Unequal opportunities

I'm watching the news on the weekend and saw a report about new changes being proposed for maternity leave. I'm going to start by saying I'm not completely ignorant, despite how I am going to come across. Nor am I chauvanistic, far from it.

What I am though, is astounded by how far some groups will go to make things more unfair in an already unfair world. What started out as equal opportunity practices has now become more fair for some people over others.

I'm all for mothers spending those important first months bonding with new born babies and I believe the need to do so should be encouraged by employers and family alike. What I think is a LOAD OF ABSOLUTE SHIT however, is some wanker suggesting that maternity leave should now be 14 weeks and the empployer should be responsible for that leave financially.

Why does this piss me off? For a start, we have an unequal provision for paid parental leave. Currently maternity leave is (I think) 9 or 12 weeks but paid paternity leave is 2 weeks. How does it make sense in a world where men are getting their asses kicked all over family court, in the media and by child welfare groups for being removed from their children or indeed being a dead beat parent but nobody sees the importance of making the same leave provisions for fathers as mothers receive?

I don't care what argument could be used to challenge my position. Mothers' have the advantage. They spend the gestational period bonding with an unborn child and then have up to three months of paid leave to continue that bonding process. Fair enough, but what about the father?

I know for my self if I want additional leave other than that provided in the standard conditions of employment, I need to consider purchased leave (where I would sacrifice x amount of my weekly salary to "bank" for additional leave time) or leave without pay. So, if in January I decided I am going to take a three month vacation starting in October, I have to allocate some of my pay to my leave "bank". I have 9 months to ensure I will have enough money on my leave to support my needs for that vacation. That then dictates that I have to cut certain luxuries out of my budget in the 9 months up to October to make sure I have enough to support myself until January. And there is no way I'm collecting $5000 for my three months off, as opposed to parents who receive the same payment for procreation.

So, I figure then that if maternity leave didn't exist any couple who (whether by intention or oversight) find themselves expecting a child have, depending on when they find out up to nine months to adjust their expenditure and ensure their financial stability for the maternity leave period. Why is that so bad? Whatever happened to the days when a man would take on a second job or do loads of overtime until and most often after the babys arrival?

Green Left Weekly have produced statistics that say things like workforce participation by women in the 25-44 age group is low and goes on to say that it's probably because of the lack of maternity leave provisions and that the sorts of maternity leave provisions being proposed by places like Myer who are offering 6 weeks paid maternity leave after continuous employment of 18 months or Woolworths who offer 8wks after 2 years give employers too much control over a WOMAN's decision to have a family and when they choose to do so.

Again, whatever happened to the days when a couple would consider their priorities when they discovered they're expecting? These days when someone discovers they're pregnant the only decision they have to make is what date they stop working because they know (depending on which of the MANY Australian companies that do offer paid maternity leave) they will be financially supported.

The whole point of the baby bonus was to encourage people to have more children. A ridiculous idea by a ridiculous representative of a ridiculous Government. They said it was to offset the non-existence of mandatory maternity leave provisions. I don't know even ONE working woman who's had a baby in the last five years who DIDN'T receive paid maternity leave in some form so how the Green Left Weekly can make their statements is beyond me because they certainly haven't quoted the sources of their statistics in their article.

Back to my point. If you want to start a family maybe you should consider your financial position as part of the overall picture. Your parents likely had to do the same thing raising their own family and certainly the generations before them. Don't get knocked up and then expect the rest of the country to support you financially while you take for granted the ability to actually bear a child and raise a family. If I decide to raise a family I have to think about the process and costs of adoption and the fact that adoption leave doesn't exist for most companies unlike paid parental leave.

Again, before anyone bitches and whines about the fact that paid parental leave is not mandatory, you should first sit down and think about how lucky you are to be able to have your own children. There's a lot of us who can't and we would happily forfeit financial support just for the gift of being able to have children without having our entire life scrutinised by government departments who have the power to dictate our suitability as parents. Especially considering nobody is doing a door knock to determine just how many losers can spit out a kid who will be raised in daycare with very little parental guidance just so Mum and Dad can go back to work and prioritise financial wealth over family health.

And yes, the Green Left Weekly article was written by a woman.