Is this sexist

[Helzybaby]

So.. During a meeting at work to discuss a new starter and thier induction training and what courses they need to go on, my manager said " given she is a mother with children at home she may not be able to stay away for four night" My point is this, would he have said " given he is a father with children at home he may not be able to stay away for four nights" I'm of the opinion he would have said that if the new starter was a man as he was referring to a stereotype that mothers need to stay at home .. I welcome thoughts and opinions.

typo... he wouldn't have said that if the new starter was a man..

I don’t find it sexist at all.

Tough one.

I don't think it was your boss necessarily being sexist so much as being attuned to the fact that women do do far more childcare and domestic labour then men.

His comments do, though, highlight the sexism in society in general.

He might have phrased it better as something like "We'll have a chat with her when she arrives about staying away from home" which puts the decision in her hands (i.e. doesn't assume anything about her childcare arrangements) and doesn't make visible the fact that it's children affecting her ability to stay away (i.e. could also be disability ot just not fucking wanting to)

It may be something the new started mentioned at interview.

You don't know what your boss would have said about any other candidate, of either sex.

I think it’s sexist for the reason you’ve said OP. It’s part of the reason mothers don’t progress/aren’t promoted/aren’t paid as much as fathers.

There’s plenty of research into it. When a woman has a baby her career declines when a man becomes a father his career progresses.

I did speak to him and suggested he used a society stereotype that Mothers cant stay away..

I'm torn. It is absolutely sexist. But was he trying to be supportive of flexible working and proposing something more aligned with caring responsibilities? Because men and women will hugely benefit from that thinking. But he should of course also suggest it for male parents.

Does the new starter benefit from increased flexibility or suffer from reduced training opportunities in this scenario?

Has anyone asked the new starter whether it's a problem?

Hard without knowing him tbh. I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt that he was trying to be helpful and inclusive. If they had insisted that she go away for 4 nights would this not be a case for sex discrimination in some way?

Not actually knowing her circumstances makes it harder. If she has a partner at home then of course she should be able to do it because he should be able to have the kids but if she's a single parents it's unlikely.

What I'm saying (badly) is that it is something that needs taking into consideration (and the question should be asked of fathers too) but maybe brought up in quiet consultation with her rather than at a meeting she's not in

It is sexist. A statement along the lines of, 'we need to check if the new starter has commitments that prevent or make it harder to attend some training before we book it' would be sensible.

BRW how does he know she is a mother?

Really !

Showing concern for an employees family life is now sexist . . .

Ok.

We were discussing her induction into the company and that she needs to attend a specific training course quite soon.. my opinion still remains that he used a societal gender stereotype that Mothers cant stay away from home for long periods.. Whilst I do think he was trying to be supportive of her personal situation I firmly believe that had our new starter been a man my manager wouldn't have mentioned that he was a father with children at home.

Has anyone ever in the history of employment asked a man about his childcare arrangements?

" given she is a mother with children at home she may not be able to stay away for four night"

This was probably meant considerately, but on the face of it is sexist if the manager would never have thought to say the same to a father. And in reality that's quite likely.

The ideal is to not make any assumptions based on sex about an employee's caring commitments, which could include a man caring for an infirm parent.

It is sexist because it was assumed that she'd not want to/be able to be away from home for 4 nights, whereas it's much less likely that the same assumption would be made about the children's father without any knowledge of the circumstances.

In this case, the father could be the main carer and the mother could have no issues travelling for work.

It's a fine line. Obviously forcing a single mother with no support to travel for work will cause extreme difficulties, but it can go too far the other way and some mothers will use their DC as excuses to avoid doing unpopular jobs that involve travel 'because they have no childcare', when sometimes, those DC could be looked after by their father or another relative so the mother can attend the training and/or take her share of the shit jobs instead of leaving them for everyone else.

He wouldn't have mentioned it because the default position is that men with children at home rarely allow work to be affected by that fact.

Recognising that women tend to be the ones who deal with childcare and that their needs relating to this should be accomodated in the workplace isn't sexist. If he'd expressed any negativity around it, that would be sexist but treating men and women differently in order to be give women equal opportunities seems fair to me.

Showing concern for an employees family life is now sexist . . .

Showing concern for only female employees family life is sexist.

It's bad for women as it tends to lead to assumptions which impede their career progression, and it's bad for men if they want to be equal parents.

To assume that mother's would have an issue being away from home but a father wouldn't is sexist. It assumes that the children's mother must always be around to have the kids, thus enabling dad to work away / if mum is the employee then she will find it hard to be away because who'd have thought that the children's other parent did things.

To have a general concern for all staff and their family responsibilities in order to be a flexible employer who promotes equal opportunities would be fine.

To say "we need to check the availability of our new starter / new starters so we can make appropriate induction arrangements" would be fine.

• He wouldn't have mentioned it because the default position is that men with children at home rarely allow work to be affected by that fact.

Recognising that women tend to be the ones who deal with childcare and that their needs relating to this should be accomodated in the workplace isn't sexist*

The manager may not have been actively sexist, perhaps the reverse. But not challenging these defaults perpetuates structural sexism.

I think you need to pick your battles OP. There’s dealing with serious sexism in the workplace and then there’s unpicking a situation where someone was clearly trying to be considerate - he didn’t say she can’t go for that reason, he said she may not want to. Sounds like a family friendly working environment to me. You might say ‘oh he wouldn’t have suggested this if it was a man’ but maybe that’s the real sexist issue - dads want to be home with their kids and are needed to look after them as much as mums, so it’s not fair to expect them to just up and leave for a course for four days as if it didn’t matter to their family life.

I don’t find it to be sexist at all, personally I would be grateful that the manager was considering this as a possibility. You are assuming that if the new start was a man this question wouldn’t arise but that’s all it is... an assumption not fact.

This is why I asked for thoughts and opinions as I realise thier will be many varying ones. Yes, I do work in a caring work environment, however casual sexism , casual racism etc is rife and I want to take a stand .. Its not a personal crusade but I do believe the whole company would benefit from being more aware of the impact of thier actions and words.

There may be ‘casual sexism’ but in this case I think it effects the men too, it’s not just a problem for women - there’s nothing wrong with considering someone’s situation as a parent when planning overnight trips or multiple days away. They shouldn’t have not said what they said, they should just make sure they do say it when dads are involved too. But who’s to say they wouldn’t? I do think you’ve jumped the gun a bit here.

I suppose it would be better if he'd said "as a parent" rather than "mother" specifically. But I think it's nice he was trying to be sensitive to her commitments and life outside of work. It wasn't coming from a bad place...or doesn't sound like it was to me. I do wonder if the assumption is that a father would be happy to do these trips, I know my dp would not be. But you can't tell from what he said. He may have said the same if it was a father. I suppose that's something to ask, if you want to. But I wouldn't berate him over his word choice when it sounds like he was trying to be considerate.

I think there's a difference between recognising and reinforcing sexist behaviour and patterns. The reality is that women still have the burden of childcare fall on them. Surely as an employer it's incumbent on them to recognise that fact and address it head on. Pretending that men are equally encumbered stops us from addressing the issue from the perspective that it is primarily women who are affected.

And again, the reality is that for many women, there is a reluctance to mention child care and the impact it has on a working life. Women shouldn't be scared to explain why something doesn't work for them but frequently they are worried so by having an employer say, hang on, this is something we need to consider and provide solutions for, is better than pretending that it's not an issue at all and normalises that childcare issues are something that employers should be aware of and willing to work with.