Fucking double standards of women on maternity leave

[quote BellatricksStrange]@IntermittentParps

To the second point, as has already been said but you don't seem to want to engage on it fully: it IS and has to be about men vs women, in the sense that women have this biological fact against them; so for equality to be achieved, we have to mitigate against this biological fact.

It isn't men vs women in the ideological sense, ie this isn't misogyny or misandry. It's a fact of biology that women are the ones who give birth, and therefore will have to take extended breaks from work. Whether society as a whole has to mitigate against this is a different question, but it's certainly not about bigoted discrimination.[/quote]
it's certainly not about bigoted discrimination.
I don't understand the weird distinction you try to make between bigoted and not.
Society as a whole DOES have to mitigate against biology here. If we don't –and if we talk about not wanting to or why we think we shouldn't – that IS discrimination. By definition.

@IntermittentParps

To the second point, as has already been said but you don't seem to want to engage on it fully: it IS and has to be about men vs women, in the sense that women have this biological fact against them; so for equality to be achieved, we have to mitigate against this biological fact.

It isn't men vs women in the ideological sense, ie this isn't misogyny or misandry. It's a fact of biology that women are the ones who give birth, and therefore will have to take extended breaks from work. Whether society as a whole has to mitigate against this is a different question, but it's certainly not about bigoted discrimination.

Running with your '28 year olds' idea, I'd say that actually that sort of lifestyle is not hugely uncommon among younger men
True.

In my experience most unreliable employees I've employed or worked with have been men in their 20's/early 30's. I've worked in female dominated teams where most of the female employees had children during their time in that job. They were all still excellent at their job which often involved unsociable hours. I had a number of men on the team who refused or complained heavily about having to work evenings and weekends because it interfered with sporting commitments.... i was once asked to refund someone's football season ticket because I'd made them work weekends! Despite that being part of their contract!
Has that stopped me employing men? No, because i understand that it is an issue with an individual employee not all male employees.

the entitlement of many parents is a separate issue.

I don't have and never wanted kids either. I have absolutely experienced entitled parents. If a colleague with kids told me I should be prepared to do my bit for society I would tell them where to go in no uncertain terms.

But all that IS, as you say, a separate issue.

And as for being able to 100% rely on a new employee: ha hah hah hah hah hah
What if he/she goes under a bus? What if they get very ill?

And you think it's unlikely that many employees will be unreliable because they ride a motorbike/kite-surf/ski/live on sugar and alcohol. Running with your '28 year olds' idea, I'd say that actually that sort of lifestyle is not hugely uncommon among younger men. And there are a few of us on this thread alone who don't have kids. So I don't see how you can be so confident that pregnancy/maternity is THE differentiating factor for discrimination when it comes to choosing who to employ.

In many sectors it's common for people to have long notice periods. Three months is standard in my sector so by the time you've advertised the post, arranged and carried out interviews, negotiated a contract and the preferred candidate has completed their notice period it could easily be 5/6 months before someone actually starts.

I recruited someone who informed us before the interview that she was 10 weeks pregnant. She was appointed because she was the best candidate. She's been with the organisation now for 12 years and is a fantastic employee.

I think that if a company clearly wants somebody to start right now, it's a piss take to apply and then say "thanks for the job but actually I can't start for nine months. I'll take you to the cleaners if you try and fire me though." It just makes people not want to hire us.

I'm not convinced that the above examples are anywhere near as likely to be factors in most 28 year olds.

Do you only employ 28 year olds?? What has age got to do with it?

Poor performance should be dealt with whether you're a parent or not. I've never believed that my childless colleagues should do more work than me just because I'm a parent. You've clearly had issues in your workplace and as a result you're judging all working mothers..... I've witnessed all kinds of people taking the piss at work but I don't judge an entire group of people based on limited experience.

I believe very strongly we should do all we can to address discrimination and inequalities. Women are systematically discriminated against in the labour market due to their sex. It is important that we have policies and laws that prevent this from happening.

So you advocate sex discrimination?

I don't blindly agree with it just because it's the law, just like I won't agree with self ID and enforcement of pronouns if they become law too.

I've just become sick of picking up the slack for entitled parents who always leave on time and still expect their equal share of the team bonus. When I was a proposal manager I raised the fact that I always had to stay late to finish stuff because there was literally nobody else to. One woman actually told me I should be prepared to do my bit for society as kids are the next generation. I'm still unconvinced she would've done a few hours overtime for the societal good whilst I helped my elderly neighbour with her shopping.

Part of the reason I don't want kids is because I don't want the responsibility. So I certainly don't want responsibility for your kids. And yes it's down to the company to manage it better but the entitlement of many parents is a separate issue.

When I was still in the office at 8pm I couldn't really give a shit about whether little Jemima got to her ballet class.

If I was going to 100% need to rely on a new employee and was in the critical early days I'd absolutely pick the young man all else being equal.

Really? What if he came into work every day on a motorbike? Kite-surfed in summer and skied in winter? What if he didn't tell you, but he has a heart condition, and lives on sugar and alcohol? (This sounds made up, but I've worked with more than one guy that's met 5/6 of these - and often added a couple more vices on top!). It's bizarrely sexist to ignore all the other risks that come with hiring someone and concentrate solely on whether that person might get pregnant.

For starters, as I previously wrote, when you expect an employer to keep a position open, that's not 'society' but an individual

Society dictates norms and laws - we have these for individuals, for individuals in companies, for everyone - women are part of 'everyone'. Children are part of 'everyone', we say that, for example, everyone should drive on the left in the UK, that a certain amount of sick leave is acceptable, that reasonable accommodations should be made for all sorts of reasons, because as a society, we've decided that that is best for our society, and best for the individuals in that society.

You can say that women should lose their job if they get pregnant. You could say that if a person is hit by a bus they should lose their job, if they are over a certain BMI, or diabetic they should lose their job - but personally, that sounds like a shit society to me. Personally, I want a society where, to a reasonable extent, people aren't restricted from earning a living because of (in the course of a 40-50 year career), they might need a year or two off occasionally.

And the trouble is, that you might say you're alright, that you're not going to get pregnant/hit by a bus/fat/diabetic, but you're playing the odds there, any of them might happen, and you're saying it's fine, you accept that if it does, you'll be screwed, and that's the society you want to live in.

Wouldn't that keen on hiring a disabled person either, would you? Better screen prospective employees for future cancer chances while you're at it.

If I was going to 100% need to rely on a new employee and was in the critical early days I'd absolutely pick the young man all else being equal.

People who believe that women who have children are less reliable /worthy of employment are likely to apply that logic to all women not just those that have had, or intend to have children.

That's illogical. Most people get annoyed with the ones who accept jobs knowing full well they won't be able to do it for nearly a year, inconveniencing the company and making them regret hiring a young woman. It's a self serving move that screws over other women.

Your career won't be impacted by other women having children eightwheelgirl.
It will be impacted by societal stereotypes regarding womens place in the labour market and by people who feel sex discrimination is acceptable.

People who believe that women who have children are less reliable /worthy of employment are likely to apply that logic to all women not just those that have had, or intend to have children.

Challenging discrimination and advocating for equality benefits all women.

Maternity leave exists. It has to be factored in , it is factored in but just occasionally could it be acknowledged that it might just, occasionally, make life difficult for employers and other employees?

Well, it is difficult for employees if the employer hasn't adequately managed the team in a way that it is able to absorb the entirely normal patterns of absence that employees will require: holidays, sickness, mat/pat leave, etc.

Yes, it's a "burden" on employers that their employees are not automatons who have no purpose in life beyond ensuring their uninterrupted availability 9-5 each weekday. Humans get ill. Humans reproduce. Humans change jobs. Humans get distracted by their affair with their secretary and fuck up the smooth running of the business. If you don't want to deal with that, don't hire a human. But if you want (or need) a human brain to do the work, then you need to accept the issues that come with humans and a well-functioning society depends upon a safety net when people need to be temporarily unavailable for work.

If you want your employees to commit to working only for your company, rather than hiring themselves out to whoever is willing to pay them the highest rate on any given day, ditching your task mid-project, then you have to give them some sort of commitment back in return. Which is, you won't fire them if they get ill, have an accident, or have children (something which the entire of society depends on people to do). Otherwise hire, and pay, for a day-rate contractor.

If your company budget is so precarious and poorly run that you can't afford to employ women in case they have children, and can't hire people with disabilities in case they are unable to work, and can't hire men who might want to take paternity leave, then ultimately it's you who will suffer long-term, as all those talented people will work somewhere else, leaving you with the industry's dross that couldn't get a job at a better employer.

Law firms will have employees at all stages of careers. The key word in your lecture is "some of their tasks".

Maternity leave exists. It has to be factored in , it is factored in but just occasionally could it be acknowledged that it might just, occasionally, make life difficult for employers and other employees?

Oh and btw I have not said anything which is contrary to what employment law says.

All things being equal, someone who has worked well laying bricks for 2 years is more competent than someone who has only done so for 1 year.
Not necessarily and you cannot apply this logic across the board. I have numerous examples of this not applying in practice but I'll give you my personal experience.

I work with two colleagues. Both of them have worked in the sector for a significantly higher number of years. My male colleague has a good 10 years on me and has never had to take parental leave or any leave to care for children because he has a wife at home who has always taken care of that for him. We both recently went for a promotion and it was given to me because, even though he had worked in the sector for longer, I could demonstrate better results and a better understanding of what the role entailed.

To the second point, as has already been said but you don't seem to want to engage on it fully: it IS and has to be about men vs women, in the sense that women have this biological fact against them; so for equality to be achieved, we have to mitigate against this biological fact. Equality doesn't mean 'being the same'; it means (as others have said) that the group of people who are routinely disadvantaged must be supported by society (which includes employers because, apart from anything else, some of them are female and have or will have babies too).

Exactly this!

Spins seems to have got in and answered before me. I can only agree with her/his/their responses.

Apologies....but thank you