Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Government 'Equalities' Office

Members of Parliament

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Sunday, 18 November 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I gave up long ago with politicians. I have flipped who I vote for 180' and they all sing the same song.

The new rules seem fairer but in reality I think they're all about mothers and the 52 weeks are still are only allocated to working mothers. Notice the wording; "Employed mothers will still be entitled to 52 weeks of maternity leave. However, working parents will be able to opt to share the leave.". That does not cover statutory paternity leave...ah but there, nestled in the ending of the gov't page "Statutory paternity leave will remain at two weeks".

So if the mother is NOT working and can't claim the 52 weeks then he gets just two weeks off and tough luck. She cannot claim 52 weeks and neither can he.

Mr Clegg says; "In the future, both mothers and fathers will be able to take control of how they balance those precious first months with their child and their careers."..sorry but that doesn't really square with what the rules actually say on the gov't site.

From the gov't website;


"All mothers will continue to have a guaranteed 52 weeks of maternity leave if they want it."...guaranteed, so if there are any disagreements about how the 52 weeks are divided then guess who wins by law. I suspect the mother will have to assign the father the leave but she obvoiusly doesn't have to do that.

In short, the mother gets a year off if she is working and can allow him some of it if she decides to go back to work, but if there is a disagreement then he only gets two weeks...and if she is NOT working, tough luck to the father, two weeks and get yourself back into the harness!!

Nothing like equality Clegg style.

Still at least he said "Reform is long overdue and the changes we are making will shatter the perception that women have to be the primary care-givers."....don't really azgree there that these reforms do that but at least he actualy said it !!

Outrageous that a boy can't grow a moustache for Movember..are they saying if it hadn't been for Movember it would have been ok? I have seen pictures of women wearing fake moustaches for Movember. I see they have tried a similar trick but of course still banned him from wearing a moustache. Nothing about girls taking part with their relatives in 'race for life'. He should have grown the thing as said "if you don't like it, stop me!". If it was my kid I'd be down at that school with my Genghis Khan moustache banging on the head teacher's door!


Oops should have taken off the brackets from the link ....


Thanks Bob for the detail on the parental leave. As you say a small step dressed as something else. I have to say I like to see the stories such as the movember one as it shows up what nonsense goes on in our public institutions.

John Kimble

I read that the Movember thing was because at that age not all boys would be able to take part either, so maybe the school aren't being quiet as unreasonable and sexist as some suggest.


True John they said younger pupils couldn't grow moustaches and not just girls, though I think it is still a very weak reason on their part.

They could have allowed him and still held the fake moustache fundraiser, but no. Not to mention that he was doing it for his grandfather. Note also they also class growing facial hair as an "activity", hence under their jurisdiction. You boy! Stop growing that facial hair this instant! I mean seriously.

At least they did allow him to raise funds at short notice with their new 'inclusive' scheme but its still no place for any school to control someones life like that. If the boy was in prison he'd be allowed to grow one. Moustaches are worn by everyone from David Beckham to Peter Mandelson.

Also I'll bet when it comes to 'teaching' these boys all about domestic violence their equalitarian spirit flies out the window. Not that school is the place for that either.

Ok, I'll stop there before I really do turn into Genghis Khan!


On the theme of the female lens. The recent reporting of the ONS stats. on pay. The bald facts are that for the under 30s women earn a bit more than men. This is different to later age cohorts. Though it's difficult to project forward it seems that that age cohort will continue to show a closer pattern as women have to stay in the workforce due to house prices and relative wage falls . In effect the current younger generation of women will have to earn just like men. The pattern for older cohorts reflects a more affluent time when women could be supported on one or one and a half wages.
First of all this means there is no justification at all for positive action aka discriminatio againsten in recruitment. Second it shows that the better performance of girls in education is feeding through to earnings. One of the key arguments feminists used for not addressing the poorer education of boys is that somehow it doesn't matter as men still go on to earn more. Clearly not true.


Very different reporting. You'd think the Guardian would want to celebrate young women earning more than young men . Assuming they stick at it then it's all good. No need for any special treatment.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad

Reading List