother who
does the lion's share of the childcare.
Amy

[Chris Bacon]

Amy wrote:
> "Chris Bacon" wrote in message

>>Oh dear. I'm very sorry that you're having problems, hopefully things
>>will get better.
>
>
> That's very patronising

Don't be stupid.

[Chris Bacon]

Mary Ann Tuli wrote:
> Chris Bacon wrote:
>> Mary Ann Tuli wrote:
>>> Chris Bacon wrote:
>>>> Isn't it the norm? I mention this from a UK perspective. I reckon I
>>>> do at least 50% of the "caretaking"!
>>>
>>> You speak for yourself then. The norm in the UK from *my* perspective
>>> is that childcare is not a 50/50 split between the mother and the
>>> father.
>>
>> Oh dear. I'm very sorry that you're having problems, hopefully things
>> will get better.
>
> You missunderstand me. When I said my perspective I didn't necessarily
> mean my personal situation, but what I see around me.
>
> - children are dropped off at school mainly by mothers
> - children are picked up from school mainly by mothers (even more than
> in the morning)
> - play dates during the school week are arranged mainly by and with mothers
> - children are usually escorted to afternoon and early evening activites
> by mothers
>
> My personal sitation sees me working full time and my husband being SAH.
> No problem at all. I haven't worked it out hour for hour but we're
> probably 70% him and 30% me childcare. I would prefer it to swing more
> the other way only so both me and DH have more of a balance.

Ah, OK - what's "SAH"? I wish my childcare arrangements were more
even - however, that's not going to happen. The Young Master (3 y.o.)
could do with more contact with other children, too, but I'm not sure
how to arrange that. I guess time will do it, + perhaps visits to the
park, and so on.

[Mary Ann Tuli]

Chris Bacon wrote:
> Mary Ann Tuli wrote:
>
>> Chris Bacon wrote:
>>
>>> Mary Ann Tuli wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chris Bacon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it the norm? I mention this from a UK perspective. I reckon I
>>>>> do at least 50% of the "caretaking"!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You speak for yourself then. The norm in the UK from *my* perspective
>>>> is that childcare is not a 50/50 split between the mother and the
>>>> father.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh dear. I'm very sorry that you're having problems, hopefully things
>>> will get better.
>>
>>
>> You missunderstand me. When I said my perspective I didn't necessarily
>> mean my personal situation, but what I see around me.
>>
>> - children are dropped off at school mainly by mothers
>> - children are picked up from school mainly by mothers (even more than
>> in the morning)
>> - play dates during the school week are arranged mainly by and with
>> mothers
>> - children are usually escorted to afternoon and early evening
>> activites by mothers
>>
>> My personal sitation sees me working full time and my husband being SAH.
>> No problem at all. I haven't worked it out hour for hour but we're
>> probably 70% him and 30% me childcare. I would prefer it to swing more
>> the other way only so both me and DH have more of a balance.
>
>
> Ah, OK - what's "SAH"?

Stay At Home.
PC for housewife innit ;-)

Mary Ann


> I wish my childcare arrangements were more
> even - however, that's not going to happen. The Young Master (3 y.o.)
> could do with more contact with other children, too, but I'm not sure
> how to arrange that. I guess time will do it, + perhaps visits to the
> park, and so on.

[Chris French]

In message >, Mary Ann Tuli
> writes
>Chris Bacon wrote:
>> Mary Ann Tuli wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Bacon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't it the norm? I mention this from a UK perspective. I reckon I
>>>> do at least 50% of the "caretaking"!
>>>
>>>
>>> You speak for yourself then. The norm in the UK from *my* perspective
>>> is that childcare is not a 50/50 split between the mother and the father.
>> Oh dear. I'm very sorry that you're having problems, hopefully
>>things
>> will get better.
>
>You missunderstand me. When I said my perspective I didn't necessarily
>mean my personal situation, but what I see around me.
>
Yep, going on the group of mum's in my wife's anteantal groups who are
still meeting 4 years down the line, childcare certainly doesn't seem to
split in an equable manner in many of the families.
--
Chris French

[Linz]

"Chris Bacon" > wrote in message
...
> Amy wrote:
>> "Chris Bacon" wrote in message
>
>>>Oh dear. I'm very sorry that you're having problems, hopefully
>>>>things will get better.
>>
>>
>> That's very patronising
>
> Don't be stupid.

She's not being stupid, you were.

You assumed that Mary Ann was having problems - what she said was that
"from her perspective" there wasn't the 50/50 split you mentioned. And
she's right, there isn't.

I'm one of the /very/ lucky mums who does have a 50/50 split - I took
yesterday off because YoungBloke was sick. OldBloke and I discussed
the situation and decided that since a) OB had to return a devirused
laptop and b) YB was breastfeeding for Britain since he couldn't hold
down food, it made sense for me to stay at home. This year OB's been
off 2 days with YB and I've been off 3. Next time YB's sick, it'll be
OB's turn.

We are not the norm.

[[email protected]]

> You missunderstand me. When I said my perspective I didn't
necessarily
> mean my personal situation, but what I see around me.
>
> - children are dropped off at school mainly by mothers
> - children are picked up from school mainly by mothers (even more
than
> in the morning)
> - play dates during the school week are arranged mainly by and with
mothers
> - children are usually escorted to afternoon and early evening
activites
> by mothers
>
> My personal sitation sees me working full time and my husband being
SAH.
> No problem at all. I haven't worked it out hour for hour but we're
> probably 70% him and 30% me childcare. I would prefer it to swing
more
> the other way only so both me and DH have more of a balance.
>
> Mary Ann

....maybe its because your husband had to return to work a week after
birth, but you (being a woman) had the chance to spend upto a whole
year at home looking after your child. During this first year is when
you probably settled into patterns of how the child care is split
between yourself and your husband and so obviously the 'norm' is for
you to do the majority even though you both now work.

David Bevan
http://www.davidbevan.co.uk

[[email protected]]

There seems to be an underlying implication in these messages that its
OK to bias child caring related benifits (ie extended maternity
pay/holding job open for a year etc) towards woman since statistically
its woman who end up doing more childcare.

....I would just like to reverse this, there are statistically more men
in full time work than woman (there has to be if there are all these
full time Mums you talk about) but it would be illeagal to treat men
more favorably at work just based on the fact that they are the
majority. (im not saying it doesnt happen!)

Wouldnt it be a sensible step forward to encorage men to take a more
active role in child care by making it easier for them to take the time
off from work? My first is due in June and a really would like to spend
as much time as possible with him/her, but know that I simply dont have
the same rights as my wife and so its going to prove extremely
difficult!

The existance of the sterotype isnt an excuse for the inequal law, its
the inequal law that creates the sterotype in the first place!


Thanks for replies so far.

David Bevan
http://www.davidbevan.co.uk

[Linz]

> wrote in message
oups.com...

>> My personal sitation sees me working full time and my husband
>> being SAH.
>> No problem at all. I haven't worked it out hour for hour but we're
>> probably 70% him and 30% me childcare. I would prefer it to swing
>> more the other way only so both me and DH have more of a balance.
>>
>> Mary Ann
>
> ...maybe its because your husband had to return to work a week
> after birth, but you (being a woman) had the chance to spend upto a
> whole year at home looking after your child. During this first year
> is when you probably settled into patterns of how the child care is
> split between yourself and your husband and so obviously the 'norm'
> is for you to do the majority even though you both now work.

David, go back and read again what Mary Ann wrote. Specifically the
part where she says she works full time and her husband stays at home.
Then work on understanding what that means.

[bizby40]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> There seems to be an underlying implication in these messages that its
> OK to bias child caring related benifits (ie extended maternity
> pay/holding job open for a year etc) towards woman since statistically
> its woman who end up doing more childcare.
>
> ...I would just like to reverse this, there are statistically more men
> in full time work than woman (there has to be if there are all these
> full time Mums you talk about) but it would be illeagal to treat men
> more favorably at work just based on the fact that they are the
> majority. (im not saying it doesnt happen!)
>
> Wouldnt it be a sensible step forward to encorage men to take a more
> active role in child care by making it easier for them to take the time
> off from work? My first is due in June and a really would like to spend
> as much time as possible with him/her, but know that I simply dont have
> the same rights as my wife and so its going to prove extremely
> difficult!
>
> The existance of the sterotype isnt an excuse for the inequal law, its
> the inequal law that creates the sterotype in the first place!

In the US, the law is more equal. Either parent, or both, may take
up to 12 weeks off with a guarantee of their own job, or an equivalent
one when they come back. (This applies only to companies of
50 employees or more).

In practice, very few men take the full time, while many women do.
And it is still disproportionately women who do the majority of the
child care.

I agree with you that equality in the law is a good start, but I think
that a societal shift needs to take place before there is true
equality in the home.

On the bright side, this shift does seem to be taking place. I
know one stay-at-home dad, and two other dads who seem
(from an outside perspective) to be just as involved in their
childs' lives as their wives.

On the flip side, the 9 months that women get to carry the
baby, as well as the time spent breastfeeding, may make the
balance always tilt a bit towards the woman as caretaker.

Bizby

> Thanks for replies so far.
>
> David Bevan
> http://www.davidbevan.co.uk
>

[Banty]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>> You missunderstand me. When I said my perspective I didn't
>necessarily
>> mean my personal situation, but what I see around me.
>>
>> - children are dropped off at school mainly by mothers
>> - children are picked up from school mainly by mothers (even more
>than
>> in the morning)
>> - play dates during the school week are arranged mainly by and with
>mothers
>> - children are usually escorted to afternoon and early evening
>activites
>> by mothers
>>
>> My personal sitation sees me working full time and my husband being
>SAH.
>> No problem at all. I haven't worked it out hour for hour but we're
>> probably 70% him and 30% me childcare. I would prefer it to swing
>more
>> the other way only so both me and DH have more of a balance.
>>
>> Mary Ann
>
>...maybe its because your husband had to return to work a week after
>birth, but you (being a woman) had the chance to spend upto a whole
>year at home looking after your child. During this first year is when
>you probably settled into patterns of how the child care is split
>between yourself and your husband and so obviously the 'norm' is for
>you to do the majority even though you both now work.
>

So this is turning into a chicken-and-egg thing.

So, before a maternity leave was instituted, were the childcare responsibilities
equally divided, such that this is why women now have the bulk of the childcare
duties? Daddies changed half the nappies until they were suddenly forced to go
off to work?? I think that's quite unlikely.

I *do* think the present situation as you describe it as far as time off is
unequal and fair. The point you need to understand is that there's a connection
between that and the extra burden that mothers, vs. fathers, have had in
childrearing.

As to how to fix it all, it's sort of a chicken and egg thing again, perhaps,
but the work will have to be done from both sides, I'm afraid. Just as women
did the hard work of seeking employement when we were cajoled and denigrated for
doing so, but by doing so even while being hassled about it, we created the
conditions for practices and laws eventually being created which accomodate the
new reality. Like getting paid what they guy hired the same time I was for the
same work of technical design, instead of about half because I "don't really
need it".

As it stands now, it seems U.K. employers are hesitant to grant extended leaves
to those who aleady have the childcare duties relegated to someone else. So
some work will have to be done on fathers' end to make that *not* the reality.
In the meantime, you and I can advocate the changes in practice and law that
would accomodate that reality.

Cheers,
Banty

[Banty]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>There seems to be an underlying implication in these messages that its
>OK to bias child caring related benifits (ie extended maternity
>pay/holding job open for a year etc) towards woman since statistically
>its woman who end up doing more childcare.

Actually, no; at least not in my posts.

It is not OK. But it isn't OK either that it *is* the case that the mums have
the burden by far.

>
>...I would just like to reverse this, there are statistically more men
>in full time work than woman (there has to be if there are all these
>full time Mums you talk about) but it would be illeagal to treat men
>more favorably at work just based on the fact that they are the
>majority. (im not saying it doesnt happen!)
>

Ah, but read my other recent post. It took some effort on womens' side, against
a lot of resistance, to make it a reality that we *are* a very significant part
of the work force. *Before* equally favorable treatment became the norm. And,
in that case, the employer can darn well see if any person, including a woman,
simply isn't doing what she was hired to do, and tell her to find another place
to goldbrick.

Hopefully you can understand employers' trepidation regarding granting leave to
fathers, on the chance that they're going to use it for actual childrearing,
with little opportunity to verify that this isn't simply a boondoggle for him
whilst the lady does all the baby work. So, that needs *not* to be the case
for a large majority of new fathers.

>Wouldnt it be a sensible step forward to encorage men to take a more
>active role in child care by making it easier for them to take the time
>off from work?

Yes! Very sensible. For all concerned, not the least the children themselves.
But that was my point, although you missed it.

Unfortunately, you (as a gender in the U.K.) are experiencing a lag between a
developing new reality of fatherhood and employers catching up. Well, welcome
to social change. As female engineer entering the field in the 1970's, I can
tell you quite a bit personally about that lag between social reality and
employers' actions.

So, the best of luck to you, I commend you.

>My first is due in June and a really would like to spend
>as much time as possible with him/her, but know that I simply dont have
>the same rights as my wife and so its going to prove extremely
>difficult!

Yes, and that's a bad thing that should change. There's no magic wand to do
that unless and until social reality changes.

>
>The existance of the sterotype isnt an excuse for the inequal law, its
>the inequal law that creates the sterotype in the first place!

That, I don't agree with - the stereotype has created the law. As I said above,
I'm quite familliar with that phenomenon.

Cheers,
Banty

[Mary Ann Tuli]

wrote:
>>You missunderstand me. When I said my perspective I didn't
>
> necessarily
>
>>mean my personal situation, but what I see around me.
>>
>>- children are dropped off at school mainly by mothers
>>- children are picked up from school mainly by mothers (even more
>
> than
>
>>in the morning)
>>- play dates during the school week are arranged mainly by and with
>
> mothers
>
>>- children are usually escorted to afternoon and early evening
>
> activites
>
>>by mothers
>>
>>My personal sitation sees me working full time and my husband being
>
> SAH.
>
>>No problem at all. I haven't worked it out hour for hour but we're
>>probably 70% him and 30% me childcare. I would prefer it to swing
>
> more
>
>>the other way only so both me and DH have more of a balance.
>>
>>Mary Ann
>
>
> ...maybe its because your husband had to return to work a week after
> birth, but you (being a woman) had the chance to spend upto a whole
> year at home looking after your child.

Actually I didn't. At the time I worked for a company which gave 14
weeks leave.

> During this first year is when
> you probably settled into patterns of how the child care is split
> between yourself and your husband and so obviously the 'norm' is for
> you to do the majority even though you both now work.

Nope. The situation I described is not mine at all. During my son's 6
years my DH has worked less than I have and has been the primary carer
more than I have.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to say what was right or wrong, just stating
what I see in response to Chris seemingly being surprised that children
are not cared for 50/50 by mothers and fathers.

Mary Ann
>
> David Bevan
> http://www.davidbevan.co.uk
>