Must every man take spring off to give birth?

Really, I do wish people would stagger their baby-making. Absolutely every professional person whose services I have required in the past few weeks has declared themselves out of action for procreational reasons. And before I get accused of sexism, most of them have been men.

It is a very strange thing, this trend for paternity leave. I wouldn’t mind, but it doesn’t just start when the baby arrives. It seems to take men out of gainful employment in the run-up to the birth as well as after it, nowadays.

I’m sure this never used to be the case. As I understand it, my father, for example, was able to work right to the moment my mother went into hospital to have me. At no point did he inform customers snootily: ‘I’m sorry, but I can’t possibly process your booking to stay in my hotel this week. My wife is expecting a baby any day now. How selfish of you to even think of phoning to make a reservation at this most precious of times in the private life of my family and without any regard to my emotional needs. Good day to you.’

No, he simply carried on running his business until the moment my mother went into labour. And picked up running it again the moment I was safely out.

Neither my mother nor I were the least bit put out by this. ‘Would you have liked dad to have spent time at home helping you look after me when I was a baby?’ I’ve just asked her.

‘Goodness, no. He would have got under my feet.’

It’s all changed now, though. Women love having men under their feet. And men seem to love being under women’s feet. And because spring is such a busy time of year for births — people being more like sheep than you might think — I don’t seem to be able to find a man to do a job of work for love nor money.