Let’s bankrupt Britain’s businesses and, once we’re done, burn the buildings to the ground.
This is what you might have thought I’d said last week, if you saw some of the reaction to my plans to increase fathers’ rights when it comes to shared parental leave.
Nick Clegg was writing on Mumsnet at the weekend, dealing with some of the misleading and downright misogynistic claims made in the media about the scheme. As he made clear:
From now on the Civil Service will pay the same to fathers who take parental leave after their babies are born as it pays mothers who do so.
Let’s be clear: we are not doubling the leave and pay that is available, we are just making sure it can be shared between mothers and fathers as they see fit. Whether it’s mums or dads who take the leave, they’ll receive equal pay – and we’d like businesses to follow suit.
A significant change, yes, but highly controversial? I didn’t think so, until I saw the outrage it prompted from parts of the right-wing press.
Such a step, they declared, will be ‘crippling’ to taxpayers and business. But why, when there is no extra cost to the economy attached? For every day a man spends at home, a woman will be back at work, so what’s the problem?
What the critics are really saying is that companies can afford to lose a woman for a few months, but they can’t afford to lose a man. The message is loud and clear: women, we don’t need you. Or, at least, we don’t need you as much.
He goes on:
It feels ridiculous for me to even write in this article that women are as valuable to their employers as their male counterparts – of course they are! – and yet it seems the flamingly obvious still needs to be said.
What utter rubbish – and a sorry glimpse into the dated misogyny that still stalks part of the British establishment. It feels ridiculous for me to even write in this article that women are as valuable to their employers as their male counterparts – of course they are! – and yet it seems the flamingly obvious still needs to be said.
Thankfully the dinosaurs and naysayers are not reflective of the country at large. The broader reaction was much more positive. Indeed, many businesses understand the difference a contented, valued workforce can make to their bottom line.
He concludes:
So the only thing that will be “crippled” by new, fairer leave rules is the outdated assumption that women should be in the kitchen while men bring home the bacon. There is certainly still a lot more to be done before mothers and fathers enjoy real equality of choice, and we won’t get there overnight. But we won’t get there at all if the everyday misogynists get their way. So long as my party has a say over things, they won’t.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Calling them out
The railway wars come to Market Harborough
Constructive opposition: a phrase you will hear a lot
Friends of Riverside Nature Park AGM #dundeewestend
Hugh Young
Roland
Kevin Hawkins
Steve Trevethan
11 Comments
Well said
Extending parental leave is a great idea for trying to balance work and family life, but as far as management is concerned, it presents huge practical problems. Current maternity leave rules can leave managers of small teams of workers absolutely tied in knots as they try to cope with multiple colleagues on maternity leave while not knowing whether they will return or not. In practical management and recruitment terms, arranging job cover and skill continuity under those circumstances can be hugely difficult without any guaranteed outcome in terms of employees returning to the workplace.
I fully agree and support this, as self employed I had to return to work shortly after having a baby, this was not available so my now ex partner either had to take holiday or we had to get other child care/rely on family.
I take it RC will be happy that some mothers return to their workplaces earlier, then.
RC – this doesn’t change any of that – it just shares it our more equally between the fathers and the mothers.
I think RC does have a point – it will cause logistical problem in small teams. Bosses will have to hire new staff rather than what will probably happen – the remaining members will have to do double the work. Also, I would not like to see women feeling pressurised to end their maternity leave too early in order to please their boss. The mother- infant relationship is very special and unique.
I know Nick Clegg means well, but he could be causing more problems than he solves. The new mother needs to be protected and if this was introduced she could be pressurised into sharing her maternity leave. This pressure could be from her partner or employer and may well mean her returning to work before she is ready. Call me old fashioned or sexist – I’m not trying to be – but for me this is time for mum and baby bonding.
Excellent points Christine and Liberal Neil, shame not read by the poster below. Helen – there is no additional leave overall, so no impact on business other than perhaps fewer people being off for the whole period permitted, so probably easier to manage. And maybe fathers would like a special and unique father-infant relationship too? It’s about equality and binning Victorian attitudes. Well done Nick.
Mark
‘ And maybe fathers would like a special and unique father-infant relationship too? It’s about equality and binning Victorian attitudes. ‘
I think you misunderstand my use of the word unique – mothers actually carry the child and therefore have a unique, close relationship and bond with an infant. What is Victorian about that fact or in showing sensitivity to women who have given birth?
I never argued that fathers do not a close and loving bonds with children but let’s not pretend women don’t give birth. The relationships are different in the very earliest months – sorry but that is a fact.
Women should not feel pressurised to go back to work before they are ready to – by male bosses, new dads, male politicians or anyone else. That’s my point.
I agree there is a point about the physical side of the bonding between mother and child, but I think that is overstated and if there is quality time for mum and baby to be together frequently, that is all which is needed. In my experience as a father, I remember the valuable time I spent with my baby son which helped greatly because it aided the bonding between him and myself; not just my wife.
What might apply to some women is the need for a considerable period of rest after giving birth; that can be evidenced through medical advice, which then can enable all those concerned to see that for a while it is in that case the mother who needs the leave first.
Finally, if we believe in equality, then any bias that may be involved in particular cases is a matter for sorting out between the people involved in the manner I have just indicated to satisfy the mother’s essential needs. The State should not interfere through legislation.
Helen Tedcastle – I am in a same sex relationship with my male partner. Our daughter has never had a female parent to bond with but she is developing as well as any child, mentally and physically. I would point out your view on mothers and their bond in the early months is as Victorian as the view that men go to work and women raise children and keep house. Your views are very female-centric and its those views that this legislation will help to combat and hopefully eradicate.
Shared Parental leave is aimed at parents and families, regardless of their gender and make up and how they came to be parents. A child needs love and attention in the early years, and the more we can do to support that the better. The workplace got used to the idea of women being out on maternity leave in the 90’s, fathers having paternity leave in 03 and SMP increasing in 2010. This is just another change that I hope reinforces the attitude that families are what count, regardless of how they are comprised.