Baby leave?

Ok let’s start with the facts.  Men can’t have babies.  They certainly help in the process, but physically they can’t pop out a child.  This fundamental difference has been the proverbial thorn in the feminist’s side since time immemorial, and as a result of this biological gulf things haven’t quite been working out for women...or men...or anyone really. 

Throughout history it has been a female’s sole purpose to produce children and raise them into upstanding members of society.  A women’s worth was often equated to the successfulness of her offspring, and this perception probably hasn’t completely been dispelled to the archives.  When opportunities were more limited for women, their children were the one aspect of their life where they would have had the most influence.  It was considered normal to devout your life to caring for your brood because in reality options for devoting your energies to anything else were nonexistent.  However now your options as a female are boundless; there are few professions which still smell reminiscent of the old boys clubs and even those resistant to reform (the banking sector being the most prominent) are slowly dragging their sorry behinds into 2012.  And yet, even with all these seemingly limitless prospects there are still complaints of the glass ceiling; statistics banded around concerning the growing pay gap between men and women and the lack of women at boardroom level regularly make media headlines.  There have been several suggestions on how to solve this plateau in progress.  Not least legislation to positively discriminate for women to enter high level positions and workplaces to undergo pay audits to ensure equitable pay distribution.  Both of these approaches are decidedly female-centric, working on the assumption that there is a broken stage in the chain preventing women fulfilling their full potentials.  Yes you’ve guessed it, I think differently.

First let’s talk possible causes for the two problems above.  Salary and position within a company are not just dependent on raw talent.  Most of the time it’s based on commitment.  How long have you been with the company and therefore how many time have you been privileged to their incremental pay increases that are independent of promotions or performance.  If you moved companies every two years you would not necessarily be earning the same as someone who had worked their way up to the same level over twice the time.  So if this assumption is correct, then we can systematically deduce that women are serving less time.  And here we are at the crux of the issue; women cannot possibly hope to show commitment to a firm while also fulfilling family commitments.  I know Sarah Jessica Parker would have you believe that it can be done (and of course author Allison Pearson), but quite frankly that looked far too stressful to be enjoyable and no matter how good we are, why should we have to be?  So we’ve demanded flexible working and got it.  We asked for longer maternity leave, and we got it.  So what’s the problem?  Answer:  we haven’t been demanding these same rights for the y to our x.  As it stands in law women are entitled to 26 weeks statutory maternity leave but men only could have the right to two weeks.  Flexible working entitles both parents to apply for hours to suit their childcare needs, but according to a study by the Trades Union Congress, employers are far more likely to decline applications by men than by women.  Just by looking at these two simple strategies, that were fought for by women, to supposedly make life easier, we can see that they are hemming women into the ‘carer’ box just as much as before.  We need to redress this balance.  Allow men to take some of the strain.  How can we expect to pursue equal relationships with the fathers of our children if policy is restraining them from fully supporting the family unit?  I understand this is a highly simplified example and ignores a whole range of social issues such as single parent families, same sex parents and situations I have never even thought of let alone encountered, but if we get the basics right surely we’re in a better position to tackle everything else?

So I understand the arguments against both parents being able to take 26 weeks leave; the loss to the economy in working hours would be enormous.  Maybe you don’t care, but I get it, and so it’s pointless trying to push this utopian dream.  I have a suggestion (as if I didn’t); why not allow couples to take a combined 28 or even 30 weeks?  I know I’m hitting on problems before I’ve even begun as this would be complicated to regulate, especially as a growing percentage of those having children aren't in a formalised relationship i.e. married.  Although I’m no great proponent of this institution maybe  it is worth rewarding those having children within marriage and restrict this joint baby leave to them.  Have I just opened another can or worms?  I think so but this situation would be at least better for some rather than worse for all.


p.s. supposedly paternity leave of 26 weeks already exists, although it's not quite that straight forward.  I have known several men whose whose wife's have given birth recently and they have only been allowed to take 2 weeks.  On top of this have you actually read the regulation?  There are so many ifs and buts making it seem unnecessarily daunting I'm not surprised men aren't taking advantage of it.