5 reasons why exclusive maternity leave is bad for women

The new head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission says equality laws are holding women back. It's good to see that someone is finally acknowledging it. There's been such a focus on getting more maternity leave for women that we haven't noticed that the one-sided benefits aren't always benefitting women or families in general, because...:

1. You can't change human nature

If an employer has two job candidates, and knows that one can take off for months with little notice and do it repeatedly, it's natural that the employer would choose one that provides the most continuity, the one that can be more available and - perhaps - just make the employer more comfortable with their predictability. That is to say, an employer would choose one who won't become a mother.

2. It sidelines dads

Why does the law assume that mothers are the best at peeling bananas, playing ball, reading stories and wiping tears? The law places the responsibility for the first year of life solely on mums and sends the message that dads are there to be breadwinners and occasional babysitters, not full-on parents.

3. It keeps women out of the top ranks at companies

If a man took a year off from partner-track at his law firm to sail round the world, it would be assumed that his heart wasn't in his work. If a woman takes a year off to look after her child, the same is assumed. It's not right and the situations aren't analogous, but "commitment" at the management level in many companies is still measured by the amount of time - year after year - that you slave away at your desk. The law feeds into the existing cycle. Men are currently in top management; women take off time to look after children; they come back but languish at lower levels because they haven't put in the time; they leave because they're not being promoted. Rinse and repeat.

If taking time off was normalised for everyone within companies (that is, if men were doing it too), then attitudes among top management would change within a generation.

4. Maternity leave law affects all women - whether or not they want to have children

Even if a woman has decided she never wants to have children, when she's of child-bearing age - and especially if she's married or in a long-term relationship - she'll be subjected to the same fears and concerns from employers. In other words, every working woman from age 21 until the menopause has a harder struggle for her "commitment" to be taken seriously. After all, who knows when she'll lark off to make babies?

5. It keeps mothers barefoot and pregnant

The longer you're out of work or out of the office, the harder it can be to get back in and maintain your career trajectory, as this story of working mother Sarah Vince-Cain shows. Once you've started your family it makes sense to continue (a big topic of debate in my antenatal group was whether it was better to leave one year or two between babies). And while you can take the woman out of the fast lane, you can't take the fast lane out of the woman. Intelligent, educated women who leave their jobs to look after children devote their intelligence and dedication to their new task. Thus having babies and raising children become the woman's vocation. Just like the good ol' days.

Comments

[Bella]

The problem with point (1) is that most employers are too lazy to ask themselves whether it's really parents/ women on mat leave who are harming the company's interests. I know of one company that did bother to investigate this, and with surprising results: they found that it was actually the young layabout singleton under 30s whose all-night drinking sessions made them the most unreliable employees of all.

[Bella]

The problem with point (1) is that most employers are too lazy to ask themselves whether it's really parents/ women on mat leave who are harming the company's interests. I know of one company that did bother to investigate this, and with surprising results: they found that it was actually the young layabout singleton under 30s whose all-night drinking sessions made them the most unreliable employees of all.

[Bella]

The problem with point (1) is that most employers are too lazy to ask themselves whether it's really parents/ women on mat leave who are harming the company's interests. I know of one company that did bother to investigate this, and with surprising results: they found that it was actually the young layabout singleton under 30s whose all-night drinking sessions made them the most unreliable employees of all.

[Bella]

The problem with point (1) is that most employers are too lazy to ask themselves whether it's really parents/ women on mat leave who are harming the company's interests. I know of one company that did bother to investigate this, and with surprising results: they found that it was actually the young layabout singleton under 30s whose all-night drinking sessions made them the most unreliable employees of all.

[Bea]

I have been saying this for years. I am astounded to see that so many people disagree with just plain common sense. There should be NO maternity leave, only PARENTAL leave, to be divided up as the parent/s see fit.

Bea

#1 You can't change human nature.
Once a woman's had a baby, she doesn't want to come back. You've got to starve her into it, which is what we do.
#2 It sidelines dads.
Notwithstanding that men are better than women at almost everything, the fact remains they're much better at earning money, and most of them don't want the tedious boredom of playing with kids, fortunately women don't want them their either, because nature makes them love nappies.
#3 It keeps women off the top ranks of companies.
Which is something that infuriates Harriet Harman, because she wants to be there, and she couldn't be rational if she got the chance, hence the need for a few sisters to back her up. Practically no other women actually want to be there, but they've got no choice because the sisterhood don't want nuclear families because it makes them do less well.
#4 Maternity leave law affects all women...
This is true, but I don't see the government dropping fuel duty for high mileage or fast drivers because they use more petrol.
#5 It keeps mothers barefoot and pregnant.
Name a single woman who wants to go back to work. Sure there's a few selfish women who want a baby as a fashion accessory, but no government department ever asks mothers what they want, because the government finds it cheaper.

What's the point of having babies if you're not going to raise them?

[Hayley]

I couldn't agree more with this article. I'm 23, and my partner and I are yet to start a family but have already decided that when we do, he will be the one who stays at home the majority of the time,as I am the more career orientated of the two of us, and the main earner, as my partner suffers from epilepsy and is restricted in the work he can do. It's a shame that maternity cannot be split between mother and father, with me being able to take time off, just enough to regain health, and the remainder of statutory maternity leave be taken by other parental unit. Laws and working guidelines surrounding this issue need to be brought into the 21st century - and soon.

[U R Kidding, Right!]

You have to be kidding, right. How about let's blame the "victim" then. Never mind to change the laws and rules which contribute to the system, let us make the woman suffer; keep the child from it's mother! This I find absolutely crazy. We forget that all of the superficial things in life are just this, and what matters is our lives, our families; relationships, health, learning, loving and living.

It so saddens me that we try to make our lives as sterile as possible. We suffer collectively from our own ignorance and indifference. Intelligence without emotion is a scary thing indeed.

[Weaselwords]

Thank you, LM :))

[Lazy Mummy]

Weaselwords:

I wholly agree. We should be worried.

(Btw, have been wanting to compliment you on your excellent AM username).

[Weaselwords]

Delilah says: Should we be worried?

Well, yes, I think we should. The price of property where I live (pleasant small market town near the south coast) has been driven up so high by incomers from the SE that locals cannot afford to buy. It wouldn't be so bad if rental in the private sector were affordable, but it isn't and the way that legislation in the UK affords private tenants a laughable amount of protection is a disgrace. There aren't many teachers that I know who can afford to give excessively expensive gifts...

[Gipsy]

>>can't anyone with half a brain see that the more access to money families have, the more extreme the bidding war for housing, education, etc becomes?

Goodness me! What are you proposing then? That people should be forced to live in two up, two down houses, or three or four generations to a house, and not be allowed to try and earn more money in any way? I do know people who are well off, and have a large disposable income, but they have worked jolly hard for it, and I don't begrudge them at all. If their presents are more expensive than others, well that's up to them. (I have to say it is jolly rude though if you did specify Pokemon cards. It is quite common around our way for birthday party invites to include a specification of no presents, and generally when a present is given it will be a book).

[shirley]

Nobody seems to have mentioned the most important thing for the MOTHER to have maternity leave. SHE can breast feed her baby which gives it the best start in life.

[NotAMummyYet(aka NAMY)]

Yup - I appreciate that worst case scenario is something to consider, but I'm certainly not getting hung up on it (which hopefully I made clear?). I am just revelling in the choices I have that older women didn't, and in the fact that I have a partner who is so happy and able to contribute to our lives in other, non financial ways. I am LUCKY!
PS changing my name - it's too long!

[Lazy Mummy]

NotAMummyYet -

I second Delilah's comments about marriage and divorce. I've been married for a long time & we've had our very challenging moments at times, but I would never for one moment consider what would happen if we were to get divorced as a deciding factor in working vs staying home. Nor would my husband (just asked him about it).

I know the divorce rate is sky-high these days, but I find it terribly sad that people counsel or consider who will get the children if they divorce just based on societal trends and not on what's actually happening in their relationship (I'm thinking of that thread sometime last month where SM posted lots about divorce & custody).

I wholly agree with Delilah: far better to work on your relationship than plan for a worst-case scenario that may never happen if you work on things. And honestly, it sounds like you are reasonable, intelligent people & would work things out reasonably if they ever went wrong anyway.

Btw, round our way, it's pretty common for women to earn more than their husbands & I have at least half a dozen friends where the stay-home parent is the father. (Personally I'd still like to work 30 hours a week, but haven't worked out how to get that yet).

[DELILAH]

Weaselwords,
I am intrigued with the picture you paint of family finances in Britain. It is of course the reason we emigrated. Until the seventies Ireland had a pretty strong trend of men in their forties marrying women in their late teens and early twenties, largely because it took that long in the stagnant Irish economy for a man to accumulate enough financial security to be considered capable of supporting a family. 100 years earlier, before the Irish potato famine, social commentators had already noted that for a large proportion of the population the chance of ever acheiving financial security was so low that it wasn't worth even planning for, death would overtake you well before you were likely to be financially secure enough to support a family. In that group people married and started families without any expectation of financial security, and often as early as legally possible. The potato provided a subsistence level of existence, but most families relied on migratory work to make ends meet; many were forced into emigration. Even so, malnutrition and infant mortality were already rife before the potato blight removed the basic support which these couples relied on. You make it sound like a large proportion of middling British families are approaching a similar crisis. Of course the equivalent of the potato today would be cheap oil, or possibly tax-funded government employment. Should we be worried?

[Buckets]

The clear-cut answer for this problem of equal treatment in the workforce is to start a eugenics program that would only allow men and women to procreate one time a year. Then force everyone to take a few months off of work, stop global production entirely, and have Family summers. This would be a very successful method of bringing equality to men and women while giving equal opportunity in the workforce.

[Weaselwords]

Delilah, sadly my husband and I didn't end up in a profession paying the kind of money that is ever going to contribute to driving up house prices etc. If we downsize any further, we'll be living in a tent next to the local tip. Thing is, there are lots and lots of families like us: people doing mundane but essential jobs that just don't pay very well. So both parents need to work. It's not paying little Tarquin's school fees. It's paying the gas bill.

[DELILAH]

Notamummyet, don't get too hung up about divorce. When we bought our marital home my new husband had only recently found a job after a long period of unemployment. I contributed the deposit (a big one) and got terribly paranoid about losing all my savings should he turn out to be a cad. I produced a trust deed two pages long trying to protect myself without being unfair to him which he just looked at with horror. In the end, my sister pointed out that if I didn't trust his character, why did I marry him? Good point. The trust deed hit the bin. Work on your marriage, not your exit plan.

Lisa, according to Lawrence Stone's fascinating book on the history of divorce in Britain, "The Road to Divorce", the nuclear family WAS the norm from the middle ages onwards, in Britain anyway. Getting a seperate house ready was part of preparation for marriage, if only because the first of upwards of ten children would start arriving almost right away. By the time the oldest turned 11 things would be cramped enough for him or her to be sent out to service to bolster family incomes and learn a trade. Children only stayed on in the parental home after marriage in desperate circumstances; and even moving to the next village would make family visits infrequent, because most people (especially women) had to walk everywhere, horses were expensive and usually being used for something important. Census records confirm this trend absolutely. Households often included servants and lodgers and older unmarried children who hadn't managed to find jobs, but that's not quite the same thing as an extended family.

Moving to women working from time immemorial, it's important to remember that until the 1700s (and beyond) society relied heavily on wetnurses and cheap maidservants from the uneducated masses and saw children as chattels belonging to the father; this only changed when the romantic movement got people thinking that the emotional bond between family members, especially between spouses and between mothers and children, was a more important focus of marriage than property and inheritance. I don't see us being able to keep these romantic ideals alive AND have both parents working fulltime. Also important to remember that until quite recently a woman lost her legal personality when she married, anything she earned or purchased belonged to her husband. So many of those guilds women would have been single; the others perhaps running their husbands' business as their agent while they were in prison.

And on the cost of living .... can't anyone with half a brain see that the more access to money families have, the more extreme the bidding war for housing, education, etc becomes? Not to mention the endless waste of money that seems to ensue. Recently my son received a horribly expensive Indiana Jones Lego set as a birthday present from a schoolfriend - needless to say, both his parents work fulltime; not that I object at all to his mother working, she teaches at a tough local school which benefits our society hugely, but I did feel a bit exasperated that she was spending her hard-earned dough on a casual present which cost more than the one he got from his granny. Especially as I'd specified Pokemon cards to try and keep the stakes low. Annoying too because he had almost saved enough money to buy the set all by himself.

[Amay]

When I was pregnant with my son, I took the position of a manager of a Portrait Studio. My photography work was excellent and my sales skills were even better. I increased sales by 3 times! I even got a certificate for it. When maternity leave came up, the gal that was working with me was there to cover what needed to be done. When I went to return, I was told she was now the manager and I was simply the photographer. When I looked at our sales they had dropped by 50% under her management. Does maternity hurt women? Yes it does. My consolation prize was I found a new job, she got pregnant! They did the same thing to her! BTW~ The company name was PCA originally located in KMart.

[KM]

Yes, feminism is all about choice and being comfortable with what YOU want.

Knowing your rights and responsibilities and making decisions accordingly.

it's about power and information, not prescriptive categories.

[NotAMummyYet]

Oh, absolutely agree - one of the beauties of the choice aspect is that you should (in theory) be as respected and free to choose to stay home if that's what you want to do and what works best for your family.

[First timer]

Notamummyyet - you're definitely not posting too much, please don't stop! I agree that feminism is fundamentally about choice - I would just add that another choice it makes available is for a woman to take a more 'traditional' role - i.e. to put her career second and to concentrate, at least in the short term, on raising children and running the home. I agree we should have the right to do things differently to previous generations, but we should also have the right to do the same, so long as it's a genuine choice.

I often find myself disagreeing with Supermother on this because she seems to feel that this role has no value - I think it's immensely valuable, the only issue is that it's seen as low status, as other contributors have mentioned.

[KM]

NotAMummyYet - I totally respect where you're coming from, and that's absolutely fair enough. The problem is that many working mothers with a part-time or SAH partner don't realise that they are potentially signing away their children in the event of a divorce. That causes heartache.

The only other point I would wish to make, and this may sound very preachy, is that from your name I assume that you are not a mother yet.

Don't try to second-guess your feelings too much. Make your plans, but don't be surprised if your feelings do change a few months or years down the line. Life has a way of upending our best-laid plans.

I should know, for the first eighteen months of my son's life I was determined to persevere with a career that would have meant I only really saw him one day a week.

[Lisa]

Having read some (not all; I don't have that much time) of the posts, I have the following comments. For a start, in historical context the nuclear family as it is today is an abberation. Prior to the industrial revolution, multiple generations would live together. Also, the 1950s ideal of womanhood and family life is also an aberration. Women have always worked. In Renaissance Venice, many households were headed by women and 10% of scuole (guild) members were women. There was even a specific scuole, just for women.

I do find Karl's comments annoying on many fronts. 1) his views differ from mine (which is natural; I am human). 2) Using scientific theories to justify a particular group's place in society, is, in my opinion, abhorrent. It's lazy and restrictive. It smacks of Eugenics. For example, the Baron-Cohen systematiser/empathiser test. It may be true for some women that they are more "empathetic" than "systematic", but it is not true for all women. When I did the test, I was overwhelmingly on the systematic side. And, although not filling a "traditional" women's role, I would not score low on the "feminine physical attractiveness" scale (read, Karl thinks non-traditional women are all going to be ugly) and am not suffering from numerous psychological illness. 3) I personally believe that the men harping on about "a woman's place is in the home" are invariably doing so because they feel threatened by all the bright young things that may just take their jobs and glory.

[NotAMummyYet]

oh my word, and I'm new but seem to be writing ridiculous amounts! Sorry! Will be quiet now - am just a bit radical on this one!

[NotAMummyYet]

KM/Allison: But that's my point - I get to make the decision, no one is making it for me. And yes, the decision involves pros and cons and I have to take them into account. But I think the very fact that these are concerns for women, is a sign of how we've moved on - of course it wouldn't have featured in the past. And as someone who thinks that women and men should not be treated differently broadly speaking, I think that if I said that potentially having to pay alimony was the main reason not to be the main breadwinner, then we should go back to 1950 as it would be the same as it is today. Of course I don't want to have to do that or lose my children, should we split up, but the point is that as a feminist, I want to have choices and the right to do things differently to how my mother or grandmother did things. I'm sure that men in relationships with "traditional" roles, don't spend too much time thinking, "I better not be the sole breadwinner and leave my wife to bring up the children alone because if I do I might lose the children in a divorce"? Or do they?

I do see your point, but for me, I have to accept the downside that comes with the choices I have that my mother didn't. And, frankly, hope that as we develop as a society, these things improve - I don't think either the mother or the father should automatically be considered the better care giver by nature of gender. My siblings and I were always in complete agreement that in the event of my parents splitting up (they didn't, but we had some nervous moments), we'd rather go with my dad as he was simply a better parent - with him we were more likely to be fed regularly, picked up from school on time, live in a decent home etc.

I might regret saying this, but surely the point of feminism is that we don't have to be defined by our sexual or familial relationships? So your assumption that the possibility of possibly losing main custody of my children one day if I choose to work instead, makes me feel that my value as a woman in other parts of my life is not considered anywhere near as important as my potential value as a mother?

And I know lots of people are going to point out that I am not in fact a mother yet and therefore how can I know, and I appreciate that very clear distinction that I cannot understand until it happens to me and that my current feelings are definitely intellectually driven. :-)

[J]

Its very difficult to define what we mean when we say the 1950s "worked". The entire financial and social structure was different. That wasnt itself caused by women working or otherwise- but it had of course followed the recent war where they had indeed worked, and incorporated that. There's a very interesting book, "singled out" about the social changes following WW1 and how women began that decade in despair, thinking that with the death of so many men, their occupation was gone, and ended it with a new appreciation of the potential of a career to be a satifying life, quite specifically for a womanly woman, as they would have said. I really can recommend it as a good bit of social history and a good read.

There as a lot of mental and physical illness among women in the 1950s. Nutrition was better in many ways but I am not at all sure that the data supports Karl's blanket assertion that things were "better".

Even if it did, the incidence of female employment is not the only, or even the main, change since then. The nature of male employment has changed too, and so has social mobility. Is Karl offering to go back to a factory job, as befits a typical 1950's male worker? I suspect we can equally easily "prove" that he would be happier and healthier than as a modern male.

[Mrs L]

Karl L said: "The model of the 50s or even prior to that was a system which we know worked, and worked well, and which is definitely amenable to improvement on many fronts."

But it didn't work did it? High enough numbers of women were deeply unhappy enough with this model to seek to change it. I think what you really mean is that this model worked very well for men.

The idea that it is sensible to keep half the population behind closed doors serving men and children is nonsensical. How on earth could that be in the best interests of society as a whole when those women could be contributing in all sorts of useful ways? If women have the intellect to do more than just care for children and keep homes nice and tidy for their husbands, then we are wasting that intellect by insisting women be restricted in this way.

As someone else pointed out here, those European countries which have embraced shared parenting have lower crime rates and fewer problems with bad behaviour etc than we have here in Britain.

Shared parental responsibility is clearly the way forward, as society is realising now with these debates.

[J]

I think we are on interesting territory. The thing I would like to remember is that, as Allison says, its not just the first five years. I spent the first 7 at home with the children, but life goes on, they grow up and what do you want to do?

That is the flaw in these arguments that working women are by definition "different" from home-makers, with all the odd suggestions that they will be less physically and/or mentally healthy. Karl's argument was based on the data he quoted to show that women who were less feminine had a range of health problems as well as being less pretty. You could have a fascinating side discussion about what therapy might get funded, were that true- Harrod's sale vouchers for Crohn's, free make-up for nervous disorders, what a lovely thought. But underlying it, is the assumption that we work because we have rejected femininity and biology.

I suspect that assumption is what makes men angry. We are working as we dont want to be soft and loving creatures any more, and we have no respect for family.

In fact of course women work for lots of reasons, but not normally to break balls and neglect their children. Sadly, there are many neglected "feral" children as Haggarty says, but overwhelmingly they are from families with poor employment histories, poor health and education - sad situations, deserving our respect and compassion, but not all that common in educated families where both parents earn money (I wont say, both work, very few people dont do any work, even if they are unpaid for it).

I write this at home today, as schools are on strike, having just received a rather feeble excuse from a male fulltime colleague as to why he hasnt finished a piece of work he had agreed to have ready today. I, on the other hand, have work on my little stick (god bless the memory stick, say all mothers), have just made luch for the children and and having a little blog before more work.

I dont feel all that unfeminine, frankly. I think it is odd to assume that I would be.

[Vicky]

Women have always worked for employers. It never mattered when it was drudge jobs or "women's work". It's only a problem now we compete with men for the higher status, better paid stuff.

As a women without kids or an employer, I know fine well that not doing paid work for an employer reduces my prospects of doing so in the future. But it's a choice I make for my wider life. I'm not entitled to expect it to be a one-way bet. There are trade-offs.

[KM]

Yes, NotaMummy, Allison's point is a very serious one. Do you mind the idea of not getting custody if you split up ten years down the line?

I know you're in love etc etc but just supposing, you need to have at the very least recognised that if you are fulltime working and he is at home the law will likely not be on your side. You'll probably have to pay him maintainance just like an absent dad would. If you don't mind that scenario, then fine. That's the only major downside to what you're proposing I think.

[J]

LOL Gipsy that is very funny but I cant tell you why...

[Gipsy]

Jo I know! We were speculating in another thread that SM must be on her hols. Cannot explain absence otherwise. Especially as this thread is title 'A post especially devoted to all that Supermother holds near and dear', well I paraphrase but that's essentially the gist :)

[Allison]

Dear NOTAMUMMYYET
One thing to consider if your husband stays at home to look after the child(ren) is what might happen should you split up. Nobody wants to think that this might happen to their relationship, but statistics show that a proportion of marriages (one in three?) fail. If you are the breadwinner and husband stays at home looking after the child, he is likely to primary custody in any divorce. You will also have to support him! I know that this has been the case for men for many years, and do have sympathy with fathers’ demands for a fairer deal. However, as a mother imagine losing primary custody of your child.... The questions is- is it worse for a mother to lose custody of a child then for a father?

[NotAMummyYet]

I think too many people see feminism as a two dimensional movement - "women's efforts to get out of the house and into the work place, come what may". I don't see it like that, and I'd like to think as a society we've moved on - that was just the direct original impact of the feminism movement, it wasn't the ultimate goal. Surely at it's most basic feminism is about choice, for both men and women. In the 50s, women didn't get a choice - they stayed home or they did menial labour at minimum wage to support their families. Men also didn't get a choice - they went to work and were expected to be the main breadwinners, bringing home the bacon and generally sucking up any feelings of frustration or boredom or whatever. [I'm speaking here broadly about middle class and working class people].

However, today, those assumptions have been seriously eroded - notwithstanding people like Karl who seem to think we should revert to that model. Today, my h2b and I can agree in advance that he will become the full time parent and I will continue to work because a) I earn more money and b) I enjoy my current work far more than he does. Today, a woman can choose to employ childcare if she finds it more personally or financially rewarding to return to the work place. A man today, even in most of the toughest environments, can tell his boss that he needs to leave early to see the school play, or pick up the kids from school. This, for me, is what feminism has done for us.

There's still work to be done - those assumptions haven't entirely disappeared and choices that are available on paper are often much harder in real life. But real progress has been made to the benefit of both individuals and society.

[Weaselwords]

To those predicting the downfall of Western civilization because of working mothers: er, ahem, have you noticed the cost of living?? Most people that I know with young children work because they need to earn money to live. Quite a few working mothers that I know (and that would be most of the mothers I know) would prefer not to have to work outside the home whilst their children are very young. But they have to, because the bills cannot be paid on only one income. Changing maternity leave into shared parental leave is about helping families to share responsibility for childcare and work more fairly. Employers need to change their mindset to accept that all parents, regardless of gender, have equal responsibility for their children - we do not all earn enough to employ a nanny, so if one of your children is sick, someone has to down tools to look after them - why should it always be the mother? (hmm, particularly is dad is in the medical profession....). I note that my brother (a civil servant) is sometimes able to take "working from home" days to enable him to look after a sick son, which is something that would have been unthinkable for my father (who was also a civil servant) to do back in the 1970s. It would be far harder for my sister-in-law to take time off a she is a teacher.

[Jo]

Where is Supermother in this discussion?

[Jo]

Jayley the reason people wanted him to give evidence was that he paraded his opinions as scientific proofs and belittled those with different opinions to him.
I love the fact that people look back on the past with such a rosy eyed view. The past was not glorious it was just as ugly and difficult as the world we live in now, perhaps with different social and economic problems. As many posters have said women have always worked. The poor worked in factories, fields or in their own homes making things like match boxes. Rich women who could be considered 'home makers' often had staff and the really rich would never have been involved in the day to day lives of their children. The type of SAHMing we have now is a relatively new construct. I think you will find that hunter gatherer communities were too busy trying to stay alive to focus on how the 'wife' must stay in the tent and the husband would come home with everything. Studies in to this suggest that female members of the tribe were responsible for the gathering and therefore most of the food production. Men were in charge of the hunting. Both genders provided for the tribe based on what they could do so today should not be much different. Women can do the roles they seek, especially those based in an office and therefore if the need/choose can take an equal role in providing for the family as they have always done. NB I am not saying there is anything wrong with being a SAHM!

[sarah]

DELILAH,
I know what you mean. The attitude that housework and childcare is women's work and wemon have to juggle them if she ahs a carerre is a British one. In Other northern European countries the men think this attitude is weird, and do not understand why they are expected to be looked after in such a way. In fact they find it demeaning. British men are disliked in general here becuase of the way the tourists behave towards local women, they get drunk and think it is ok to make comments about the way a woman looks or pester them in bars etc then get angry when they are thrown out of the bars. As a result places popular with british men are no go areas for local people. British men need to realise how much other men look down at them, and consider them thugs.

[lesley]

Jaley,
Karl Libbens post was awful. It is clear that he has a poor education, but likes to think of himself as academic. His arguements were embarressingly bad-he thinks that the current system where women work is unworkable and that the 1950's system worked. In the 1950's most women worked, they just had menial jobs and were not portrayed in the media. Only the middle class stay at home mothers were portrayed. Throughout history most women have worked, in fields, in factories, in mines etc but these were the underclass women who are rarely portrayed as they were considered unimportant even though they represented the majority of women. Libbens seems unaware of these and gives the impression that most of his information comes from gleaming unreliable sites on the internet. The language he uses is not complex but waffeling and gives away the fact that he is not a clever nor an educated man. he has not provided evidence of his claims which is not surprising as his claims are wrong as the evidence I have put forward shows. But other people here have put forward lots of hard proof that shared parental responsibility works. As it is people like karl Libbens are in a minority and will have to face the fact that either Britain changes its attitudes, or looses a huge proportion of its young educated couples. Britain is just one country in Europe, and if one is educated it is the least appealing.

[Fear the monitor]

Reading through this made me chuckle.

The only substantiated reason I can see here for the incessant whining is that this guy has an opinion which differs from yours.

He does use jargon, but what the hey. It's a trivial point.

Most or all of the other criticisms don't bear up to much scrutiny. Sounds like very typical feminist sophistry and waffle to me.

[Jayley]

Lazymom:

I think ur either mad or approaching it.

"Karl wrote inarticulate arguments, hiding behind jargon, acronyms and "long" or "uncommon" words, but lacked grammar"

I think he's articulate to me expresses his points clearly. now if I can understand him, Im sure u can too. his language became very complex in one post, but then he went back and corrected it. Fiar enough to me

" and failed to provide evidence for most of his claims."

neither have u. this is not a scientific debate, but somewhere where we can exchange our opinions

"Frankly, it's exactly what his peer reviewers would do if he were submitting a paper for publication."

Wake up call: he's not actually writing a paper for ur benefit.# he's stating his opinion, as he's entitled to

No doubt to me u're the ones bitching and nitpicking like high school girls cos you don't agree with him. It really is pathetic and embarassing.

Really get a grip, or go out into the world and learn to behave like a rational human being.

[Anne]

As far as I am aware the most feral children in Britain are the offspring of parents who rarely work. I cannot remember about the child of two hardworking parents ever being caught being yobbish. It is normally the children of people who sit around doing nothign all day that end up in and out of prison.
And I would hardly say that Karl Libbens had a learned opinion, and neither does haggarty-he sound sliek he was a special access student.

[Lazy Mummy]

Jayley,

Karl wrote inarticulate arguments, hiding behind jargon, acronyms and "long" or "uncommon" words, but lacked grammar and failed to provide evidence for most of his claims. I don't quite see how pointing this out, rebutting it and asking him to provide evidence is nitpicking. Frankly, it's exactly what his peer reviewers would do if he were submitting a paper for publication.

[Lazy Mummy]

Jayley,

Karl wrote inarticulate arguments, hiding behind jargon, acronyms and "long" or "uncommon" words, but lacked grammar and failed to provide evidence for most of his claims. I don't quite see how pointing this out, rebutting it and asking him to provide evidence is nitpicking. Frankly, it's exactly what his peer reviewers would do if he were submitting a paper for publication.

[Anne]

Karl Libbens and Haggarty,
You both sound a real pair of hicks. You go on about how this feminism will ruin Britain as if this is the only country in the world. Other European countries have real equality of men and women, with childcare shared equally, and they have less crime and higher GDPs than Britain. Have you actually spent any time in other countries other than the little British expat communities. Because if you have you will see that in Europe the less equality between the sexes the more crime there is and the less economic prosperity. Britain is seen as the poor man of Europe because of the way it treats women (I mean if a woman in Britain is alone with a man she is considered to have contributed to her rape if he rapes her, and men think it is acceptable to pester women on a night out-what is that about, do you realise how British men are perceived in Europe because of these attitudes). It is comical that parental leave is not shared. And as for British doctors, I would never use one. I work with them on a daily basis and they are terrible. They do not know anything about the treatments they are prescribing, nor do they listen to the patients. I work with doctors from all over the world and the British ones are the most incompetent. It is no wonder the health system is in such disarray.

[Jayley]

I dunno about you, but the most pompous things I'm reading here are actually your responses.

Some idiot also endlessly criticizes and picks on his use of acronyms as if hes just committed some kind of indecent assault on her brain.... it's called nitpicking. We all know you're doing it.

Grow up girls. Accept it that some (learned) opinions are different to yours. My honest feeling he's hit a nerve or two a little close to the bone. Or maybe ur all just hateful bilious manginas created by "malignant social condiioning" which only confirms his point.

[Lazy Mummy]

Delilah -

As ever, what more can I say? Didn't know about Dutch men & domesticity though from my time in the Netherlands, I did know about Dutch & domesticity in general. Wholly agree with your comments.

[DELILAH]

I think the fifties were a pretty crap time for young women, especially those without rich parents. Without even touching on working conditions, ,my mother remembers how she and her middle-class American sisters were constantly doing housework, washing her brothers' sheets and clothes and dishes, mending, and cooking; her brothers occasionally mowed the lawn or chopped wood but spent most of their time doing a bit of studying, pursuing hobbies and outside interests. For many women, especially those who didn't manage to graduate, the pattern continued after marriage and childbirth. According to her, men were usually laughed at if they showed any serious interest in babies or cooking or housework or anything remotely "feminine" which meant that wives often had to do the SAHM thing in dreadful isolation, with little support from their husbands. Incidentally, the absolute prohibition on public breastfeeding in the fifties meant doing it meant living in social isolation as long as you kept it up; and how on earth were you to keep up with household tasks? The husbands missed out on many joys of family life because of this. I think things are better for everyone in that respect now.

On the other hand, the campaign to simply dismiss all the unpaid labour that women used to do as worthless has done very little for women. Nice food, a clean, orderly and tasteful home, and pleasant leisure activities together as a family don't just happen by chance. What sort of life is it, especially for the children, without these things? I do think these things probably bother women more than men - whether nature or nurture, who knows - but if so why don't feminists insist on them being given more respect, rather than less? Why is it supposed to make women better off to pay another woman minimum wage to do these things, or to accept living in a dirty chaotic house on ready-meals with people who spend most evenings locked in their bedrooms or at work?

My mother ended up marrying a Dutchman in the fifties, and the hardest thing she found to adapt to was dealing with his "excessive" standards of domestic cleanliness, regularity, and family presenteeism (ie, spending a lot of time together as a family, often in matching sweaters). However, she was constantly amazed at my father's willingness to roll his sleeves up and help make this all happen, in particular the parenting and the cleaning, and his supportive attitude to breastfeeding. Unlike her brothers, he had been brought up by his Dutch parents to value domesticity very highly, not to see it as "women's work", and to become an active participant in it. I'm afraid in Britain I still see a lot of men (and not a few women) who seem to have been raised to treat their homes as little more than hotels, that the only skills of value are those involved in academic or career success. The British workplace merely reflects that mindset. Until that mindset changes, homelife will continue to be a struggle for any woman, working or not, who cares about domesticity but can't afford staff.

[Lazy Mummy]

Oh, and Haggerty, dear, when you grow up and get married and have children of your own, you'll realise that the relationship between working mothers and feral children (because that was where you were going with your argument, wasn't it?) is not the relationship you're implying here. Breakdown of society is hardly to be laid at the feet of intelligent, highly educated, highly professional women who comment here, because their children are generally the ones doing well in school, learning how to respect others, growing up to contribute to society in their turn.

If you're after fixing sink estates, knife culture, violence, etc. I think you'd be better off looking elsewhere; can't quite see how the breakdown of social norms & mores can be attributed directly to the rise of the working mother. (Didn't they teach you about the difference between correlation and causation in medical school? Tut, tut.)

[Lazy Mummy]

Karl,

Before I address your comments about the 1950s and gender difference, let's be clear about something: a background in scientific peer review rarely equates with the ability to write clearly. Most scientists (and therefore most peer reviewers) are terrible writers, because they've been taught to write in a circuitous passive tense and have (as you admit) a tendency towards over-use of jargon. Your writing here actually comes across as rather pompous, which, to me, is highly entertaining for someone who trained at Jimmy's.

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's talk about the 1950s. So, the 1950s, eh? A golden age when men were men and women wore overly-pointy bras and basically sublimated their wishes to those of their husbands who did terribly Important Jobs and then came home to their wives who waited on them hand & foot? Sure, I guess it was a golden age if you were the man; not so great for the women though, and let's remember that it was, in fact, that 1950s model of society that gave birth to the first wave of feminism.

Let's also recall what the original tenets of feminism focused on: the need to value a woman's work as mother and housewife equally with a man's work as wage-earner. Because all those terribly clever girls who'd been educated were then thrown into ghastly "little wifey" roles and were suffering from depression, popping valium & martinis to get them through the day. That's where feminism came from.

On to your other point, which I really can't let lie because it demonstrates such sloppy thinking that I can hardly believe you claim to be a peer reviewer (OK, actually, I can). You said (allow me to paraphrase) that whenever social engineering/societal influences are removed, men and women revert to their "traditional gender roles". What evidence can you present to substantiate this claim? As far as I can see, it would be wholly impossible to create a control group and measure this effectively in an experiment. Kindly elucidate.

Also (while I'm on the subject of gender roles) on what grounds do you claim that working in an office is a traditional male role? From what I can see, if you want women to go back to their traditional "wife and mother" roles, you should be prepared to go back to shovelling shit and ploughing/scything by hand. If you really want to be traditional about it. That an appealing option for you?

[Karl Liebens]

Interesting discussion, but at this point I'll take my leave.

Good night! :)

[Karl Liebens]

"But I don't agree that the solution is to first change the perception of motherhood, and only then to expand the role of women."

And this is where we disagree. I believe the current system in situ is irretrievably unworkable. I also fail to understand how muddling over relatively inconsequential child care arrangements constitutes progress in addressing the fundamental problems.

The whole issue has to be addressed at the level of causality, by challenging perceptions, and undoing the poisonous legacy of feminism on women's minds, and a new unilateral model of women's societal contribution be established secondarily.

It will be a gradual change, granted, but someone has to start the ball rolling. I personally believe we do not have much time.

The model of the 50s or even prior to that was a system which we know worked, and worked well, and which is definitely amenable to improvement on many fronts.

[Teapot]

Hi Karl

Thanks for your reply. You raise some interesting points about the faults in second-wave feminism. I think most people would agree with you that the traditional role of a stay at home mum (SAHM), or of part-time working, is now undervalued in much of society (although I really don't want to open that can of worms!). Trying to play men at their own game clearly isn't the best way to empower women, especially mothers.

But I don't agree that the solution is to first change the perception of motherhood, and only then to expand the role of women. That would be to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, which no decent mother or father would do! Plus it's a lot harder to change the system from outside.

Giving couples the flexibility to choose who takes child related leave, or who gives up paid work, allows talented women or those at a critical career point to reach higher positions. It also allows men to understand more about childcare. Then, I hope, as these people reach senior management the difficulties SAHMs (and dads) face in returning to work after child-rearing, or requesting part time work, will start to change.

I'm being idealistic here, but I think that this is a better option than returning to the one-size-fits-all system of the 1950s and starting again.

[Karl Liebens]

Hello again First Timer,

I think I've addressed both issues and given a clear rationale or explanation in either instance.

Hello Teapot.

"However, it is surely important to find a system which can allow women to use their intellect and abilities to the best benefit of society, and for men too."

I think much has to do with perception of the relative value of traditional gender roles. In the past, motherhood and child care was valued greatly and seen as a considerable social accomplishment for young women. Objectively, it *was* a critically important role in that it determined the quality of subsequent generations.

I personally believe that an important objective at this stage is to reinstate the importance and privilege of this archetype within the sociocultural mindset, *then* to expand traditional women's roles to be more fulfilling, if they are in any way perceived to underutilise the merits of women.

"By the way, I'm not much of a historian but I read somewhere that before the industrial revolution there was far less distinction between work and family life, as most people worked in the home, often as an extended family unit. I wonder how many of our ideas about looking after young children are a cultural phenomenon, and how many are biological?"

Interesting point. Though I suppose it may be argued as a species we've only more recently turned to sedentary agricultural modes of survival. It may be interesting to read up on social practices in more primitive hunter-gatherer type communities.

[KM]

OK, fair enough Haggerty First Timer and Karl, I am clearly tired and grumpy tonight.

We all think GPs are OK. Good.

Although it is a question as to whether it is good for society that so many women choose it as a good route because it gives them a chance to have babies before 45.....

[Teapot]

Karl, I agree with you more than I thought (I'm afraid the tone of your initial post put my back up). It is true that many, but not all, women have different motivations and prefer a different type of work to many men. However, it is surely important to find a system which can allow women to use their intellect and abilities to the best benefit of society, and for men too.

I disagree that this requires "malignant social engineering" - rather if the system is gender neutral (apart from childbirth of course) then natural factors can dominate. Hey, if you gave a gender neutral option for childbirth leave then I reckon the takeup would be 100% female!

Seriously though, there are a significant number of people who are not in the core of the traditional gender role distributions, and who would like to partly switch roles, and I don't think that this is just a social construct but rather natural variability. Flexible maternity leave would give those men who would like to spend some time looking after young children a chance to do that, as well as allowing less maternal women the option to continue working. I think that most couples would still choose to give the majority of leave to the mother.

By the way, I'm not much of a historian but I read somewhere that before the industrial revolution there was far less distinction between work and family life, as most people worked in the home, often as an extended family unit. I wonder how many of our ideas about looking after young children are a cultural phenomenon, and how many are biological?

[First timer]

KM, my reading of Haggerty's comment was that he saw being a GP as a second-choice career. I don't agree with this and was being quite careful in my post to avoid sounding as though I did. Apologies if this didn't come across. I just find it quite amusing that Haggerty is happy to accuse others of blaming 'glass ceiling sexism' for lack of career advancement, while himself blaming the training system for how his own career turns out.

Karl, why would you think we'd have any interest in spending time googling the unfamiliar acronyms in your post? Like I say, discourteous to your readers not to be intelligible in the first place. Let's also be clear that your statement that you are being 'civil' is not objective - it's as subjective as others' perception that you are being patronising.

[Karl Liebens]

Hello KM,

I don't have a Ph.D, and probably don't intend to acquire one for the foreseeable future.

Perceived patronisation is more contextual, I think. At the objective level, all I am attempting to do is delivering information and my own opinion in as civil a manner as possible.

However, the topic itself is controversial, and it is clear that many people have strong ideas accrued in this area. When challenged creedally by what they perceive as ordered argumentation, I suppose that may lead in some instances a subjective sense of being threatened or belittled.

"BTW, can we stop with the assumption that everyone who goes into general medicine is thick or incapable of hospital medicine? Some of them, like my family, just want a life and to do fewer night shifts."

Though I didn't actually state this, I do agree that GP's are undervalued and often inordinately underappreciated by hospital medics. Especially my own GP who is as capable and as broad a diagnostician as any hospital consultant.

[Karl Liebens]

"Having traditional feminine charactaristics doesn't mean you can't work."

You are absolutely correct. My point was that your mindset, be it traditional or radical, determines your motivation and the nature of the work you pursue.

"It's all about flexibility in the system, so that people can choose for themselves instead of being dictated to."

And this is the problem. The "flexibility" which this process entails requires a great deal of malignant social engineering, including a deconstruction of our very notion of biological gender.

[KM]

I don't think the issue is jargon, Karl, I think the issue is that people on here feel slightly patronised by your approach.

I can't remember what point you were arguing and TBH I can't be bothered to check but this post is to confirm that J's comment is true, I do have a Ph.D. I am not sure whether that makes your remarks more or less inappropriate. Do you look down on people who have a lower educational level than yourself? I was brought up not to, and to see educational level of attainment as a combination of luck circumstances and giftedness rather than a reason to scorn those who had not clambered quite as high on the career ladder as you.

BTW, can we stop with the assumption that everyone who goes into general medicine is thick or incapable of hospital medicine? Some of them, like my family, just want a life and to do fewer night shifts.

[Karl Liebens]

Yes, the use of jargon is actually a recurrent problem within medicine. It is inexcusable in that environment, and it is inexcusable here as well.

Though, to cover my back, there was a lot of condensed information being typed, and - out of my working environment - I was subconsciously relying on people unaware of these acronyms to look them up if they weren't clear, (google only being a mouseclick away).

The issues regarding medical training are a very prominent discussion topic among junior and middle grade doctors, and a statement such as his carries heavy inferences of problems about which we are all currently concerned. Though of course, you may be right, I was merely trying to be civil by seeing that comment in as polite a light as possible.

[Teapot]

Seems like a wind up to me. Having traditional feminine charactaristics doesn't mean you can't work. It's all about flexibility in the system, so that people can choose for themselves instead of being dictated to.

(Karl, "I'm sorry you feel that way J. I (mistakenly) thought people here were above average in literacy and able to read at this level." is a politicians apology if ever there was one. You didn't actually apologise!)

[First timer]

Karl,

It was the phrase 'the Isle of Mann [sic] or some other God-forsaken corner of this planet' which seemed to me to indicate that Haggerty may not look favourably on a posting outside the south-east, though you may of course be right. I'm sure if Haggerty does end up as a GP through necessity rather than choice, it will be entirely down to the vagaries of post-graduate medical education rather than any lack of 'innate aptitude'.

Since your apology included the phrase 'I (mistakenly) thought people here were above average in literacy', perhaps you'll excuse me for not taking it entirely seriously.

[Newbie]

Does anyone else suspect a straw doll here?

[Karl Liebens]

Hello First Timer,

I think "Haggerty" was more reflecting on the state of disorganisation in post-graduate medical training rather than bemoaning the inconvenience of working away from London.

I've also apologised for my use of jargon.

[First timer]

Gosh, doctors claiming intellectual superiority and talking down to 'average' people. Who would have thought it?

Karl - overuse of acronyms such as BPD, DSH, and BPAD isn't jargon, it's just disrespectful of people from a different professional background. The one acronym you do gloss is glossed twice, which is just lazy.

And you're quite right Haggerty, why shouldn't every doctor be able to live and work in London? Can't the sick people just travel?

[Haggerty]

Ha! Now that's hoping. :P

[Karl Liebens]

ST3? Still just a baby then ;)

I'm sure things'll settle career wise. Give it time (and a new government to bork things up less spectacularly than the numpties we currently have at the helm).

[Haggerty]

Hello "Karl", pleased to meet you.

Emergency Medicine eh?

I gave that option some thought, but I just wasn't cut out for the shift work. And my family life just wasn't compatible.

I'm in a run through scheme (currently ST3) in London, with no real career direction at this stage. I'm thinking maybe GIM/Gastroenterology, though of course, with the state the MMC's in, I'll probably end up as a GP on the Isle of Mann or some other God-forsaken corner of this planet.

[Karl Liebens]

Nice to meet a fellow doctor Haggerty.

:)

I did my primary in Leeds, but went down the MRCEP route.

[Karl Liebens]

I'm sorry you feel that way J. I do have a background in peer review, so a tendency to jargon at times. I (mistakenly) thought people here were above average in literacy and able to read at this level.

Let me simplify the language for you:

The evidence shows that men and women are significantly different in terms of the way their brains are wired. When they're not conditioned by media or social influences, men and women think very traditionally, like your grandparents did.

Social conditioning is what is making you think like you do, for example in having a negative attitude to traditional feminine roles, and this is different to the way in which biology is inclined to make you behave.

The problem with this is that there is some evidence to suggest it can predispose you to various mental disorders and diseases:

For example, women who tend to act very masculine are more likely to suffer from depression, borderline personality disorder, deliberate self harm, schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Also diseases such as Crohn's disease and irritable bowel syndrome.

Woen who act traditionally very feminine are less likely to suffer from these conditions, and people rate them to be more physicaly atractive in some studies done in this area.

[Haggerty]

J said: "Actually KM already has a PHD, Haggerty.

Do you?"

MB BS (London)
BSc Intercal Neurosciences (1st class, London)
MRCP (London)
PhD Clinical Biochemistry (Cambridge)

[J]

Karl, I think I detect too much time reading extracts from research on the internet. The give-away point is the jargon and the absence of clear argument.

I will continue to get my science from my scientific colleagues, if its OK with you, dear.

(Fun being patronised, isnt it?)

[J]

Actually KM already has a PHD, Haggerty.

Do you?

[Haggerty]

KM said: "Polemic rarely persuades, guys. Not the vitriolic or derogatory kind, anyway."

sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not here to persuade you to do anything. you've already shown shades of a "liberalist" mindset which would resist any attempt to persuade you anyway, so I doubt that would have been productive.

Oh, and good luck with the PhD. You'll need it.

[Gipsy]

LM - yes the thwack was in appreciation of your response to Denise et al.

[KM]

It's extraordinary. I always click on these debates intending to be really feisty about the contribution SAHMs make to society. Then I read some of the ignorant male comments and I immediately want to take a Ph.D in biochemistry and start curing cancer.

Polemic rarely persuades, guys. Not the vitriolic or derogatory kind, anyway.

[Gipsy]

Would we really want to go back to the 1950s? Maybe it really was all everyone says - a gentler, simpler time when people weren't materialistic and you could leave your door unlocked because crime was so low.

But then they had gone through a very traumatic World War to get there. Perhaps the 'golden' fifties happened simply because people had had more than their fill of *real* violence. And who's going to pick a fight in the local pub when the majority of men there have been trained in half a dozen different assault weapons and are likely to have fought in unarmed combat on a beach in the middle of the Pacific somewhere? Not likely - better to show everyone respect and not risk it.

[Lazy Mummy]

(Gipsy I hope that "nice shot" was about my comment at Denise et al & not my comments about BFing? Sometimes pot-stirring is too tempting..

We tried downloading previously, but didn't get much joy with that last season, so haven't bothered this time round & all our friends here are on the same schedule with the show so that helps. LOVED the Agatha Christie episode - the perfect take-off of those old Joan Hickson "Miss Marple" shows).

[Karl Liebens]

Hello J, thanks for the reply.

I think I only need to address one statement you've made.

Just the comment:

"Men would like to think women are different and dont mind taking a lifelong back seat, but the truth is, we're not."

The weight of scientific evidence regarding gender specific psychometry would suggest that there are in fact significant quantifiable differences between men and women neurobiologically. In the absence of social conditioning, men and women classically adopt "traditional" gender roles and gender-specific behaviour.

Social conditioning is the key here. Feminist societal engineering has had a significant impact on our collective mode of thought, in denying key (or in some cases) all biological differences, resulting in opinions and beliefs that are similar to those you express.

The incongruity with the underlying neurobiology is the crux of the issue, as this has a statistically significant association with a variety of psychopathies and medical conditions.

Just to illustrate this point, women who tend to score low on indices of gender congruity (attitude to gender stereotypes, 2D:4D ratio, and other psychometric tests) have a higher rate of medical conditions (prenatal androgen overexposure, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn's disease), a higher rate psychological illness (depression, BPD, DSH, schizophrenia, BPAD, ADHD); a significantly higher rate of sexually-related psychological trauma in the past history (previous incidences of rape, or childhood sexual abuse), and generally lower scores of FPA (female physical attractiveness).

In contrast, women who tend towards traditional archetypes of behaviour and gender role tend to be more at ease with their femininity (on measures of gender role perception, self-image, psychosexual archetypes etc), with a strong sense of tradition and family. They also tend to score significantly higher on measures of FPA (female physical attractiveness), and are shown to have a lower prevalence of psychological illnesses.

[Lazy Mummy]

Weaslewords/Gipsy -

My apologies. Just re-read what I posted last night (v. long, tiring day) and realise my post on breastfeeding came across as rather more antagonistic than I expected it to.

TBH I did it for so long because it was - in some ways - easier than forcing my child to wean against her will and because that way I got to sit down while my husband cleaned up after dinner (I chose "Lazy Mummy" as my AM name for a reason). And I do think that it's possible to get used to being dog-tired & keep going. According to my mother, I've always been like that - I can handle not much sleep for weeks on end & then I crash & burn.

I certainly wouldn't want to imply that everyone should do it, because it's not the case & I have friends who supplemented early on or who were unable to breastfeed at all for various reasons. I just wanted to share that TSM wasn't the only one who'd managed to do it.

[Haggerty]

J: said ... ""Others who have a decent cahance of curing cancers would rather be out there contributing some other way."

on, balance we'd rather prefer you at home, raising our future generation to be something more than the bunch of totally undisciplined brats currently roaming our streets. i think you'll contribute more to society this way in the long term than if you're out in the cutting edge of the professional world blaming your lack of innate aptitude on glass ceiling sexism. (you can never argue with biology, in the end).

[j]

Oh and btw "heteropatriarchal" means what exactly? you do know that hetero means "varied" not "male", dont you? as in "heteronomous"and that "homo" in "homosexual" doesnt mean male, but "same", as in homogenised milk?

[j]

Oh boy Karl I am so looking forward to my psychosexual aberration.

you dont by any chance mean "not feeling like it", do you?

The problem with the heterodominate system is that it is frankly pretty dull, once your children are fulltime at school, just to run the home. Some love it, and good luck to them. Others who have a decent cahance of curing cancers would rather be out there contributing some other way. And so would you.

Men would like to think women are different and dont mind taking a lifelong back seat, but the truth is, we're not.

[Johana]

"The bottom line is: the more we deviate from key aspects of fundamental biological design (or spiritual design, as my religious colleagues would like to put it) the more we disqualify ourselves from the criteria which define us as human beings."

So true. The feminists can call it whatever they like, but there is something special and spiritually vibrant about traditional relationships like those in the 1950s.

For example, my grand parents were a wonderful couple who still loved each other and respected each other deeply until my grandfather passed away. All I hear from my grandma are wonderfully romantic stories about her marriage, and she's not the one to lie or make things up.

My sister-in-law, who is a hard heeled feminist and what she perceives to be a successful career, has had a string of horrifically bad relationships, many of which ended up becoming abusive. She has little respect for men, and they return in kind, it seems.

I'd yearn to return to the old days when men would really take care of women. How is it that "equality" has turned women into such psychologically twisted, isolated and hatefilled shrews who are stupid enoguh to think they can care for a child and run a business at the same time? Equality or not, I think women back then had a much much better quality of life.

[Karl Liebens]

Only the perceptive ones see feminism for the intrinsically anti-woman ideology that it is, at its core.

By undermining and labeling as "demeaning" the crucial societal role of women in traditional roles, and leading them like sheep into vocations intended for men, feminists have destroyed the family and social order beyond recognition, and our quality of life is much the worse for it overall.

The traditional social order was much more respectful and protective of women, upheld and maintained family values and moral cohesion in children. Moving away from the biologically-determined norms have led to the progressive fragmentation of societal values, imbued an enmity and competition between genders where previously there was cooperation, and exposed our children to abuse and neglect.

I would currently give the UK (and other liberalist-inclined countries) another 40 or so years before catastrophic cultural collapse, and the ensuing dark age leads to reinstatement of the biologically normal heteropatriarchal order. Sheer fantasy? I would recommend reading some dissertations by Toynbee. This exact pattern has occured time and time again in civilisations throughout history.

The bottom line is: the more we deviate from key aspects of fundamental biological design (or spiritual design, as my religious colleagues would like to put it) the more we disqualify ourselves from the criteria which define us as human beings. This impacts primarily upon our behavioural/moral integrity and modes of thinking, exposing us to psychological ill-health, and various psychosexual aberrations.

[Louise]

Men can yell and scream about how they do not ewant parntal leave but here is te crux of the matter...
If I got pregnant I would expect the fathe rto share fifty percent of the responsibility for the cild So he can either arrange to get parental leave with his boss, or he can pay for a nanny becase either way he will be looking after the child for fifty percent of the time. Most women I know have this attitude so men better hope thta parentla leave is givn to them as nannies are expensive. Men an no longer dodge teir responsibilities.

[KateJones]

I work in an office with a male CEO and 10 women. Three are on maternity leave at the moment (one for the second time). One has has her leave covered, the other two - the rest of us have covered. Three who have come back from maternity leave have reduced their hours to 3 days a week. Again, there is no extra cover. We all take up the slack. I don't resent any of them but I do wish our boss would notice how hard the rest of us are working and I know that the next appointment is going to be either a man or someone as old as me who has had children! Legal or not...

[j]

LOL I am almost certain that "james Bradley" is completely ironic in his post, hang 'em, flog 'em ,epecially if they are pregnant, I had that Victoria Gillick in the back of my cab once..

On the rest of it, the discussion does seem to be about the 30s and the early years back. Payback time comes in the 40's, 50's and 60's where women are back running on full power. Think about the senior women you know - and you are vaguely aware they have grown up kids. They were down here with the rest of us a while ago.

I have noticed that those who moan about "women working to rule" are sometimes not very effective workers themselves, and they resent their inefficiency being shown up by someone who gets through the job effectively. That said, if someone is only managing part-time effort, I do usually expect her to go part-time and take a part-time salary, which makes it all fair again.

But I did leave a long-hours culture commuting job for my present role, partly as I wanted to be judged on results not hours.

[Felicity]

People without children keep asking why they should pay taxes or work hard etc to support those who do choose to have children.

I wonder who they think will be serving their food, drilling their teeth and running their councils when they are old. Not to mention paying their pensions.

[Sarah]

I second the suggestion to get a cleaner - we have one who does just three hours one afternoon a week, it's a pretty small cost compared to our other expenses, and it's really a huge relief to us. I don't see why it should make anyone feel a failure - if you both work and have a little one to look after, you will have precious little free time to relax and do fun stuff, do you really want to spend it scrubbing the loo?

[Gipsy]

I earn more than hubs too. He's not a stay at home dad though, well except for one day a week.

I can't tell you at all whether or not this will work for you - it is different for everyone! I will say this though - get a cleaner. Honestly I know that for some people it feels like a failure to do this and I've heard all the other arguments. But you're not going to want to spend precious spare time doing housework when you could be spending it with hubs and baby, and likewise, you're going to feel guilty about leaving all the housework to hubs too. Get a cleaner in for 2 hours a week - a friday is great if possible. Then you three can kick back and spend weekends as family time stress free.

[mumoftwo]

Notamummyyet, I think from the way you are talking about it, you will be fine- as TSM says, it's all about you as a 'team' (to go all American on you for a moment). That's not to say it is easy whichever way you play it; if you stay home and your husband goes out to work, it's easy to feel they don't understand how hard your day has been when they get home and ask where dinner is...if you go out to work and they stay home, you worry that the bond between mother and child might be strained and that the father might get frustrated...and if you both work full-time, it's hard not to have 'whose the tiredest?' competitions endlessly and feel like the situation is right for no-one!! Obviously going part-time for both of you is another option, but again, not always ideal as you can end up as ships that pass in the night if you take it in turns to go to work. Each set of choices has good bits in and bad bits, and it's just important to air them between yourselves so that no-one is left utterly frustrated with the other one saying 'but I thought you liked XYZ...' You also have to allow for different parenting styles, something I found very hard when I went back to work, because of course my husband looked after the kids in a way that I just wouldn't have done, and it is tempting to try and control that from the workplace, but ultimately you can't- he'll find his own style, perhaps in tune with his laid-back flexible thinking, perhaps not (I found that my husband actually has got more disciplined and routine-oriented now he's a sole carer for part of the week, he understands just why I used to find sticking with routines so important).

[Theta Sigma Mummy]

Weaselwords - well, there you go then. Clearly I must be a superwoman.

[NotAMummyYet]

Mumoftwo: You're right - talking is key. We have discussed this at length and are in complete agreement that at least for the first few years, he'll be stay at home. He's a musician by training, and although he's not earning a living in music any more, we both hope that he'll be able to do some more freelance work over the coming years that will bring in more income which will help.

Having said that, i do worry that while he says he's okay to be a stay at home dad, will he be really? To be fair, he's brilliant already at taking on his fair share of household tasks and definitely takes the approach that as I work longer hours, I shouldn't have to do the bulk of the housework, but I'm not sure that men instinctively understand what you have to committ to with children? He likes flexibility, and the ability to choose and from what I can see, as a parent of a small child, you don't get a lot of that?

And TSM, I'm so glad I'm not the only one! All my friends have partners who earn similarly or more than they do so while stopping working would have an impact, they do have that choice. No one really gets my conflict.

But I guess I am lucky, and shouldn't create problems before they actually exist! We have talked about it, he is willing (in theory) and I absolutely know he's going to be an amazing father. Worst case scenario, maybe in time I dial back my current job as he starts to get some freelance income - it's not the worst thing that could happen?

[Weaselwords]

TSM: What I object to is the mythology which is built up claiming that combining breastfeeding and working full time is difficult, impossible, exhausting..

Er,now my point was that for some of us it _is_ difficult, impossible and exhausting. It's horses for courses. Some people can manage it and some can't. I would have thought that this was common sense. No, it's not very employer-friendly, but it's the truth.

[Theta Sigma Mummy]

Notamummyyet - I'm basically in a similar situation. The disparity in my and my husband's earnings was so great that when he was offered early retirement with pension enhancement and a lump sum it seemed ridiculous not to take it, especially as the sheer organisational effort we have to put into sorting out the kids every day (the oldest one learns several different instruments, and the other two do some out of school stuff too)was having a negative impact on me, workwise.

However - I must admit that I personally find it very hard. I don't like being the breadwinner, I don't like not being the one at the school gates most days. that's not to say that you would find it hard, as each person will have their own take on it. the one thing I would say though - my kids have a wonderful close relationship with their dad, and the fact that I am the one doing the working doesn't seem to have negatively impacted their relationship with me, either. In fact, the minute I gave up cooking their meals was the minute their little lives improved immeasureably (I am a truly crap cook). The children genuinely don't see that they are any different than anyone else and they certainly don't feel disadvantaged. Some of the snify mummies at the school gates sometimes imply that our children are somehow deprived because I work and I do overseas travel with my work - but they are just being nasty. The children know they are loved, and are very happy.

The one clear downside is that our house always looks like a tip. Hubby just hasn't got the hang of the housework side of things.

I hope it works out for you - I'm sure it will, whatever course of action you decide to take. Just remember the key thing is that you will love your kids and as long as you and your partner keep on loving each other and remembering you are a team, then you'll be fine.

[Sarah]

Notamummyyet,
We are in a similar situation, and have simply decided not to have children in the UK. My partner is Danish and here everyone has flexi hours, and parental leave is shared. Having children in the Uk is not an option for us as, apart from the already low wages and much higher living costs than here, it will be impossible for me to have a career as my partner will not be allowed parental leave. The whole of Europe is open to us now, make use of this.

[mumoftwo]

Notamummyyet, I think having a baby does make you feel emotionally vulnerable, and the desire to be (or have the option to be) 'looked after' a very strong one. I have stayed at home and depended on my husband's income and I have worked full-time with a tiny baby as well. I think the extent to which you 'have' to go back and be the primary earner for ever and ever depends on really pragmatic things like, how big is your mortgage, would you move somewhere cheaper or downsize, and how much you enjoy your job (if you love it, you'll still love it after having children, if you don't, it's often a convenient point to stop). It also depends if your husband could earn more than he does now. I don't think there has to be one 'right' way for the next twenty years, I've found that at different times, the roles have swapped and swapped again. I do think it's a good idea that you talk this through with him though. He may not fancy being a stay at home dad at all, even if he doesn't earn as much as you. Plus if you start talking now, there's more chance that you can make more choices for yourself than if you set everything up for one choice (you go back to work, pay large mortage, continue for ever and ever) and feel trapped by that choice.

[Theta Sigma Mummy]

WEASLEWORDS :'What I also meant to say is being exhausted all the time might be an acceptable state for some people, but not for all of us.'

Again with the generalisations. I wasn't exhausted all the time while breastfeeding. Not even when I was getting up at 5 in the morning in order to do a big express before heading out on the train to London or wherever (I live in the West Country). Would I have done it (worked while nursing) if I hadn't had to? Absolutely emphatically not. I'm neither mad nor stupid. But I find it increasingly annopying when people attempt to defend their choices (not that they need 'defending' anyway) with wild statements which are potentially damaging for other women, rather than just saying that the way they did it was the way they wanted to do it and anyone who doesn't like that can....not like it. I totally support any woman who wants to formula feed from the off, to be honest - it's their choice. 100%. What I object to is the mythology which is built up claiming that combining breastfeeding and working full time is difficult, impossible, exhausting..... employers listen to this. Colleagues listen to it. And it makes life even more difficult for women than it already is.

[mumoftwo]

In my job, no-one would pick up any slack for me if I slacked off. I would just get a verbal, then a written warning, then be 'let go' as indeed happened to an unfortunate (male) colleague recently. In every other way, my work is incredibly supportive of parents, I can work flexible hours, there is no clock-watching. However, you have to get results, something which the parents amongst us don't seem to have a problem with, in my workplace at least.

[Gipsy]

THHWWWACK - nice shot LM :)

On the breastfeeding front (fnar fnar) I have to say that while I am hugely pleased for anyone who manages to do the whole breastfeeding thing for a long time (yay for you!) I really hate it when they use phrases like 'it was exhausting but I just made myself do it' as it comes across as a) anyone can do it and b) if you don't then its just that you caved into the exhuastion and weren't as strong and as capable as me and c) you just didn't try hard enough.

I fought tooth and nail to make it to the 6 month mark with son, and it wasn't easy because at 5 months he decided he'd had enough and wanted solids. He really did get very upset, used to crane and try to stretch and roll towards the kitchen and he'd refuse to feed for as long as he could stand it. Sure enough, once we got to 6 months, and he got his first taste of solid food, he spat mummy out and refused to go there again. Can't say it made me feel too great! But I didn't take it personally - he was still a very cuddly baby and liked to spend as much time snuggled into mummy as possible. He just didn't want lunch there anymore.

On Dr Who - oh you poor poor thing! *whispers* can't you download the eps from the internet?*

[NotAMummyYet]

I am 31 and will be 32 when my fiancee and I get married early next year. We both want children and have decided that it makes sense to start trying sooner rather than later bearing in mind our ages (mine in particular for fertility reasons). My concern, is that while the company I work for is good on maternity leave - six months full pay - because I earn 5x as much as my partner, it obviously makes sense for me to return to work at the end of that time.

We would like our child to be raised by a parent so my partner will most likely stop working. But parental pay that allowed him at least some paid time off, would have been good.

However, the real question I'd like to ask (as a relative newbie to this forum who's been "lurking" for a while), is how do women in my situation feel? I don't feel I have the right to feel a little frustrated that I have to go back to work - for years and years men had no choices and had to do it whether they wanted to or not - but I find that I wish I had more choices. Am I simply trying, unrealistically and selfishly, to have it all or do other people feel the same? I don't resent my h2b for not having more money, but I do feel frustrated that I don't get the choice of staying at home? Or even really to cut back - of course, I can and probably will in time, but I am unlikely to ever be able to stop. Which doesn't sound fair? What are other people's experiences?

[Weaselwords]

What I also meant to say is being exhausted all the time might be an acceptable state for some people, but not for all of us. A dear friend of mine thought she could do it all and indeed, thought that she had to do it all and ended up with a nervous breakdown. That didn't do her family, her baby or her job prospects much good. Some babies have reflux, colic etc. Some don't sleep properly until they are well over 2 (or older). I think it's worth pointing out a "one-size-fits-all" type policy of go back to work at 3 months causes a fair bit of misery.

[Weaselwords]

LM, I think it is fair to say that just because some mothers manage to go back to high-powered jobs 3 or 4 months after giving birth and make breastfeeding (and everything else) work for them doesn't mean that all of us are either capable of it or want to do it. I make no claims of alphadom myself, but I have plenty of friends who are extremely high achievers and who round it impossible to return to work at the 3 month mark (maybe not having children until your late 30s and early 40s makes a difference - I certainly found it a lot physically tougher at 40 than at 33 and I'm reasonably fit). I started work again 2 weeks after the birth of my second child, but that's because I could sit and breastfeed at the same time as working in my office at home.

Apart from the time needed to recuperate from childbirth (for which both parents should have time off so that the father can support and assist the mother and care for his child), all leave should be parental leave, paid at sensi