Six months' paternity leave is ridiculous – not all things have to be equal
'Investing in early childhood'? Seems like a good idea. I keep being told that children are the future – which is a terrifying thought (they're so small, and they can't really do anything). Though not quite as terrifying as the idea of men being given six months' paternity leave.
Inspired by the Princess of Wales – who has been urging business leaders to support new parents as part of her work with the Royal Foundation Business Taskforce for Early Childhood – Deloitte is to give all new fathers at least six months off work… on full pay. Jazz hands please, no clapping, lest it upsets any of the sore-nippled, papoose-wearing baby daddies out there.
I shouldn't sneer. The consultancy firm is doing this, it says, in order to increase its number of female partners. Which would obviously be a positive. In the UK, women still only constitute 37 per cent of partners in law firms, while accountancy firms have just 18 per cent women in partner roles, so in theory at least (we'll get to the inconvenient truths shortly), policies like this one might help give those figures a stimulus. Deloitte, I should point out, is also the first member of 'the big four' – which also includes Ernst & Young, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers – to address the impact of unequal parental leave on working mothers' career progression. So far, so saintly. But I have a few follow-up questions.
First, you do realise that it's totally unfeasible for small or even medium-sized businesses to embrace this policy? It won't, in fact, boost any figures other than our ballooning 'out of office' statistics.
Just under a quarter of the working-age population (those aged 16-64) do not currently have a job. That's about 11 million people. So, is now really the time to be devising fresh incentives for Britons not to work? Is carving out a whole new 'economically inactive' demographic (to add to the chronically work-shy brigade and the cynical 'mental health' hijackers) really the way to get the UK back on track, boost economic growth alongside living standards, and improve social outcomes? Because, while I'm sure that the bambino benefits from the presence of his daddy in those first few precious months, the state of the country he or she grows up in is also, arguably, going to be important.
Second (and I've been a bit slow on the uptake here), since it turns out that you don't have to be the 'primary caregiver' to qualify for paternity leave, what are these men actually going to be doing for half a year? I can't help but think of a couple I knew, who would leave the dinner party table together, mid-meal, to breastfeed their baby. When I asked the husband why that was, he explained that he was 'there to support' his wife. Which was quite lovely, I told him, thinking: 'I have no words'. Those early months can be lonely, it's true (although in my case it was a good kind of lonely – the best), but what would six months of a husband-turned-doula do to a woman's mental health, I wonder? Or the country's divorce statistics?
If we're spinning this thing out to farcical levels, why stop at husbands? Last July, Sweden rolled out a new law that allows parents to transfer some of their paid parental leave to grandparents, so let's get Nana and Grandad on the gravy train too. Let's get the aunties and the uncles involved, the nieces and the nephews. How are we going to pay for all this leave? We can't get bogged down with that. I don't even have to read the Business Taskforce for Early Childhood's newly released report to know that the more family members you are surrounded by in early life, the better your… everything.
Idealism isn't, in fact, the problem. You can aim for the stars without getting caught up in our toddler-esque fixation with 'fairness'. It's not fair that women have periods, babies, the menopause. It's not fair that a womb and breasts can negatively impact a woman's career. And I'm all for trying to level the playing field wherever possible. I can even understand the need to 'challenge' the 'primary parent' model, just so long as we're clear that, in general – and until men can bear children and breastfeed – that 'primary parent' will remain the mother.
'Deloitte's decision to give men six months of fully paid leave isn't just about families – it's about the future of work,' wrote one mummy blogger yesterday. If the future of work is extended periods of paid non-work, we're going to have much bigger problems than the gender gap.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
5 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
GOP's health care plan: We're all going to die, so whatever
If death and taxes are the only certainties, Joni Ernst is here to cut one and fast-track the other. 'We all are going to die," she said. You might think that's a line from a nihilistic French play. Or something a teenage goth said in Hot Topic. Or an epiphany from your stoner college roommate after he watched Interstellar at 3 a.m. But that was actually the Iowa Senator's God-honest response to concerns that slashing Medicaid to achieve President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' would lead to more preventable deaths. The full exchange at a May 30 town hall included one audience member shouting at the stage, 'People will die!' And Ernst responding, 'People are not — well, we all are going to die, so for heaven's sake.' That's not a health care policy — that's a horoscope for the terminally screwed. As you can imagine, the internet didn't love it, because losing your health should not trigger the equivalent of a shrug emoji from someone elected to serve the public good. But rather than walking it back, Ernst leaned in, filming a mock apology in a graveyard because nothing says, 'I care about your future,' like filming next to people who don't have one. Ernst's comments aren't just philosophical musings. She's justifying policy choices that cause real harm. If passed, this bill would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, remove health coverage for up to 7.6 million Americans. That's not just 'we all die someday' territory. That's 'some people will die soon and needlessly.' What makes this even more galling is that the people pushing these cuts have access to high-quality, taxpayer-subsidized healthcare. Congress gets the AAA, platinum, concierge-level government plan. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are told to try their luck with essential oils or YouTube acupuncture tutorials. Honestly, it felt more like performance art than policy: 'Sorry about your grandma getting kicked out of her assisted living facility. Please enjoy this scenic view of her future! LOL!' We're not asking you to defeat death, senator. Death is both inevitable and bipartisan. But there is a broad chasm between dying peacefully at 85 and dying in your 40's because your Medicaid plan disappeared and your GoFundMe didn't meet its goal. Fundamentally, governing is about priorities. A budget is a moral document. When a lawmaker tells you 'we're all going to die' in response to a policy choice, they're telling you 'I've made peace with your suffering as collateral damage.' And if a U.S. Senator can stand in a cemetery and joke about it, you have to wonder — who do our federal legislators think those graves are for? This isn't just about one comment or one bill. It's about a mindset that treats healthcare as a luxury rather than a right. If death is inevitable, then access to healthcare you can afford is what helps determine how long you have, how comfortably you live, and whether you get to watch your kids grow up. Healthcare isn't about escaping death. It's about dignity and quality of life while we are here. Ernst got one thing right: death will come for us all. But leadership, real leadership, is about helping people live as long and as well as they can before that day comes. You want to make jokes, Senator? Fine. But if your punchline is 'You're all going to die anyway,' don't be surprised when your constituents realize the joke's on them.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Judge approves NCAA House settlement, changing the landscape of collegiate athletics
Very late on Friday afternoon, we got a massive end-of-the week news dump when a judge officially approved a settlement in the NCAA v. House case. With the ruling, the landscape of college athletics will soon look very different than it has prior. The goal of the settlement is to provide structure to the NIL landscape in college football, which is currently effectively a free-for-all. Following the ruling, On3 discussed some of the ramifications of the ruling. 'Since the NCAA was founded in 1906, institutions have never directly paid athletes, On3's Pete Nakos wrote. 'That will now change with the settlement ushering in the revenue-sharing era of college sports. Beginning July 1, schools will be able to share $20.5 million with athletes, with football expected to receive 75%, followed by men's basketball (15%), women's basketball (5%) and the remainder of sports (5%). The amount shared in revenue will increase annually. Advertisement 'Power Four football programs will have roughly $13 to $16 million to spend on rosters for the 2025 season. Many schools have front-loaded contracts ahead of the settlement's approval, taking advantage of contracts not being vetted by the newly formed NIL clearinghouse . . . ' . . . The settlement also imposes new restrictions on college sports. An NIL clearinghouse will be established, titled 'NIL Go' and run through Deloitte. All third-party NIL deals of $600 or more must be approved by the clearinghouse. If not approved, the settlement says a new third-party arbiter could deem athletes ineligible or result in a school being fined. In a gathering at the ACC spring meetings last week, Deloitte officials reportedly shared that 70% of past deals from NIL collectives would have been denied, while 90% of past deals from public companies would have been approved.' It remains to be seen exactly how the new rules will affect USC specifically. Given the Trojans' recent hire of Chad Bowden and the subsequent revamping of their recruiting operation, USC seemingly has the right people in place to bring the program into college football's new era. This article originally appeared on Trojans Wire: NCAA House settlement approved, as college sports braces for impact
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
British holidaymakers to miss out on compensation after EU rule change
Britons will miss out on compensation for delayed flights after Brussels adopted a rule change following complaints from airlines. Payouts that were previously triggered by delays exceeding three hours will now only be made after four hours of holdups, European transport ministers agreed. The new regulation, hammered out following a decade of discussions and bargaining over passenger compensation, will apply to all services from EU countries to the UK. For the time being, travellers headed from Britain to the Continent will still qualify for a refund when flight delays hit the three-hour mark, unless they are flying with an EU-registered airline. While raising the compensation threshold, ministers also agreed to increase the minimum level of payment from €250 (£210) to €300 for shorter journeys and to €500 for those above 3,500km (2,175 miles). The original regulation, known as EU261, was passed in 2004 with the aim of ensuring that passengers received money and assistance in the event of flights being cancelled at short notice. Following Brexit, the UK adopted it into law so that the rights of travellers remained unchanged. However, the Government will now have to decide whether to adopt the amendments for outbound flights or stick with the original version. Taking no action might be welcomed by consumer groups but would have consequences for UK airlines, which would be at a disadvantage to their European rivals. It could also affect fares, with Ryanair having claimed that EU261 costs passengers £7 per ticket. Airlines for Europe, an industry group, had pressed for a higher compensation threshold, arguing that extending it to five hours – as originally proposed by the European Commission – would allow 70pc of flights that are cancelled to be rescued. It argued said that airlines inevitably scrapped flights once compensation was triggered, especially since the payouts involved were often higher than the ticket prices charged. It said a five-hour threshold would have made it more practical for carriers to fly in replacement aircraft so that more flights would get away, potentially benefiting 10m passengers a year. A spokesman said: 'Getting to their destination is the primary concern of passengers, even if it means getting to bed or arriving at their holiday resort late. But with a low cancellation threshold it makes more sense to call off the flight and take that hit.' Airlines have also railed against the fact that the compensation applies whether delays are caused by a crew shortage or technical issue that might be laid at their door, or by severe weather or air traffic control issues beyond their control. A number of extraordinary circumstances are expected to be added as part of revisions to 31 different air passenger rights. The revisions must still clear the European Parliament but are expected to become law in the bloc by the end of the year. The Department for Transport said the UK did not have to amend its legislation in line with any changes from the EU, and that any potential future reforms would require careful consideration on their merits, and be subject to public consultation. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
