Better paternity leave wouldn't just help Daddy
I'm so pleased that paternity leave is getting some air time and there is a campaign to increase it (The Guardian view on paternity leave: campaigners are right to demand more, 5 May). Probably in part because I follow the Pregnant Then Screwed campaigns, my husband and I have discussed this in depth. He is now due to be taking a full six months of shared parental leave from his workplace this year.
With our first baby, he was at home but working self‑employed, so had no benefits. I suffered with postnatal depression, and struggled with breastfeeding and the anxiety of trying to do it all right.
This time, we are so looking forward to having six months off together as a family. My husband will be able to bond with the baby and be the supportive father to our toddler, with no mental pressure to have to be doing something else. It's going to be so different!
We know we are the outliers – none of our friends have done this or seem inclined to. A big part is the women still want 12 months and worry that they have to go back early if they share the time. The men also maybe haven't understood all their rights.
I will be taking 12 months, but it is a matter of juggling workplace policies and is not very easy to navigate. I just wanted to share that this is possible. You can have it all. You can take 12 months as the woman, and you can have your partner with you for longer than two weeks. And it could be wonderful for you both.Leila FroudBath
• I'm so very sorry to hear that fathers are finding it unattractive to take two weeks of paternity leave when compensated at the statutory £187.18 a week. Do let me remind you that this is the same country which pays a woman a mere £6.38 an hour (six weeks of pay at 90% of her salary, which on average in the UK is roughly £700 a week, plus 33 weeks of maternity pay at that princely £187.18/week), half of the national minimum wage, for giving up her career for 39 weeks to instead work at delivering and nurturing a future taxpayer.
This is not to mention the physical and emotional cost of working 'as normal' through the previous 40 weeks of her pregnancy, the soft impact on her career of taking nine months of leave, and the financial cost to the family of putting that child into nursery at eight or nine months old so the mother can return to her £700-a-week job. And this is before we factor in the weeks of unpaid leave or holiday she will take to cover illnesses, and the impact on her career of needing the flexibility to work around inflexible nursery hours.
Perhaps if we paid women properly for their labour, men would find it easier to sacrifice their full earnings for two short weeks in order to become more fully engaged parents.Alison SmithLondon
• I read your article on the proposed 'dad strike' regarding the pathetic paternity entitlement in the UK while visiting my son, partner and kids in Oslo (British men urged to join 'Dad strike' calling for more paternity leave, 1 May). My son is on four months' paid paternity leave and his partner has recently returned to work after eight months' paid maternity leave. Yes, let me repeat, four months, paid.
On taking one of my grandchildren to the barnehage (nursery), I am struck by the number of young men having responsibility for their young kids. This is how it should be. It's really wonderful and it also enables many women to work full time.
The Labour government is clearly unpopular, as confirmed by the local elections, and a second term is unlikely unless a radical change of direction occurs. This should include significant improvements in paternity rights.Jol MiskinSheffield
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump to flex muscle with huge military parade
Donald Trump's dream of hosting a grand military parade in Washington will come true on Saturday when tanks, helicopters and thousands of troops rumble through the capital on the US president's 79th birthday. Long fascinated with military pomp, Trump has openly envied the military spectaculars seen in cities from Paris to Moscow and Pyongyang ever since his first term as president. The $45 million parade is officially being held to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the US army, which commander-in-chief Trump this week called the "greatest fighting force ever to walk the face of the Earth." But critics say the parade is more about Trump than the army. Protesters have pledged to rally on Saturday against what they call Trump's growing authoritarianism, at a time when he just ordered troops into Los Angeles after demonstrations against his immigration policy. So-called "No Kings" rallies -- named after the idea that America's Revolutionary War against the British was to free the country from monarchs and autocrats -- are planned in dozens of cities, including just outside Washington. But Trump is unrepentant. The president said on a visit to the Fort Bragg army base on Tuesday that "we want to show off a little bit" with the parade, and vowed "very big force" if protesters try to disrupt it. He made the comments in an extraordinary speech that breached the usual separation of politics and the military and saw Trump goad troops into jeering his opponents. - 'Big birthday party' - Trump's long-cherished parade plans are also rare for a country which has traditionally preferred to avoid displays of military might on its own soil. The parade will be the biggest in Washington since 1991 after the first Gulf War -- and before that for the inauguration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1949, the army said. Nearly 7,000 army soldiers will march past historic landmarks including the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and the White House. Roaring overhead will be a fleet of more than 50 helicopters including Apache gunships, giant twin-rotor Chinook transport choppers and sleek Black Hawks. Around 150 military vehicles -- including 28 M1A1 Abrams battle tanks, 28 Bradley armored vehicles and 28 Stryker vehicles -- will rumble along the route. Following the parade, the army's Golden Knights parachute team will jump in and present Trump with a US flag. Troops have been moving tanks and other hardware into place throughout the week. "I think the reception here is going to be very warm," US army Colonel Kamil Sztalkoper told AFP during a media preview. "Who doesn't like a big birthday party when you're 250 years old?" - 'Believe in democracy' - But the display of American muscle is also a flex of Trump's own strongman image as commander-in-chief, at the start of a second term when he has been pushing US presidential power further than ever before. Trump has been obsessed with having a parade since his first term as president when he attended France's annual Bastille Day parade in Paris at the invitation of Emmanuel Macron in 2017. Back then he was put off by the huge cost, then estimated at $92 million, and warnings that heavy tanks could damage Washington's streets. This time, the army says metal plates will protect the roads. At the time it also sparked comparisons to similar events in autocratic countries like Russia, China and North Korea -- comparisons which have resurfaced in his second term. Peter Loge, director of George Washington University's School of Media, said the American aversion to such displays went back to the earliest days of US independence. "We were founded by a group of merchants and farmers who were tired of a standing army invading their streets in the name of keeping them safe," Loge told AFP. "We've always looked down on grand military parades in Russia across Red Square or in North Korea, because we're not like that. We're Americans, and we believe in democracy, not in military shows of force." Trump's show of US military might does however come at a time of mounting international tensions. Fears of a Middle East conflict are on the rise as talks on Iran's nuclear talks wobble and Israel threatens to strike its facilities. dk/jgc
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge sides with anti-Israel ringleader Mahmoud Khalil, halts Trump administration's deportation bid
A federal judge sided with Mahmoud Khalil, an anti-Israel ringleader detained by the Trump administration, blocking the government from continuing to hold him on "foreign policy" grounds. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday granted a preliminary injunction preventing the government from detaining or removing Khalil, 30, based on a memorandum issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The memo asserted that Khalil's presence "compromises a compelling foreign policy interest." "The government cannot claim an interest in enforcing what appears to be an unconstitutional law," Farbiarz wrote, adding that the threat to free speech raised serious First Amendment concerns. The ruling is a significant legal setback for the administration's efforts to deport Khalil, who has been held at a detention facility in Louisiana following his involvement in anti-Israel demonstrations at Columbia University. Federal Judge Says Attempted Deportation Of Anti-israel Ringleader Mahmoud Khalil May Be Unconstitutional While the ruling grants a preliminary injunction against Khalil's removal, it stops short of ordering his release. Read On The Fox News App The court's decision will remain on hold until Friday morning, giving the government time to appeal. READ THE RULING – APP USERS, Click Here Anti-israel Ringleader Mahmoud Khalil's Free Speech Lawsuit Against Us Government Must Be Heard: Judge Khalil, a green card holder, was arrested after leading student protests on the Ivy League campus. He has argued that his free speech rights were being "eroded" by the Trump administration. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorneys have argued that Khalil's free speech claims were a "red herring," saying that the 30-year-old lied on his visa applications. Khalil, they said, willfully failed to disclose his employment with the Syrian office in the British Embassy in Beirut when he applied for permanent U.S. residency. The agency also accused Khalil of failing to disclose his work with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees and membership in Columbia University Apartheid Divest. Rubio has cited a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to justify Khalil's removal from the U.S. The provision allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary determines their presence in the U.S. "would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Rubio accused Khalil of participating in "antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which foster a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States." "Condoning antisemitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective," Rubio wrote. Khalil has Algerian citizenship through his mother, but was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. As of Wednesday evening, no further hearings are scheduled in Khalil's immigration case. "We're just waiting for the judge to issue her ruling," Johnny Sinodis, a partner at Van Der Hout LLP who is representing Mahmoud Khalil in immigration proceedings, said during a press conference following the hearing. Meanwhile, the federal court's preliminary injunction will prevent Khalil's removal until at least article source: Federal judge sides with anti-Israel ringleader Mahmoud Khalil, halts Trump administration's deportation bid
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump says US personnel moved as Iran tensions mount
President Donald Trump said US personnel were being moved from the potentially "dangerous" Middle East on Wednesday as nuclear talks with Iran faltered and fears grew of a regional conflict. Trump also reiterated that he would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, amid mounting speculation that Israel could strike Tehran's facilities. Iran threatened Wednesday to target US military bases in the region if conflict breaks out. A US official had earlier said that staff levels at the embassy in Iraq were being reduced over security concerns, while there were reports that personnel were also being moved from Kuwait and Bahrain. "Well they are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place," Trump told reporters in Washington when asked about the reports of personnel being moved. "We've given notice to move out and we'll see what happens." Trump then added: "They can't have a nuclear weapon, very simple. We're not going to allow that." Tehran and Washington have held five rounds of talks since April to thrash out a new nuclear deal to replace the 2015 accord that Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. The two sides were due to meet again in coming days. Trump had until recently expressed optimism about the talks, but said in an interview published Wednesday that he was "less confident" about reaching a nuclear deal. Since returning to office in January, Trump has revived his "maximum pressure" campaign on Tehran, backing nuclear diplomacy but warning of military action if it fails. The US president says he has pressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off striking Iran's nuclear facilities to give the talks a chance, but has increasingly signaled that he is losing patience. Iran however warned it would respond to any attack. "All its bases are within our reach, we have access to them, and without hesitation we will target all of them in the host countries," Iran's Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said in response to US threats of military action if the talks fail. - 'Suffer more losses' - "God willing, things won't reach that point, and the talks will succeed," the minister said, adding that the US side "will suffer more losses" if it came to conflict. The United States has multiple bases in the Middle East, with the largest located in Qatar. In January 2020, Iran fired missiles at bases in Iraq housing American troops in retaliation for the US strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani days before at the Baghdad airport. Dozens of US soldiers suffered traumatic brain injuries. Amid the escalating tensions, the UK Maritime Trade Operations, run by the British navy, also advised ships to transit the Gulf with caution. Iran and the United States have recently been locked in a diplomatic standoff over Iran's uranium enrichment, with Tehran defending it as a "non-negotiable" right and Washington calling it a "red line." Iran currently enriches uranium to 60 percent, far above the 3.67-percent limit set in the 2015 deal and close though still short of the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead. Western countries have long accused Iran of seeking to acquire atomic weapons, while Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Last week, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said enrichment is "key" to Iran's nuclear program and that Washington "cannot have a say" on the issue. During an interview with the New York Post's podcast "Pod Force One," which was recorded on Monday, Trump said he was losing hope a deal could be reached. "I don't know. I did think so, and I'm getting more and more -- less confident about it. They seem to be delaying and I think that's a shame. I am less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago," he said. Iran has said it will present a counter-proposal to the latest draft from Washington, which it had criticised for failing to offer relief from sanctions -- a key demand for Tehran, which has been reeling under their weight for years. burs-dk/jgc
