Unfairness to childless women

[zeezeek]

It does seem that on here at the moment, as well as in society in general, we seem to be completely unsympathetic towards and misunderstanding towards people who do not (for whatever reason) have children.

I spent most of my adult life without children - after having cancer treatment I assumed I was infertile, so it was a damn miracle when I got pregnant once, let alone twice.

I have lost count of the number of times that I was told that I did not understand because I did not have children; how I had to make allowances for parents because they needed to be with their children; how it was less important for me to see my teacher parents during school holidays than it was for a parent to spend time with their child.....you name the cliché, I heard it.

When my children were born I did not find the meaning of life. At the age of nearly 45 I still wonder if there is one.

Having children didn't suddenly make me appreciate things more - surviving a life threatening illness had already done that.

My dogs are still the centre of my (and my DDs) universe - although my DDs are there as well, even if my dogs are better behaved.

More than anything, I am not more worthy, more important than I was before I had children and I don't see why the world should revolve around me (or my children) just because I happened to have sex with my husband at the right time and get myself knocked up.

Rant over.

But we don't give those rights to mothers. Women are entitled to extra protection during pregnancy primarily because they can be treated poorly simply by virtue of being pregnant and often are. They are not protected simply because pregnant women are more deserving or worthy but because they are vulnerable.

Motherhood isn't any more deserving of protection than fatherhood. And extra concessions aren't made for the benefits of parents but for the benefits of children.

No one questions a mans place in the world based on his ability to procreate but we seem to think it okay to judge a women by her ability or willingness to do so. That is where the unfairness lies.

To say you (general, there are a few recent posts that say as much) have a good understanding of what being a parent is like...or what giving birth is like...is just nonsense, if you've not actually experienced it.

If I came out and said I know fairly well what it's like to have a child with serious sn - because after all, I know people with sn children, I've seen articles and programmes and so on, everyone knows generally what it's like - I'd be shouted down and rightly so.

Although some seem (bizzarely IMO) determined to prove they understand what being a parent, or giving birth is like - the fact of the matter is you don't. Unless you've done it.

I don't understand how it's possible to argue otherwise.

I got called a wanker for thy green

That

Fact.

awaits further abuse

blistory - that's very interesting. there does seem to be a number of misunderstandings on this thread about maternity/parental rights.

hopefully the increase in take up of PL will help everyone.

Agreed soon dads will have all the rights to and thinks will be much more equal.

Blistory, motherhood is a specific protected class in terms of maternity, and has been for as long as pregnancy has been under the equality act. It specifically refers to the period when she is entitled to time off work due to being a mother and the protected characteristic has always been 'pregnancy and maternity.' It was never called 'pregnancy.'

A case of discrimination that happens as a consequence of being the mother of a baby cannot be brought under laws around sexism. It has to be brought under 'pregnancy and maternity.'

There are other laws that apply solely to mothers - such as the workplace providing a place for mothers to breast feed in, and some that apply to anyone who has caring responsibilities for anyone of any age - a legal right to ask for flexible working without suffering victimisation as a consequence. These aren't specifically covered by pregnancy and maternity as a protected characteristic, but any change to these laws or the way these laws are implemented by employers has to be looked at to see if they are having an unequal impact on people with a protected characteristic. So the consequences of being part of a group that has a protected characteristic extend far beyond rights around direct discrimination and into the overall impact of policy making on those groups, which should not indirectly discriminate against them.

Currently, pregnancy and maternity does not cover indirect discrimination through policy making in the UK. Every other protected characteristic does include protection from indirect discrimination. As much of the discrimination mothers face is indirect, the next step in maternity rights would be to gain protection from indirect discrimination. This right was only extended to disabled and transgender people quite recently, so the next step would be to extend it to pregnancy and maternity as well.

The implications of that would be a greater protection for women of young children, not just babies, and I think we need that. It is often the case that women experience indirect discrimination for maternity leave months or years after taking it, because they took it or because they have young children. I don't see it as meaning any mother of a child of any age. As a parents of teenagers, I do not have caring responsibilities in the same way, nor does my mother as the mother of adults! We surely have to be talking about the rights of mothers of babies, young children and pregnant women.

Almond, Blistory's just written my reply to you :) Motherhood - or, more accurately, parenthood - isn't a special need requiring protection.

Pregnant & post-partum women are in a vulnerable state. They have special needs & require protection. The fact that only women give birth makes this a feminist issue ... what happens in the woman's life after her child is 6-9 months old is still a feminist issue, she's a woman. But she's no longer in the unavoidably vulnerable state, so no longer requires special protection.

(Obviously if she is left vulnerable by birth-related issues, she now has special needs for her disability. Different matter.)

I think you have it the wrong way round. It is not that the parents are more entitled to see their children, it is that the children are entitled to see their parents. You are grown up. The children need to see their parents in a way that someone fully mature does not.

Blistory, paternity is not a protected characteristic; maternity is. There are certain rights for fathers as there are certain different rights for mothers, but paternity is not a protected characteristic under the equality act.

The set of laws that mothers have to protect them are a combination involving both pregnancy and maternity (which applies solely to them) and rights around caring responsibilites that overlap with rights given to others. The combination of these rights is unique to mothers.

It is not the case in human rights that these laws are put in place solely for the benefit of children. They are there to benefit adults too. Adults have a right to family life, both with their children for parents and with the rest of their family for parents and non parents alike.

Right. Cross-posted with you.

Taking gestation, birth & post-birth out of it, I am generally opposed to the definition & labelling of protected characteristics all over the place. We have to have them because the world around us is still structured to favour healthy, able, white men. I'd rather see this changed.

When you label this and that person as having special needs, you 'other' them and cause cascades of exclusionary behaviour. If you assume that all people have needs which are special to them, you reduce the chances of this happening.

Almondcake - Soon it will only be pregnancy rights as men and women will have the same post birth rights

men and women will have the same post birth rights - Hurrah :) One more step towards equality & inclusivity.

Garlic, then I think we agree on pregnancy and maternity rights and it is a matter of semantics. Where I consider maternity part of 'motherhood,' you are calling it 'post partum women.'

The issue then is that people with caring responsibilities (whether that be people with elderly parents, a disabled brother or a young child) have additional rights. Your perspective seems to be contrary to people with caring responsibilities having greater rights, but perhaps you could clarify?

You are saying that 'having children isn't a greater need' and while it isn't a greater need than having a disabled brother that you care for, it is a greater need in that people with primary caring responsibilities have protections and adjustments not extended to others.

Maternity wont be part of motherhood much longer

I was childless until my mid 30s.

Safe to say, I had no idea what it was like to parent, before then.

The issue though many face is implementing those rights to do so one has to prove you were treated differently due to pregnancy and maternity (would you have been treated in x way had you not been pregnant - an extra right in p an m is that there is no need for a comparator) which isn't so easy to do as the pregnancy and maternity act has a direct cross over with the employment act this makes litigation in such cases very risky even in clear cut cases of obvious discrimination.

Hence why many women either don't bother going to tribunal or settling for a lesser sum, the end result being job loss and a tarnished reputation.

Garlic, I have to go, but I think that the argument around whether designating a group as disadvantaged others them to create exclusion more than it guarantees their rights has been argued about for every group the law deals with.

I think it depends on the context, but our discussion seems to be partly about intersectionality and whether mothers can and should be seen as a disadvantaged group in their own right or whether they are just women experiencing sexism to the same degree as all other women.

I believe motherhood is an additional layer of disadvantage, which I experienced when I was pregnant and when I had young children and now no longer do. I think you believe that it is not that different from feminism and women's issues in general. That's a level of disagreement I feel comfortable with; our previous polarised opinions I found worrying.

Maternity in this case re employment rights extends to 52 weeks after that you're in your own.

And after 26 weeks your rights are slightly less.

"Being childless is a breeze if you've actively chosen it."

I have read this statement again and remain shocked that anyone could lack such insight into other people's lifestyles, unless of course they are a parent. Talk about limited capacity for empathy! Some 'childless' have chosen in because they are seriously ill or carers for family members, so it may be an active choice but one driven by life circumstances.

Soon though if you want you can give all maternity to the man so there will be no reason for a woman to be disadvantaged by having a child.

Hello candy

Great but if I'm in 5k and he is on £60k then what?