School debate about fertile women being employed

[reallyconfusedmostofthetime]

My child's tutor (YR8) started a class debate about whether women of child bearing age should be employed. Is it unreasonable to think this is sexist and ridiculous?

Would have been better say sub women for men.

It sounds like this could be an activity to lead them into reading the Handmaid's Tale?

I think it is a great topic for discussion. Am really impressed the teacher did this.

I can't imagine anyone (esp small business owners) would employ a woman between say, 30 and 45 who is married, particularly if they already have one child, over a man of the same age/experience/references. I wouldn't. Her going on mat leave could sink a company.

So it needs to be raised as a subject and not dismissed due to its unfairness.

I think it depends how the teacher handled it. If the teacher used it as a learning opportunity to highlight and challenge the prejudice women face in the workplace then completely fine. If however, it turned into (subconsciously or otherwise) a lesson in how women aren’t much use beyond their wombs then it’s completely inappropriate. How did your child feel about the experience?

I probably would have rather seen a debate around the issues of employing both women and men of child bearing/rearing age in the workforce. Starting out by basing the debate around inherent misogyny is dangerous unless the teacher is extremely skilled.

What else should they #nodebate?
Because the problem is once you have opened that door others can stop you from debating as well.

I read somewhere that 75% of mothers work outside the home (and around 90% of fathers).

The vast majority of the children will have first hand experience of a woman of child bearing age working. I think that’s going to be a far bigger influence than one debate in an RE lesson.

Actually I did exactly this with a year 11 tutor group last year - looking at employment. They had ten anonymous CVs and ranked them in order - then they were given a name and asked to rank them again - some changed their order.
Then I gave them photos and they ranked them again - again they changed order. Then I told them which university they had their degree from eg Bristol university or a top university in Japan. Then I gave them ‘confidential information’ on each candidate eg Sam is suffering with anxiety and sees the GP regularly. Attendance is good but they are on anti depressants.
Julie is 7 months pregnant.
Eric is a carer for his disabled mother and lives with her but she doesn’t like to be left all day and rings him at work and he is reluctant to stay after work hours on any day.

again they ranked them and selected 5 to interview and marked their top 3 in order.

Julie wasn’t selected by any despite her great reference and relevant work experience and degree. All pupils rejected her on the ground she was pregnant and they didn’t want to train her and then have her off on maternity leave. Same for anyone with anxiety or a carer.

in fact that picked 3 white males for top 3 despite their qualification and experience being lower etc

and we discussed employment law and discrimination.

I found it shocking that they didn’t think that automatically blocking Julie as she was pregnant was discrimination and they wrote off women with young children, single parents, carers etc

they were shocked about the law! It just seemed natural to them. I wonder how many of us if we had two good candidates and one was pregnant just automatically give the other one a head start before they even open their mouths.

It’s only fairly recently that it was introduced that you couldn’t ask a woman about her fertility plans. I remember being asked in my 20s if I had a boyfriend or wanted children - wasn’t that long ago and it still goes on!

So many people clearly not understanding how debates work 🙄

I dare you to post the subject of the debate as an AIBU and watch Mumsnet explode.😁

One of my philosophy lessons began with ‘Should infanticide be legal?’

Quite controversial but obviously it was to ignite a debate about abortion and length of the pregnancy etc etc

It was fascinating and I still remember how thought provoking it was.

This!

I’m all for not censoring and allowing freedom of expression, but to me, this is as bad as saying something like ‘white people are superior. Discuss’

It’s a debate where just saying ‘that’s bullshit’ is the only rational response from the people trying to argue against it.

there are plenty of controversial topics where one side can’t be dismissed easily, which is far more suitable for debate.

My dad always said the same. He said it was a complete pita and cost the business a fortune to employ women of child-bearing age because they would invariably go off and have children. He couldn't afford to employ them.

I think I agree with you. I think I would much prefer something like " to prevent unplanned pregnancies, should all teenage boy be forced to bank their semen at age 14 and get a vasectomy" . So planned reproduction only . It's a controversial topic but always it's not giving voice to the argument that women should stay at home,

it’s a good devil’s advocate debate Q for sixth formers, an absolutely stupid one for yr8s. It’s not something that is going to be able to be debated effectively with the information and experience at their disposal.

teacher needs to stop being edgy and save it for when they teach year 12- right now the general stuff about school uniforms and recycling will suffice. They’ll get much more out of it.

Great more discussion about women's bodies and their rights. 🙄

If it had been about men with a follow up about women , leading to discussions on equal rights, women's rights and discrimination fair enough. But it doesn't sound like the purpose was to raise awareness of discrimination. Also not great for teen girls to listen to when on a few years they will be potentially facing these challenges

Playing Devil's Advocate here but this might actually show the kids the sexism in this topic. It might be a really worthwhile debate.

Exactly this. I used to run a debating team and I used controversial discussions like this all the time. It isn't the message, it's the debate. And for people who say there is no debate around it, read The Handmaid's Tale or look at various fertility policies in other countries (heck, look at America's abortion laws) - it is clearly not one-sided to everyone in thr world, and so it is foolish to say there's no devate about it. It's an important topic to be unpicked from all angles.

If we are going down that route shouldn't it also contain that girls should have their eggs harvested and be sterilised as well?

Also not great for teen girls to listen to when on a few years they will be potentially facing these challenges

But surely that's WHY discussion and debate about such issues is so important!

I really don’t like this. Why should girls have to listen to arguments, or make arguments, that their fertility makes them less economically valuable to society? Why are we pushing that onto girls? Asking them to justify their bodies at the age of 12. There are lots of other topics to debate, which don’t ask children to question a legally protected characteristic.

Would it be okay to ask children to debate the rights of black people?! No, it would, quite rightly, cause an outrage. But women are fair game. Surprise surprise 🙄

The proposition is obviously unreasonable but it’s a starter for debate, to test the kids ability to form and present an argument (even if they don’t agree with it). There’s no point in basing it on a perfectly reasonable, uncontroversial statement.

You could ask when these ‘worthwhile’ controversial topics about restricting women’s rights are going to be joined by one about having a curfew on men’s movements even just once a year, since men cause most violence. Or should football be shut down for similar reasons. Or are they planning on discriminating in favour of destroying only women’s rights.

@Rocksonabeach your lesson sounds excellent.

It suggests women's rights are up for debate. If they wouldn't post the question the other way around (which would actually be interesting and say something) they shouldn't use it this way around.

Same with abortion rights. Shouldn't be a debate. When you think about 'controversial' questions about other groups it becomes very plain.

You could ask when these ‘worthwhile’ controversial topics about restricting women’s rights are going to be joined by one about having a curfew on men’s movements even just once a year, since men cause most violence. Or should football be shut down for similar reasons.

Why would you presume such discussions are NOT taking place? What would we think the only debates taking place are about the restriction of women's rights? 🤨

Sorry can you explain a bit more here. What’s infanticide got to do with abortion? (I realise this is a side issue to the current discussion)