Ellee thinks maternity leave should be tripled.Well, to a point it should be increased but there is maternity and maternity:
1. the wife in a marriage having a child in the normal course of events;
2. the girl who goes with a bad boy [why do girls fall for them], who then scarpers or is too rottweiler to have about and then she needs family support;
3. the benefits mum who plays the system.
Hands up anyone who's never made an error of judgement? Conversely, hands up anyone who wouldn't dream of working and sees maternity as a good dodge? So rather than the increase being across the board and universal, surely it should be situation-and-attitude-tested in each case by a panel of men and women, in each borough, to determine true eligibility.
What it should not be is means-tested because that penalizes initiative. If a husband is supporting the wife during this time, then the extra would be very much needed if he were on a standard salary and should not be reduced because he happens to have the ability to pull down a good salary.
In fact, the whole thrust in public money distribution should be to support the married couple and dependents first, then pensioners, then, by reducing amounts, the single mum and then other single people [not at half the rate but at 70%, as these still have houses to upkeep].
One negative consequence of tripling maternity leave, of course, is that no business is going to employ a possibly pregnant girl/woman any more - it can't take the risk of such a huge payout. This would bring older women and the male back into favour for employment and that is something the feminists simply would not want to happen as it virtually unravels their conditioning of society to the concept of the career woman.
How to cut the number of women getting jobs in one easy step...
ReplyDeleteI shall ignore the last sentence since it is so blatantly absurd, well I didn't ignore it did I?
ReplyDeleteHere maternity leave is one year, government funded, well underfunded I suppose you might say, since it has a cap on it and obviously women with very good salaries are often unable to take advantage of it because they lose so much income. In the case of certain professions, accountants and lawyers or women with businesses they lose their clients and they can't risk that. I haven't read Ellee's post yet but tripling mat leave here would hardly be workable as keeping a job open for even a year is a problem for many employers, depending on the job. Also under certain contracts the salaries are topped up and that becomes a big expense for an employer, especially in fields where the employees are mainly female, eg hospitals.
As always there are no easy answers, no solution where one size fits all.
Oh and here fathers can take 3 months of that 1 year maternity leave instead of the mother and I have a young friend whose husband did that twice.
It's about time society atarted taking care of the single. Hitting out at the feminists again, I see,
ReplyDeleteDated thinking in the least. Maternity leave is only paid to those working, and not welfare recipients. Its got nothing to do with feminists, but out dated thinking patterns. Surely you are not classing all single mothers in this category.
ReplyDeleteI'm jumping up and down here!
ReplyDeleteSeems to me to be a major flaw in your proposition. Excluding e.g. feckless single mothers from the benefit of extended maternity leave would very likely penalise their children most, not the women themselves.
We really don't need another generation of inattentive, even disturbed kids who've been dumped in nurseries and with childminders almost from birth! (Research shows that these children more often behave worst throughout their schooling and are more likely to collect ASBOs...)
Do you feel that visiting the 'sins' of the parents on the children is the answer? Not being a smarty here but I wondered if you'd taken this aspect into account?
Perhaps it might be a slight deterrent in the first place - but in reality none of the various initiatives over time has been successful in reducing e.g. teen pregnancy or lone parenthood.
For me, the child's needs always have to come first. Usually, I believe, that means having two parents around and committed to their wellbeing.
Trixy - lovely to see you and yes, to triple maternity leave would cut the number of women in jobs.
ReplyDeleteJMB - your second third and fourth paragraphs were very interesting. As you say, there is no easy solution.
Welshcakes - yes, I agree. That's why I proposed 70% of the married rate. You call that hitting out at feminists? Saying we should look after all disadvantaged people, not just women? Or do you think, Welshcakes, that people should be helped by society only if they are female?
Nunyah - in answer to your question - no I'm not classing all in one. I mentioned that it was complicated and agreed with JMB above here.
Debacle - agree with your last sentence completely and in fact, your last paragraph.
James are you a parent? If not blog about something you know about. I agree with welshcake. I have to say you did show the level of your ignorance in this post.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, which part was ignorant? That there is benefit tweaking or that all mothers on benefits are like that? I never said the latter. And are you suggesting the first does not happen?
ReplyDeleteOr was it that I said that the feminists would not like it if the career path of women dropped away because employers would not take the risk any more? Because that is exactly what would happen, as Ellee concedes. Now that is not a result feminists, who have fought hard to get women into the workforce, would like.
What's the problem with that? It's what would happen.
Where then is the ignorance?
And yes to the other question, Anon. :)
Those are the ignorant parts:
ReplyDelete1-"situation and attitude tested" who is going to determine what is an acceptable attitude and what situation is acceptable? When I read this para I fell off my seat. Sounds so fascit.........I hope to god you are never going to be in the panel.
2-"supporting married couple first" I sense from this statement that you view single parents as second class citizien.....silly girls getting involved with bad boys etc etc..........James shame on you!!!
3-"support for single people 70%" there you go again......another judgemental statement wich borders to fascism, ignorance.........
4-"Maternity as a good dodge"....I will not comment further on this one, otherwise I might get very rude.
By the way I have been a single parents, my son is 33 and very successfull, I worked hard as a parent, took matty leave and spent the last 30 years paying the state taxes at 40%.
So I think I earned my maternity leave like the rest of the mothers.( even the unemployed ones because I paid on their behalf and happy to do so)
how much taxes have you paid lately.......
1. "Who is going to determine what is an acceptable attitude and what situation is acceptable?"
ReplyDeleteWho ever determines anything when public money needs disbursing? Who would you have disburse money, say in housing? I mean, who makes the judgement?
2. "I sense from this statement that you view single parents as second class citizien"
No, that is just your own prejudice showing here. Nothing about second class citizen was mentioned, just a priority order which is another thing. And yes, families do come first because they comrise the bulk of society - still.
3. "Support for single people 70%" there you go again......another judgemental statement wich borders to fascism, ignorance"
How is this fascism? Do you know what fascism is, by any chance? Any public moneys necessarily come down to percentages and shares of the available kitty. 70% was a random figure for the sake of argument. The actual figure would be determined by whoever disburses the money.
4. "Maternity is a good dodge"
Taken out of context of course but I'll let that go. Do you deny that this is happening? Because there is ample evidence of it - this has been mentioned by many bloggers before - it's not my idea.
5. "How much taxes have you paid lately?"
Oh, that's nice, isn't it? Well, as you have asked, apart from a stint in 1993 for two months and this current difficulty, the answer is "over several decades". But thank you for asking.
I think little more needs to be said on that. Now, how about my point that the call for ALL disadvantaged people to be helped, not just women? Or don't you agree with that?
Of course now I have read Ellee's post and in fact it does not say that maternity leave should be tripled which means in length to me and I am sure to most people who do not already know the details, but the rate of reimbursement should be increased for a limited time,etc.
ReplyDeleteI am still not sure how it is funded, after reading both posts. If as here, everyone pays premiums for a government funded scheme which here encompasses both unemployment and maternity leave how does it affect employers and why would they not employ women. When it was increased here from 16 weeks to 52 weeks it made no difference in the long run. As I said before many who are entitled to it cannot afford to take it and I am sure a similar situation exists in the UK.
JMB, the net effect of Ellee's proposal is to increase the total sum due to the mother. Whether you extend weeks or just increase the amount, it is the same effect in the end.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, my post opened, agreeing that it should be increased. One reason which no commenter has mentioned is that it is equally hard on the man.
We have set up a society now where the woman not only MAY work and take her place at the top of the tree beside men but the economic situation means that she MUST.
That is why the husband wife combination is still the best combination and why singles do it so hard. All this wailing and gnashing of teeth in comments was because I uttered unpleasant truths.
When the wife then is pregnant, it affects the whole household, not just the woman. So we now come to maternity leave. With households straining, financially, at breaking point, some form of government compensation is necessary, otherwise, as you say, women will not take the risk of having a child.
The root problem is not the compensation but that society has gone down the credit/mortgage road and prices have become such that people are forced into this situation.
In dire financial situations, people combine and the logical combination is husband wife, as from that families spring, combined with extended family and surely that is a desirable thing in society. Or do we go back to ZPG and the nuclear family?
It was not my intention to offend people in dire situations but to air an issue. I'm sorry if offence was caused.
However, to say that militant feminism has caused a lot of these ills, I do not retract from one inch as it is demonstrably true in many ways written in earlier posts. Would you have me not tell the truth?
Popcorn anyone? This should be interesting to say the least.
ReplyDeleteIf you say "maternity benefits should be tripled" you are saying that other people should have money taken from them by force to give to those who have children they can't afford to support. In a week when it seems taxpayers are giving up years of their working lives to save the skins of bankers and their investors, this is just another example of how to create an irresponsible society. Britain is already the world's best laboratory for testing the scope of moral jeopardy! Insulate people from the consequences of their actions and their actions will become increasingly rash and selfish.
ReplyDelete