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.

Theres no reason why it cant be as you can have lots of babies and very little time off so shouldnt make a difference to your career.

Let's hope it becomes the norm.

I'm all for new working practices as discussed earlier.

Candy

I just saw your other post. What I was implying is that I chose to have children so I expected to have barriers and restrictions by doing so as I have extra responsibility as someone without children and don't expect others to carry that burden but I wasn't going to pussyfoot around either. The difference was that if my childcare broke down my children pay the price and someone with no childcare responsibilities (or other care responsibilities) wouldnt have to deal with those kind of consequences.

I also think children should be entitled to have time off for elderly parents and thought that leave for dependants (would this classify as dependent leave) was allowed. Don't quote me as I've never had to do this.

Pleasejustgo - thank you.

ZZ, yes, there are all kinds of practical implications which cause problems, particularly for small businesses. More should be done by the state (taking up the financial burden of equality laws, ensuring adequate child care, so it does not fall heavily on the employer.

Blistory, maternity is a protected characteristic. I have a family member who is breastfeeding a child who is not biologically hers but she will raise as her own. Her rights in the workplace to breastfeed are protected as a breastfeeding mother. She has not been pregnant. Woman is also a protected characteristic, as is man, because gender is a protected characteristic. The difference is that while both heterosexual and homosexual people are protected, as are man and woman, and black and white people, this isn't true of pregnancy and maternity vs. not pregnant and not in a period of early maternity or transgender vs. not transgender. It is not a protected characteristic to not be pregnant or to not be transgender. Perhaps you feel it should be?

Garlic, yes. Whenever possible, we provide facilities available to everyone. So everyone could use a ramp, or could be taught to read in a way that most benefits dyslexic children as opposed to a reading method that doesn't, given that everyone else will learn to read just as well using either method. But there are certain instances where it is impractical or expensive to give everyone the same, or where a person with one issue may be inconvenienced by providing for a person with another issue.

An example that happened to my family member is that computer terminals are put at a height that includes accessibility for wheel chair users. My family member has a different disability meaning they can't bend their back or neck. They couldn't use the terminal. The cost of putting in some system where all terminals could be elevated when required would be high. The inexpensive is solution is to provide my family member with their own higher terminal, so meeting just their needs, rather than go to the cost of paying for adjustable terminals for everyone, when most people don't need them and won't benefit from them. It is impossible to put in a system where every disabled person is included, because their physical (and sometimes mental) needs conflict. You need to make adjustments to their needs, and you don't make adjustments for people with no additional needs.

Another example is that I'm asthmatic and couldn't work while always sitting next to someone who owned a cat, as I am highly allergic. Do we make all workers sit 10 m apart so I can go to work? Do we make all cat owners get changed so they're not transmitting allergens into the workplace? Or we make an exception just for me. I routinely sit next to a non-cat owner, but then what people don't get a choice of seating but want to because they feel like it because they like non cat owner better or whatever, and we both will don't want to sit right next to person X? Do we both have equal rights, do we toss a coin and if I lose I have constant asthma attacks and keep going to A&E?

No, but what we do (should do!) is take on board that everybody needs or deserves adjustment - rather than starting from the base that 'everybody' is a healthy white man of average build, and deeming anyone who doesn't fit that model aberrant. Your examples are a bit daft. If only one staffer needs a certain working height, you adapt. The principle, though, is that everybody gets an appropriate work station. My old company did this - they sent physiotherapists round every few months, and after injuries - so it's hardly radical. Likewise, no workplace today would make an employee sit in a place that makes her ill.

Yes, and probably 99% of people would be able to follow that, but the reason that we don't do that, and instead have to give people specific legal rights, is because of the one percent of people who won't follow that.

It is rather like saying we shouldn't have a law that makes theft illegal, we should just stop robbing people.

You only have to look at recurrent threads on AIBU to see that there are enough people who can't understand that (for example) for H&S and inclusion reasons not all bus seats can fold, so there will be limited spaces for wheelchairs, and if you have a pram you want that space but you don't need it and somebody else does need it, to see that we actually need laws to prioritise people's needs over people's wants.

And there are numerous other examples on AIBU about why wasn't I seen first in A&E, or why is a child with an SEN I don't like mixing with my child or why is my child not allowed to do X before everyone else to see that these conflicts happen all the time.

Because if your boss is the 1%, and he doesn't have laws to follow and adhere to that clearly state what is a want and what is a need, and that needs must be prioritised over wants, all manner of prejudices and discrimination start happening.

Which is why I persist in promoting legal changes to force inclusion - as differentiated from concessions.

Repeating an earlier point: businesses are forever whining about building regs, which force inclusiveness. Because the regulations are law, with serious penalties (building pulled down AND a fine), their new buildings are inclusive whether they like it or not :)

Garlic that's an interesting point and not to be goady, but it comes down to where your ideas about how society should work in terms of who picks up the tab.

Disclosure - I've worked for small charities for years, which often bump along with no financial security, but which offer typically very generous mat leave benefits above stat minimum, and employ a lot of working age and p/t mums.

In one place I worked, through a mixture of a far too generous mat leave policy (year's leave, full pay, full accruals) the organisation nearly went bust when 3 women of the 28 staff went on mat leave at the same time - we just couldn't afford it. Obviously there was a lot of disquiet when we tried to change it. In my current role (hoping to conceive soon, senior manager, better than stat terms) I don't want my organisation to go bust but do want to offer a fair and good settlement to enable our brilliant female staff to have families and continue to do great work. A previous post I'd made on this thread referred to someone who is underperforming and that will be addressed, it's nothing to do with her status as a Mum and my whole team bar me are working Mums.

Small businesses are the main driver of economic growth in this country and provider of jobs IIRC but are the least able to afford to supplement statutory provisions for mums.

IMO, I wish we had a Scandinavian system (i.e. massively subsidised childcare and tax picking up the tab for that and good mat leave entitlements) so that bigger employers and society as a whole picked up the burden - which I agree needs to be picked up. Now I've read more of AlmondCake's posts, I think we are less in opposition than some of the more inflammatory statements about all childless women being unempathetic and uncaring bitches might suggest - sorry to paraphrase AC but you worded that appallingly earlier.

YY ... I'm going to bed now, but I do think there's a big conversation to be had about how far we as a society are prepared to go for the sake of everyone in society. My belief is: much further than we're led to assume. Survey after survey shows British people are more 'socialist' (they wouldn't use that term) than any of our current political parties. And I'm right there in the mainstream :) The surveys have been showing this since the 1990s, btw, it's not a sudden reaction to lunatic Tory policies.

Finer points could well do with discussion. Even though we're not decision makers, we are part of a loud collective voice!

I will repeat my statement which you paraphrased, lessons:

'Now, either society as a whole discriminates against mothers (putting them at risk of poverty, poor job opportunities, less cultural, political and social roles of power which empirically it does) because they don't understand what it is like to be a mother, or because they do understand but just don't care.

So while I wouldn't make insensitive remarks to an individual, I will say to non mothers as a collective group, you either do not understand or you do not care. And I will go on arguing for the rights of mothers until all mothers and their young children globally have the rights that some of us enjoy.'

While others were talking about a context of childless women, I specifically referred to 'society as a whole' and then to 'non mothers as a collective group' not particularly to women of any kind at all in the post that enraged various posters. . I certainly did not say anyone was a bitch, so I think that was beyond paraphrasing!

There is plenty evidence (the UNICEF report on gender equality covers it for example) that where mothers are given power, they are able to collectively find solutions to their issues, primarily because they understand their own issues better than non-mothers do. In any situation of disadvantage, the people experiencing it usually understand it best.

Don't want to argue AC but tbh the use of 'childless women as a collective group' was lazy and unfair and in my opinion bitchy and that was my reaction to it. I'd like to leave it there and focus on more substantive points of discussion, but can't you see how you phrased this was either unfortunate and potentially misguided, or otherwise just mean and untrue?

I also found your patronising comment about weak sympathy for us poor women who are infertile incredibly aggravating, again, whilst not trying to inflame things and trying to move the debate back to common ground how can you possibly think what you said was ok?

It's possible that you didn't mean to be offensive but you were.

YANBU, I have noticed this and think it's wrong. I plan to adopt my baby in the future-hence my username but even when I do I won't see myself as any more superior or important than ladies who don't have children. Having them is a choice. I have noticed the odd person indicate how they have kids and once I bring up the fact I too will have one in the future it doesn't go down too well!! ha ha . But yes, I know some lovely people who have no children and hope they are not hurt by it. As for not understanding what it's like, maybe not to the full degree but how hurtful if they would have really loved to know and understand, they will never understand the pain of being childless. Like the poster above said no-one can fully understand another's experience, for example I'm half Asian and have had many experiences connected to that, someone who wasn't wouldn't fully understand, I have an illness, if you're fit and healthy you can't ever comprehend or understand what it's like to be sat down by a Dr and told that so yes, give the childfree/less a break!. Good and bad in every group if you ask me.

Blimey, I am a childfree person and I now feel like an alien, because I have never experienced that "negative discrimination". Yes, I have heard some "you could never understand how this is" comments coming from parents, but to be honest, the kind of people who make those comments will always find a reason why no one else understands them, not only based in parenthood. They are usually known as "entitled whiners", and I never take their comments personally. Indeed, I will never understand what it is to be a parent... but I don't care, because I chose not to be, and it's what i want. I can still empathise, thought, in the same way someone who has never experienced cancer can empathise with a friend suffering from it.

I have never, ever worried about dying alone. I have a family and friends who love me, and I already have nephews and nieces to whom I intend to be an important part of their lives. I expect to have friends and family who love me also when I am old. Having said that, I have no intention of having any of them "caring for me in old age", I'd rather pay someone to do that, and let my loved ones enjoy good times with me as friends and family, not carers. I do not expect this to be different if I had children. And to be honest, most old people who die alone do have children and grandchildren... they simply choose not to visit them. Which I personally consider much more sad.

I have never spent a Christmas alone. I only expect to spend one alone if I choose to. For reasons, read above.

At work, holidays have always been negotiated with other colleagues taking into account everybody's personal situation. Both people with and without children are able to be reasonable, kind and considerate with one another. I am more than happy to let parents choose to have holidays over the school holidays period... actually I have always considered that an advantage for me! Travel is cheaper outside of school holidays, places are less overcrowded and quieter. In my experience, showing kindness and understanding usually works, and when I give up a preferred period for another person who needs it more, that person will be there when the situation is reversed.

Perhaps I feel like this because I have always been sure and happy with my decision not to have children, I live a fantastic life, I am extremely happy and proud of my choices and do not have a chip on my shoulder. Perhaps I just do not define myself just by one thing (having or not having children), so I can simply dismiss comments about my lack of children and not get offended. I better get used to them anyway, I am finishing my midwifery studies and I am sure I will get comments about not having children many, many times!

almond So while I wouldn't make insensitive remarks to an individual

but you are! and repeatedly. I appreciate that you see yourself as commenting generally but you are making insensitive remarks to childless women.

on a thread entitled 'Unfairness to childless women'.

aurynne - i agree that in RL most people act well regarding things like holidays but i wonder why you made this remark:

I am extremely happy and proud of my choices and do not have a chip on my shoulder.

how does having a chip on your shoulder related to childless women or was it a comment unrelated to the thread in general?

I will say to non mothers as a collective group, you either do not understand or you do not care

I think the problem here, almondcake is that you lump in all non-mothers together. This is extremely insensitive to women who may want to be but cannot be mothers.

I generally agree with your analysis of the work/life balance problems of a world organised around male/masculine patterns of working life (try being suddenly widowed 20 years ago!!!!) but I don't find that my beef is with women.

It's with men, and particularly those who have SAHM wives. I work in a very high-pressured, stressed and competitive profession. My DS is no longer at home, so to all intents and purposes I am like a married-with-SAHM-wife man: but I'm not. I have no domestic support other than services I purchase, and no emotional support, and have to acquire "masculine" socialised skills & attitudes if I want to compete.

I try my best to change that game, to show that one can be successful, serious and female.

So the problem is, in my view almond not other women, but patriarchy and that category of men who are hugely advantaged by it (not all men are, btw).

"non mothers as a collective group," was what almond said

Someone else (various others?) mistook this for "childless women"

How did that happen? How does our attention so completely swerve the shitty way that men as a class have organised society in their favour, and its impact on mothers (which in this case is what almond was talking about, although of course patriarchy is shitty for childfree women too) and suddenly everyone is bitching about women being mean to women?

FWIW it seems to me that the penalties of being childfree not by choice are largely emotional and social, and those of having children are material as well as social. I am not going to speculate about which is worse but it is easy to quantify material more than non material, and the material applies to all mothers, whereas the emotional applies only to some non-mothers.

The social stuff applies to women in general. You can't win. AS a woman you can be despised for inflicting your puling spawn on society, and probably doing a bad job of bringing them up (just you - their father has no apparent responsibility) or for not having them (you selfish ice queen, you're unnatural). Either case is just a way for society to inflect its deep loathing of women in general

bonesarecoralmade Yes, yes, men (most men) avoid this sort of critique.

But I would still protest at almondcake's inclusion of childless/free women in the category "non-mothers as a collective group" not understanding or not caring (for that is what almondcake wrote). I just don't think this is true or fair, frankly.

bones - it was I will say to non mothers as a collective group, you either do not understand or you do not care.

how do you read the above?

Bones

Why is there not an emotional cost for mothers?

There is, I missed it out by mistake!