What is interesting is that both plans are nearly identical, despite a large geographic distance, and different social welfare models.
Both of my friends plan to stay at home with the baby for around 6 months (a minimum sanity period, I find, in the case of sleep deprivation and/or breastfeeding logistics). Both moms then plan to return to work, and the father will take another 6-8 months paternal leave. I find this an ideal plan, as it provides both parents with hands-on experience with an infant, and respect for one of the most rewarding but also strenuous jobs in the world (in my opinion): parenting.
It's of course a luxury to stay at home for such a long period time, and a double luxury for each parent to do so. Many societies pressure moms to return to work very soon after birth, and most societies do not support paternal leave in any way. Nearly all countries that I know of punish parents with (at time substantial) losses in income during parental and in particular paternal leaves.
With the first two of my three kids, I stayed at home for 4-6 months. I then went back to study / work, and our children started daycare for a few hours a day, with my husband covering the rest of the day through partial paternal leave. With my third child, I have been working since my child turned 4 months (albeit from home). We did not have the possibility to take paternal leave this time around, and both of us regret it.
All men who have taken paternal leave that I know of have enjoyed the opportunity immensely. The careers of nearly all suffered temporarily - some had to leave jobs. The parallels to mother's career sacrifices are clear. However, by taking paternity leave, these men have provided opportunities for their wives to return to work, without feeling guilty about not being at home with the infant child. I myself am very grateful to my husband for this opportunity with my first two kids, and hope that more couples consider this aspect of parental leave.
No comments:
Post a Comment