Campaigners tie baby slings to statues in call for better UK paternity leave : unitedkingdom

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 13 points 2 months ago

A simple, inoffensive action that grabs attention but doesn't involve shouting into people's faces. Love it.

[–] OrlandoDoom@feddit.uk 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's mad that it's not equal, if mothers and fathers have equal childcare leave there's no need to discriminate against hiring women full time (which is a thing that still happens, some companies don't like to take women in their mind 20s full time cos they end up taking maternity, I saw this happen first hand while I was in RBS, that was only 2 jobs/a few years ago)

[–] Foreigner@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I live in a country where parental leave doesn't discriminate between mothers and fathers (or one parent or another if it's a same sex couple). Parental leave can be up to two years BUT it's split into 75% for one parent, 25% for the other. I have yet to meet a man who has taken even a fraction of that 25% (aside from the paternal leave right after the baby is born, which is separate and covers a few weeks). This isn't to say it's an issue with men, but more an issue of a society that dissuades men from taking more than the bare minimum of parental leave, where women are still expected to take one the main caregiver role for children, and where men generally earn more than women. Until these issues are fixed and men are highly encouraged to take parental leave, just making that time available (even if a necessary first step) won't be enough.

Edit: got my percentages wrong

[–] OrlandoDoom@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago

It's a weird position to take, if I was offered parental leave I'd take it all and probably wouldn't want to come back to work.

Fair enough if you live in a place where people actually like their jobs and want to be there, but that doesn't seem to be the case for the majority of us.

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If they made paternity leave an equivalent length of time - and mandatory - then they could resolve a lot of the discrimination women face in the middle of their career when employers assume they will disappear on mat leave and withhold promotions.

[–] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 4 points 2 months ago

That's a pretty awesome idea, I'm not going to lie!

[–] Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I thought shared parental leave was a legal minimum? For the uninitiated, that's where some or all the maternity leave can be given to the paternal parent, meaning there isn't an inequality.

If they are campaigning for more for both parents, I'm not sure I am on the same page. I can see how this would make me unpopular though.

[+] Etterra@lemmy.world -23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Imagine having the luxury of being able to complain that your paternity leave isn't long enough. Makes me, here in the US, glad I've got no intention of having kids.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You absolutely do have the luxury to do that. You just choose not to. Some other issue being "higher priority" doesnt prevent anyone from engaging with smaller issues.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

There's nothing stopping people from doing the same in the US. I don't really see how you don't have the luxury to complain.

[–] LordOfLocksley@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Hard to complain, when they're busy kissing the corporate boot

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago

kissing the corporate boot

See that's where you are going wrong. Who the hell wants their BOOTs kissed.

Learn from generations of Britt's. Tug your forelocks and get the lords to bend over and spread.

[–] Muffi@programming.dev 11 points 2 months ago

U N I O N I Z E

[–] Zip2@feddit.uk 5 points 2 months ago

You’re not the only one who’s glad you’re not having kids.

[+] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee -25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

There are already way, way too many people on the planet. We shouldn't be forced to support someone else's family.

[–] alligatorSoup@feddit.uk 12 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Those new people being born will end up funding your state pention. Unless your fine not having one

[–] faceula@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So true the amount of people that don't get this.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I get it, I just also understand humans are destroying our only environment. Were driving the fifth ever mass extinction of life on Earth.

We literally can't keep living the way we are.

[–] faceula@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah, 100% agree. This is entirely driven by selfishness and avarice.

[–] state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 months ago

They'll also fund all infrastructure in the future, produce all goods and staff the nursing homes where these egotistical assholes will end up.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

I'd rather have a functioning ecosystem and mitigated climate change.

[–] FozzyOsbourne@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not to put words in your mouth, but do you really think the best reason to have a child is for the good of the economy?

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Individuals have a perverse relationship to the economy where what's good for the individual diverges from what is good for the economy. For example saving money is good but if everyone does it then you can end up with deflation like Japan.

In terms of children people do it due to biological urges without fully assessing the hit to quality of life or finances. The economy needs more workers at every point though since pensions are essentially a ponzi scheme.

[–] alligatorSoup@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago

Nope, that is not at all what I think, nor what in said.

[–] Zip2@feddit.uk 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We shouldn't be forced to support someone else's family.

I hope you’ll remember that should you or your family ever need state hand outs.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I'm fine with regular support for people who need it, but not paying for people to create more people. There are WAY too many of us already.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Most western states are looking at bleak prospects in terms of keeping their welfare system going unless the citizens have more children.

Either that or accept immigration, which many western states don’t want to do either.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago

Yeah, that's going to suck, but the apparent alternative is continuing massive overconsumption that will eventually cause much worse problems.

Immigration will be a huge problem that's already being exacerbated by climate change and disinformation.

[–] Zip2@feddit.uk 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There are too many people, I’ll agree.

However you can’t take away peoples biological rights to reproduce.

But you can give fathers a bit more time off early on to help with looking after their family. A few weeks of extra paternity leave funding would probably work out cheaper in the long run for the treasury vs all the alternatives.

Plus you need a constantly supply to refresh the workers who are getting older and cluttering up the top of the population pyramid.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not trying to take anyone's "rights to reproduce," I just don't want someone reaching onto my wallet to incentivize increased population because its a stupid thing to do that harm humanity in the long run

This is coming from somene who supports things like single-payer universal healthcare, broad financial support for education, ensuring housing for people, etc.

[–] Zip2@feddit.uk 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How is giving fathers a bit of extra time off incentivising increasing the population??? They were going to have the child anyway!

It’s not reaching into your wallet, it’s everyone’s. And the cost is far offset by the taxes levied on that child when it starts work anyway.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Its right there in what you typed, its giving them time off. That's what inventivizes them.

I'm part of everyone, so yes, it's reaching into my wallet.

[–] Zip2@feddit.uk 0 points 2 months ago

Its right there in what you typed, its giving them time off. That's what inventivizes them.

No it isn’t. I speak from personal experience. Twice.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Says who? Populations are expected the level off. We produce enough food for 10 billion currently before we even get to our advances in green energy and agriculture. Our housing issues are political.

It's a weird angle to take against equality.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Says the fact that we'd require several more earth size planets just to sustain current human consumption, or the fact that we're killing off other life on the planet at an almost unprecedented rate.

We produce enough food to feed everyone... in a completely unsustainable way.

weird angle to take against equality

Come on, what a shitty strawman.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Your logic is flawed. Even if we reduced births to 10% of current rates. Those children would need more parental support for longer. As that generation would be more dependent on parental and family bonding due to lack of a same aged community to learn and grow with.

We are a species evolved to have very, very dependent young, rather than most other mammals. This presented up with advantages in the predator / prey fight that is evolution. But it also left our young depended on tribal societies to survive.

Parental leave is just the modern capitalistic equivalent of the tribe coming together to raise its young. It is the recent historic lack of it in many societies and post-industrial revolution that is odd. Not the return.

You as a non parent will eventually need these children to learn to manage the society you live in. Just because you choose to be child free yourself. Does not mean you will not depend on them as adults as you age. As you age you will need educated doctors nurses and Bin men to ensure your life is liveable. Those adults are the very children you think are not your responsibility now.

But unless you are a hermit living entirely on the milk of your own land. (if so you are already not funding this).

Then yes, you and all of us are involved in raising the future population.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I get all of that, I also understand that we literally have no choice but to change how we live because it's completely unsustainable.

Ignoring the fact that the Earth is already way over populated isn't helping anything.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

My point was more about your attitude towards parental leave.

But it is not actually a dact thar trhe earth is over populated. How we live is more an issue then the numbers.

Any science on the autual numbers earth can support leaves us with a few bln to go.

But that science doselt allow for capatalism.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're putting up optimistic hypothetical consumption scenarios against an ongoing global mass extinction, climate change, and environmental degradation caused by our actual real world consumption

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago

As opposed to controlling a mammals desire to breed?

It not like either solution is easier.

[–] scratchee@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

We’ve already lucked into a solution to the population boom, the numbers will level off around 10 billion. Given how intractable population control is, we’re very lucky we’ve found this without some dystopian shitshow.

In the developed world we are approaching the opposite problem, we’re currently dependant on immigration to maintain our societies, but as the rest of the world stops growing we’ll have more trouble getting that immigration and won’t have the local young population to care for our elderly.

Given that we should be trying to figure out how to encourage a sustainable population whilst we still have time to do so. If we can choose between 1.9->2.2 children per couple as needed then we’ll be in a healthy position to slowly reduce the population to a comfortable level.

Right now our natural population decline in the developed world is too fast, probably because our society has made being a parent quite an individual burden. Of course, totally moving the costs to a societal model would be a disaster, but presumably there’s a middle ground where people are comfortable keeping the society going at a healthy rate.

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Yes, I generally agree. I can't help but note that we aren't expected to hit peak population for a long time. There's a good chance we'll both be underground by the time it happens.

Meanwhile, many of the key metrics we use to monitor the environment have already been indicating irreversible damage for decades.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They weren't way too many people on the planet there's way too much holding resources, you monumental pillock

[–] fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee -2 points 2 months ago

Unless you have a super duper magical way of changing how billions of people live, it's both.

United Kingdom