Is maternity leave too long? Laura Perrins on Sunday Morning Live.

Our thanks to a supporter for editing this (video, 17:19), first broadcast by the BBC on 16 October. Laura Perrins was faced with a feminist presenter and three feminist guests – one of them a man – and as usual, managed to make more sense than all of them collectively.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Is maternity leave too long? Laura Perrins on Sunday Morning Live.

  1. cadburycat says:

    Personally I would say yes. The US twelve weeks unpaid seems reasonable to me, as inter alia it drives home the point that children should be the responsibility of their parents, not the State. If you cannot support your child you should not be having it.
    Secondly pregnant women should go into the redundancy pool with everyone else. Why should somebody more capable, who will prioritise work, and who the employer would probably prefer to keep, lose their job because these brood mares – particularly if it is a second back to back pregnancy, i.e. they come back from their year’s paid holiday pregnant again – have preferential retention?
    Then there is their right to “flexible” working. They are usually absolutely rigid in their requirements, it’s extremely hard, nay impossible to refuse, and they are protected against the consequences. If someone prioritises being home for little Jenny’s bath time above their clients, then they should expect to see that priority reflected in their pay, career progression and chances of retention. The less committed SHOULD be the first to be selected for redundancy.
    Finally when Osborne announced, 2 or 3 years back, that henceforth the personal tax allowance could be assigned as between married couples/civil partners, ultimately only about 500,000 took it up. The reason? The assigning partner had to have some income, which excluded SAHMs at a stroke; if someone with no income could assign their allowance it might both incentivise marriage and get these uncommitted part timers out of the workplace.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s