Article
Positive thinking on maternity leave
Harriet Harman shouldn't be forced on to the defensive in her pursuit of a more family-friendly employment arena
Harriet Harman's plans to extend maternity leave have sparked the predictable hysteria. There's a website called HarrietHarmansucks.com, and her cabinet colleague Lord Mandelson (with whom she reportedly has a chilly relationship) has toned down her initial proposals. Now the new issue of Prospect magazine carries a more nuanced response from LSE academic Catherine Hakim. Added maternity leave would not only be bad for employers and British business, Hakim says, but would actually harm women in work too. "Family-friendly policies have actually been the cause of the glass ceiling for women, not the solution," she writes.
Her case is a persuasive one, and it has gained a lot of currency in the past few months – a recent Daily Mail headline for an article by Vogue editor Alexandra Shulman said it all: "Year-long maternity leave, flexi hours, four day weeks ... why would ANY boss hire a woman?" Far from extending maternity leave (currently anywhere between one to 12 months), we should be cutting it back: this is the only way to make women more equal at work, as it would make them less of a "risky" hire for male employers. Or so the argument goes.
Yet on closer examination, how many of the so-called "negative effects" of generous maternity leave are truly harmful? According to Hakim, evidence that around three-quarters of women who return to work after maternity leave go part-time, or find other flexible terms, is "troubling". Why? Isn't this rather an encouraging sign that a majority of mothers are able to strike a healthy work-life balance? Not all women (or men's) top ambition is to be a chief executive. Plus, Harman's plans do not include compulsory maternity leave: any woman who wants to hop out of her hospital bed and straight back into the office is still free to do so – as she should be.
Gaby Hinsliff's moving account of her decision to quit the Observer underscored just how emotive this subject can be. But one can also level it down to very basic, practical terms. If we cut back on maternity leave, how will working mothers be able to exclusively breast-feed for six months, as the World Health Organisation recommends? Plenty choose not to breast-feed for many good reasons, though surely a mother should at least have this option, with all its proven health benefits, and still be able to keep her job. You could win this side of the argument purely on NHS cost-effectiveness grounds.
Of course every work and domestic situation is unique, and certain jobs can never truly be made family-friendly. But this makes an even stronger case for a change in the law: women are entitled to these "family-unfriendly" jobs too, and so the rules should better accommodate the involvement of both parents in child-rearing. Which is why, laudable though they are, Harman's plans don't go far enough.
In their 2005 manifesto, Labour promised up to six months' paternity leave for all fathers, a proposal they have now backed away from – thanks to, again, alleged interference from the Prince of Darkness. To be fair, surveys carried out in Sweden showed that before a policy of generous paternity leave was introduced a majority of Swedish men and women were against it. But just because a working father doesn't want to be more involved in the day-to-day parenting of a small child, does this mean he should automatically be allowed to opt out? As things stand, women certainly can't. And surely, if employment laws are to have any point at all, they should discourage reductive gender roles. (A majority of Swedish women may have been against mandatory leave before it was introduced, but I wonder how many object to it now.) Plus, as Richard Reeves has pointed out in the Observer, there are plenty of British fathers who do crave more time with their children and a fairer allocation of parenting options.
One of the things that happen all too often in this debate is that men are reduced to boorish, irresponsible stereotypes – often by well-intending women arguing passionately for equality. Harriet Harman is right to push for more generous maternity leave for those who want it. But it should not be only women in pursuit of that elusive goal of "having it all". Men deserve a shot at it too.
• Mary Fitzgerald is assistant and online editor of Prospect magazine
Related Content
User Comments
imogenblack
19 November 2009 3:06PM
If harmen and Nulab could actually propose any measure on gender relations in the workplace or anywhere else that wan't couched in stupid gender stereotyping of men it would be helpful.
I'm sick of hearing MP's miss the entire point of the phrase 'family friendly' - all they seem to do is bring in laws that whiilst aiming to help women, actually just swing the discrimination in the other direction and actively bring opposition to the idea of gaining equality.
If she wanted a family friendly policy on employment she would equalise parental leave and stop making me worthless in the workplace: as a childless woman of 25 I can SEE potential employers thinking I am not worth employing because of my womb.
CharlieLucky
19 November 2009 3:12PM
The same response as I've posted before:
It maybe OK for the public sector or large organisations to operate such a policy but 13 million people work in SME's. A small organisation just cannot afford to lose a key employee of whatever sex for long periods.
TDesign
19 November 2009 3:12PM
Equality means the man or woman being able to take parental leave. How about giving parents the right to take up to 12 months paternity/maternity leave. That way if the mother wants 6 months off, the father could also have 6 months off afterwards. The so called "reason" cited by some, not to employ women, would also apply to men and get rid of a lot of prejudice, it's not just some women but also some men have no interest in climbing the career ladder.
Pairubu
19 November 2009 3:13PM
as a childless woman of 25 I can SEE potential employers thinking I am not worth employing because of my womb.
Funny, as a childrearing man of 51 I can SEE employers thinking I am not worth employing because I lack one !
One even told me, a few years ago, "We don't get many men applying", simply because I need employment that fits around school hours.
Can't win, it seems.
fabiusmaximus
19 November 2009 3:16PM
Why is it not possible for families to save some money towards a career break when they intend to have children. The government could set up special maternity bank accounts which would have an elevated rate of interest,
lemonadesparkle
19 November 2009 3:21PM
Heavens above.
Employees are paid by their employers to work. Not to breast feed, not to attend baby yoga, but to work.
If I don't come to work for a year, and I'm entitled to paid maternity for all that time, my employer has to pay someone else to do my work. That means at the most basic level, they are paying twice as much to get my job done.
Employers not being happy about this isn't particularly surprising. The more legislation that Harman introduces requiring employers to pay mothers not to come to work, the more unhappy they will be.
thetrashheap
19 November 2009 3:23PM
"Plus, Harman's plans do not include compulsory maternity leave: any woman who wants to hop out of her hospital bed and straight back into the office is still free to do so ? as she should be."
"But just because a working father doesn't want to be more involved in the day-to-day parenting of a small child, does this mean he should automatically be allowed to opt out? As things stand, women certainly can't. And surely, if employment laws are to have any point at all, they should discourage reductive gender roles. (A majority of Swedish women may have been against mandatory leave before it was introduced, but I wonder how many object to it now.) "
Do you see the double standards here? It's all about how we can change these laws to suit women.
Women should get the six months breast feeding to keep the law neutral maybe this should be allowed to be shared even if it makes a mockery of the reason it's granted but extending past that and putting a burden on to employers to me is totally unfair on people trying to run a business.
I mean do you think many self employed women take a year off? Are they discriminating against themselves or are they facing financial reality.
As for HAVING IT ALL it's practically impossible as it should be. People who make work there entire aim in life deserve to be CEO's people who work part-time, take years off on maternity, or only work 37.5hrs a week don't deserve the promotion in the vast majority of cases. But they get the home life that the workaholic doesn't get. It's called striking a balance.
imogenblack
19 November 2009 3:25PM
paribu - the point is not that they are discriminating because I am a woman, they are discriminating because they cannot afford to pay me maternity leave and are not about to accept that I do not want children: The state is actively making me less employable with its policies.
justice4beginners
19 November 2009 3:29PM
6 months leave for mums, 6 months for dads: sorted.
both parents take equal responsibility, both have time with baby. no more focus on mothers being the orimary carers, no more bias in family court proceedings. employers will have to stop blaming women all the time, we will stop this gender row, and recognise that our country needs to better accommodate families.
i win. now give me cake.
LSEscientist
19 November 2009 3:31PM
The chickens are now coming home. Labour has trashed the economy. There are now ugly fruits. Good public policies have to be torn up. It is a crime but the UK is no longer in the league of top nations able to afford sensible and humane employment legislation.
It did not have to be like this. Harriet Harman should have been a member of an extraordinary government that created wealth that supported top quality maternity support. But Labour under Brown car crashed the economy. Women and children will now suffer in consequence. Incompetent government has a nasty price. We should cry at the way Labour screwed up the gift given to it in 1997.
faintlyMacabre
19 November 2009 3:33PM
Not all women are mothers.
Not all parents are women.
"But just because a working father doesn't want to be more involved in the day-to-day parenting of a small child, does this mean he should automatically be allowed to opt out? As things stand, women certainly can't"
Some of them do you know.
MrRanter
19 November 2009 3:36PM
@TDesign.
Exactly but, like the equalising of wages in Leeds (refuse collectors - what happened to that?), maybe maternity will be reduced to 13 weeks unpaid to bring it in line.
@Imogen
Unfair but probably true. Also they are not alowed to ask either so tarred with the same brush.
divesandlazarus
19 November 2009 3:38PM
...........yeah, absolutely, because she's a real victim Harriet isn't she?
Harriet Harman is right to push for more generous maternity leave for those who want it. But it should not be only women in pursuit of that elusive goal of "having it all". Men deserve a shot at it too.
Utter rubbish - if you want kids, be prepared to work hard at them on a full-time basis. One should not expect the state, employer nor one's colleagues to pick-up the slack. Be responsible for yourself.
My wife gave up work for the first three years of my daughter's life and, although a salary was missed, it was a first class investment (and enjoyable too).
If you want a kid - put it first, always...........and don't try any of this Ruth Kelly crap, "I'm a fully functioning cabinet minister, but my family ha priority".
Cairncross
19 November 2009 3:41PM
For god's sake, will someone save us from greedy employers?
If we don't have children, our civilization will disappear - already a pressing reality in countries like Japan, Italy and Russia.
Virtually all these "career"-type jobs can now be done from home with a computer and an internet connection. New mums could keep an eye on their offspring while tapping away - indeed, without being sucked into pointless meetings or wasting hours on the commute, they'd probably get more done.
Yet the culture of presenteeism somehow prevails to the extent that bosses feel excused in marginalising and demoting their female employees. Shocking.
Ghostworld
19 November 2009 3:42PM
imogenblack
19 Nov 2009, 3:06PM
If harmen and Nulab could actually propose any measure on gender relations in the workplace or anywhere else that wan't couched in stupid gender stereotyping of men it would be helpful.
I'm sick of hearing MP's miss the entire point of the phrase 'family friendly' - all they seem to do is bring in laws that whiilst aiming to help women, actually just swing the discrimination in the other direction and actively bring opposition to the idea of gaining equality.
If she wanted a family friendly policy on employment she would equalise parental leave and stop making me worthless in the workplace: as a childless woman of 25 I can SEE potential employers thinking I am not worth employing because of my womb.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fantastic post Imogen
ZacSmith
19 November 2009 3:59PM
Imogen
Great point. My wife is 27, been married for 3 years and kept on rolling temporary contracts by an employer who won't employ here properly because they know she'll be having children at some point soon.
Net effect - no maternity leave for her. Awesome.
roundthings
19 November 2009 4:05PM
Congratulations on a thoughtful article devoid of cant.
I can see the problem, I'm just not sure I know what the solution is. Biology has handed women a stacked deck, which the traditional notion that looking after the children is 'womens work' makes even worse. (Although the odd man who does find himself doing the work of child-rearing, such as Pairebu, finds himself in a pretty awkward place too.) There is certainly a strong argument from equity for encouraging men by all means possible to share these duties more equally.
However I can see the employer's side of things too. Employers aren't leery of fertile women just because they want to be mean to them, they act that way out of rational motives. To really fix this you would have to work out some way to compensate the employers enough to level the playing field (higher taxes anyone?). Unless this is done, all that equalising the role of the sexes in child-rearing will do will be to change the present discrimination against fertile women to discrimination against young people of either sex who may want to start a family.
imogen you're not supposed to say things like
If harmen and Nulab could actually propose any measure on gender relations in the workplace or anywhere else that wan't couched in stupid gender stereotyping of men it would be helpful.
Way too reasonable.
lemonadesparkle
Employees are paid by their employers to work. Not to breast feed, not to attend baby yoga, but to work.
Not to post on CiF, not to sleep, not to eat, but to work. What, do employés think they have lives or something? Bring back Mr Scrooge! He knew what o'clock it was.
Vraaak
19 November 2009 4:10PM
Some very good points made including "It maybe OK for the public sector or large organisations to operate such a policy but 13 million people work in SME's"
Indeed, but when someone flounces off on thier procreation project from the public sector, unless it's the most transferrable job, and those are few, we usually don't get someone in to cover for them either!
While they are at home having a nice time with thier new family, and best of luck to them, we just get the joy of the job satisfaction that comes from doing thier job as well as ours until they come back.
So to the 'leave lobby', yes it's a shame not to be able to progress your career while having kids, OK, you might have missed a promotion, but you got to have kids. That's absolutely amazing. And probably makes life a bit more interesting than not having any or not being able to.
And, as I say, the rest of us did your job for you while you were away. We're tired. Please when your kids are old enough, do our jobs as well as your own for a few months, because that would be a nice thing for you to do wouldn't it?.
And stop bringing them in to the office once they are born. It's OK, we believe you had them. We saw you get really fat and everything before you left.
Vraaak
19 November 2009 4:13PM
"If we don't have children, our civilization will disappear"
Eventually. Although since resources are dwindling so fast and our children face a very bleak world compared to the one we live in, there may be an argument that if you want more than two children, you clearly don't like children very much.
Pairubu
19 November 2009 3:06PM
How about making families more employment-friendly instead.
Harman and co are trying to square a circle. It might be desirable in public service but , in the commercial sector the needs of the company need to be considered first.