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

[Jennifer]

What I think some people are missing is that its your ''job'' the company is paying you to provide a service. If you choose to withdrawal that service expect to be either let go or demoted or marginalised. Because you have left a firm for 6-12 an ''expect'' to be treated as an equal?

You did not have an emergency , unforeseen procedure that most firms will bend over backwards to accommodate you . Like a heart-attack, a stroke etc..

Women choose to get pregnant!!! Thereby making her a non team player. Why should a company pay you for work you are not doing? Why should you be entitled.You are not providing the service they need I say, NEXT!!!!

[Ally]

I'm working in Norway and was working in Finland and France before.

Both fathers and mothers can take paternity or maternity leave, but women tend to take the longest leave. However it is true that employers are quite positive about it. Much more than in France (where birth rate is even higher).

One key about birth rate is affordable kindergarten. A new law has just been enforced in Norway: every children must be granted admission in a kindergarten. Huuurra!

[marit]

look to Scandinavia! Families may choose to share the peroid of paid leave between them(ca 11 months at 100% pay) Usually the mother spends the first months at home as most scaninavian women breastfeed. At least 6 weeks of the peroid has to be reserved for the father, paternity quota. These rights are protected by law, The Gender Equality Act, and most employers are positive to the use of paid leave.
Very old fashioned view that women lose out on career and that fathers are not equal caregivers. Government must go first to provide change!!!!
Scandinavians have a very high birthrate and percentage of working mothers!

[Kate]

It seems that many of your are missing the obvious. It is a mother and only a mother who can brest feed a baby and therefore provide it with the best start in life. Ideally a mother should do this for the first year of the babies life and this is very difficult (though admittedly not impossible) when the mother is out at work.

[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.