Fucking double standards of women on maternity leave

[ShirleyPhallus]

This is sort of a TAAT but I’ve seen many of these recently

Really sick of the threads on here about maternity leave and how women shouldn’t go for jobs if they are newly pregnant as it could leave a business in the lurch to recruit their replacement. While I have some sympathy if it’s a small business, employees being able to do their duties and not being absent is a risk any business takes.

Really sick of the internalised misogyny of just how many posters on MN say how awful it is that women apply for jobs when pregnant.

Urgh sorry for the rant. Thought we were making progress but these are such 1950s attitudes

First of all I don't necessarily agree that we need to correct for disadvantages. In all other areas we accept that some jobs require specific talents or characteristics, and we have no problem as a society when a short fat person will likely never play sports professionally.

Being short and fat aren't protected characteristics. This highlights my point about equality not meaning the same.
There is nothing wrong with certain jobs requiring particular talents or qualifications .... but that's not what we're talking about here. It's not really comparable.

What we're talking is women being systematically disadvantaged just because they are women. The fact that someone thinks that this acceptable is incredibly disappointing.

The thing is, they actually are less worthy of employment - at least as far as the employer is concerned.

Jesus fucking Christ. Do you actually read what you write?

Imagine two candidates applying for a job, both with 3 years' experience. The man actually has 3 full years of doing whatever it is he does, while the woman spent these 3 years on two mat leaves plus annual leave, meaning she only actually worked about six months.

Are you seriously suggesting they are factually equally qualified? That both their 3 years' experience are equally valid?

It's not good recruitment practice to specify a particular number of years experience as it can be pretty meaningless. It's better to assess competencies. Length of service doesn't always mean someone is better at their job.
In your example the male employee may have just coasted /done the bare minimum and the women might have been a highly effective employee.
If you assess competencies you allow both candidates to demonstrate the level of their experience. It's highly likely in the scenario the make employee will demonstrate a higher level of competency due to his experience but we shouldn't assume.
When we recruit we aren't allowed to specify a certain number of years experience.... it's poor practice.

Do you actually read what you write?

Are you saying it's not true? Don't just reply with outrage. Commit to an opinion. Are you actually saying that from an employer's point of view someone who is likely to take a year off (but expect their position to remain unfilled) is not less worthy than someone who is likely to show up every day? Is that what you're saying?

When we recruit we aren't allowed to specify a certain number of years experience.... it's poor practice.

Lovely anecdote. Totally irrelevant to the point I was making. Candidates put employment and experience details on CVs as a matter of course. All I'm saying is not all '3 years' experience' are equal.

Being short and fat aren't protected characteristics. This highlights my point about equality not meaning the same.

An arbitrary distinction. Point is we accept that people are not equal. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, and some are more suited to various jobs than others.

Are you saying it's not true? Don't just reply with outrage. Commit to an opinion. Are you actually saying that from an employer's point of view someone who is likely to take a year off (but expect their position to remain unfilled) is not less worthy than someone who is likely to show up every day? Is that what you're saying?

I don't think that comment needed any justification. I completely disagree with you when you suggest that women are not as worthy of employment as men.
It's a disgraceful thing to suggest and I'm surprised to see someone ( outside of the daily Mail comments section) actually write it down.

Yes I am saying that women who have children deserve to have their job back at the end of maternity leave. I believe in this very strongly. The reasons why I believe this have been explained to you numerous times.

When we recruit we aren't allowed to specify a certain number of years experience.... it's poor practice.

Lovely anecdote. Totally irrelevant to the point I was making.

It's not just an anecdote. It's classed as good recruitment practice. Not just by me but experts in recruitment and HR.

Candidates put employment and experience details on CVs as a matter of course. All I'm saying is not all '3 years' experience' are equal.

Exactly the point I'm making except I'm not assuming 'more years' automatically equals 'better employee'

@BellatricksStrange

Being short and fat aren't protected characteristics. This highlights my point about equality not meaning the same.

An arbitrary distinction. Point is we accept that people are not equal. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, and some are more suited to various jobs than others.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with the Equality Act (2010). The fact you think you can compare someone's height or weight preventing them becoming a professional sports person to the systematic discrimination of people with protected characteristics just shows how little you grasp this topic.

Problem is, the woman who accepts a job knowing she will soon not be able to do it takes an opportunity away from another woman who would've genuinely grafted. Much like how men competing in women's sports potentially take a medal away from a woman.

Furthermore, the former woman potentially compounds companies' reluctance to employ young women, which can be extended to even women who are infertile or have no desire to be a mother. It's like how many women distrust men because they don't know which are the good ones. Companies don't know which are the women who they can rely on.

You could say that women who want to have their cake and eat it take cake away from those who just wanted to eat it.

Those are terrible comparisons, and you are are selling fellow women down the river.

So are we add ingredients 'women who have children are unreliable employees' to the list of why women don't deserve to be employed?

Do you realise how insulting that it is?

And it seems you are also that women who get pregnant don't work very hard?
You don't particularly like women do you eightwheelgirl?

Bellatricks, you have not replied to the below point from Spins. I'd be interested to see your response.

'In your example the male employee may have just coasted /done the bare minimum and the women might have been a highly effective employee.
If you assess competencies you allow both candidates to demonstrate the level of their experience. It's highly likely in the scenario the make employee will demonstrate a higher level of competency due to his experience but we shouldn't assume.'

Here's the thing. Women are allowed to want society to work for them. Women are the ones who have babies. Women are allowed to say that they want this to be taken into consideration so they don't loose out more than they have to in the employment market.

Although to be fair, if you decide not to hire competent women of child bearing age at least that leaves all the more of them for those of us who are happy to.

@IntermittentParps

Sure. Any coasting or slacking is just as likely to have been done by a female employee as a male employee, so it's a false dichotomy in the first place. But generally speaking, the number of years' experience, tells you something about expertise.

In a specialised physical job (from bricklayer to chef), the muscle memory and expertise gained by actually doing the work for a long time, cannot be duplicated or speed-tracked (in general, obviously there are outliers).

If I need a good bricklayer, or an experienced mechanic, I might specify a number of years' experience in my job-vacancy ad. To pretend that there is no difference between someone who did the actual work to someone who took care of a baby, is ludicrous.

But on the subject of answering specific questions, can you please address the point I made of a collective obligation being placed on the individual. Employer A has no more obligation to society than employer B, yet the arbitrary matter of A hiring a female employee and B hiring a male employee, means they need to carry a far larger burden of the societal obligation. Why?

And the second point, which hasn't properly been addressed - actually subverted, with the invariable reply about a man also being involved in the pregnancy process - is why an employer should be obliged to support a personal choice made by an employee?

@SpinsForGin

I completely disagree with you when you suggest that women are not as worthy of employment as men.

That's not what I said though, is it? You misquoted me and removed context and nuance, rather than engage intellectually.

@Kotatsu

Women are allowed to want society to work for them.

Well not really. For starters, as I previously wrote, when you expect an employer to keep a position open, that's not 'society' but an individual. It's fine to expect that the man who made the decision together with the woman should support her. But no individual choice should be made the burden of a random individual.

Sure. Any coasting or slacking is just as likely to have been done by a female employee as a male employee, so it's a false dichotomy in the first place.*
Which is why a competency based recruitment process is far more effective that just looking at 'time served'

But generally speaking, the number of years' experience, tells you something about expertise
But not always and it is a very crude tool which relies heavily on assumptions.

If I need a good bricklayer, or an experienced mechanic, I might specify a number of years' experience in my job-vacancy ad. To pretend that there is no difference between someone who did the actual work to someone who took care of a baby, is ludicrous.

That's not what were doing this is it? You are assuming that women who have taken maternity leave are less competent at their jobs which really is ludicrous! An be careful specifying a number of years experience as that could leave you open to accusations of age discrimination.

But on the subject of answering specific questions, can you please address the point I made of a collective obligation being placed on the individual. Employer A has no more obligation to society than employer B, yet the arbitrary matter of A hiring a female employee and B hiring a male employee, means they need to carry a far larger burden of the societal obligation. Why?

This has been answered numerous times by a number of different posters. Either you don't understand or you're being purposefully obtuse.

And the second point, which hasn't properly been addressed - actually subverted, with the invariable reply about a man also being involved in the pregnancy process - is why an employer should be obliged to support a personal choice made by an employee?

Ah finally!! You acknowledged that men are part of this process!!
Again, this has been discussed - it's the same reasons the maternity leave should be avaio.be with the added benefit of potentially addressing the issue of sex discrimination! Winner!

[quote BellatricksStrange]@Kotatsu

Women are allowed to want society to work for them.

Well not really. For starters, as I previously wrote, when you expect an employer to keep a position open, that's not 'society' but an individual. It's fine to expect that the man who made the decision together with the woman should support her. But no individual choice should be made the burden of a random individual.[/quote]
If you employ people then you have a responsibility as an employer. This is part of that responsibility.

[quote BellatricksStrange]@SpinsForGin

I completely disagree with you when you suggest that women are not as worthy of employment as men.

That's not what I said though, is it? You misquoted me and removed context and nuance, rather than engage intellectually.[/quote]
Then please - tell us what you actually meant!

That's not what were doing this is it? You are assuming that women who have taken maternity leave are less competent at their jobs which really is ludicrous!

Of course they are. 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.

This has been answered numerous times by a number of different posters. Either you don't understand or you're being purposefully obtuse.

It hasn't. It's all about general obligations to society, or about the actual law (which I know, I just believe it's unfair). Why are arbitrarily we placing a societal burden on random individuals?

Ah finally!! You acknowledged that men are part of this process!!

I've always acknowledged it, but it's totally irrelevant. This isn't about 'men' vs 'women', but about an employer having to support the personal choice of an employee (and perhaps her partner/spouse). You have yet to acknowledge that the one person who is not part of this process is the employer.

[quote BellatricksStrange]@IntermittentParps

Sure. Any coasting or slacking is just as likely to have been done by a female employee as a male employee, so it's a false dichotomy in the first place. But generally speaking, the number of years' experience, tells you something about expertise.

In a specialised physical job (from bricklayer to chef), the muscle memory and expertise gained by actually doing the work for a long time, cannot be duplicated or speed-tracked (in general, obviously there are outliers).

If I need a good bricklayer, or an experienced mechanic, I might specify a number of years' experience in my job-vacancy ad. To pretend that there is no difference between someone who did the actual work to someone who took care of a baby, is ludicrous.

But on the subject of answering specific questions, can you please address the point I made of a collective obligation being placed on the individual. Employer A has no more obligation to society than employer B, yet the arbitrary matter of A hiring a female employee and B hiring a male employee, means they need to carry a far larger burden of the societal obligation. Why?

And the second point, which hasn't properly been addressed - actually subverted, with the invariable reply about a man also being involved in the pregnancy process - is why an employer should be obliged to support a personal choice made by an employee?[/quote]
Spins seems to have got in and answered before me. I can only agree with her/his/their responses.

It hasn't. It's all about general obligations to society, or about the actual law (which I know, I just believe it's unfair). Why are arbitrarily we placing a societal burden on random individuals?

I've always acknowledged it [that men are part of this process], but it's totally irrelevant. This isn't about 'men' vs 'women', but about an employer having to support the personal choice of an employee (and perhaps her partner/spouse). You have yet to acknowledge that the one person who is not part of this process is the employer.

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).

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

Apologies....but thank you

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!

@SpinsForGin

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

Apologies....but thank you

No, not at all!