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

@PearPickingPorky

And as for the "how am I meant to cover my female lawyers in a niche area of law" person who hires lawyers but apparently doesn't understand discrimination law...

Here is a solution - you train someone junior up to a level where they can absorb some of the lower levelq tasks that your higher-paid female lawyers are doing, so that you have some redundancy build into your team.

Assuming your niche lawyers are paid (eg) 75k, you hire someone at the start of their career on 25-30k and they learn from working in the team. This will also help when your (typically less-loyal) male team members leave you to go to a competitor who treats them better.

Well there speaks some one who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Law firms will have employees at all stages of careers. The key word in your lecture is "some of their tasks".

Maternity leave exists. It has to be factored in , it is factored in but just occasionally could it be acknowledged that it might just, occasionally, make life difficult for employers and other employees?

Oh and btw I have not said anything which is contrary to what employment law says.

Maternity leave exists. It has to be factored in , it is factored in but just occasionally could it be acknowledged that it might just, occasionally, make life difficult for employers and other employees?

Well, it is difficult for employees if the employer hasn't adequately managed the team in a way that it is able to absorb the entirely normal patterns of absence that employees will require: holidays, sickness, mat/pat leave, etc.

Yes, it's a "burden" on employers that their employees are not automatons who have no purpose in life beyond ensuring their uninterrupted availability 9-5 each weekday. Humans get ill. Humans reproduce. Humans change jobs. Humans get distracted by their affair with their secretary and fuck up the smooth running of the business. If you don't want to deal with that, don't hire a human. But if you want (or need) a human brain to do the work, then you need to accept the issues that come with humans and a well-functioning society depends upon a safety net when people need to be temporarily unavailable for work.

If you want your employees to commit to working only for your company, rather than hiring themselves out to whoever is willing to pay them the highest rate on any given day, ditching your task mid-project, then you have to give them some sort of commitment back in return. Which is, you won't fire them if they get ill, have an accident, or have children (something which the entire of society depends on people to do). Otherwise hire, and pay, for a day-rate contractor.

If your company budget is so precarious and poorly run that you can't afford to employ women in case they have children, and can't hire people with disabilities in case they are unable to work, and can't hire men who might want to take paternity leave, then ultimately it's you who will suffer long-term, as all those talented people will work somewhere else, leaving you with the industry's dross that couldn't get a job at a better employer.

@Drunkpanda

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

I've no intention of having kids and it pisses me off that my career is potentially affected by those that take advantage. If youre upfront about being pregnant etc then fine but lots of women leave that drop feed until the point where they know a company can't risk changing their mind. It's textbook bait and switch.

Your career won't be impacted by other women having children eightwheelgirl.
It will be impacted by societal stereotypes regarding womens place in the labour market and by people who feel sex discrimination is acceptable.

People who believe that women who have children are less reliable /worthy of employment are likely to apply that logic to all women not just those that have had, or intend to have children.

Challenging discrimination and advocating for equality benefits all women.

People who believe that women who have children are less reliable /worthy of employment are likely to apply that logic to all women not just those that have had, or intend to have children.

That's illogical. Most people get annoyed with the ones who accept jobs knowing full well they won't be able to do it for nearly a year, inconveniencing the company and making them regret hiring a young woman. It's a self serving move that screws over other women.

If I was going to 100% need to rely on a new employee and was in the critical early days I'd absolutely pick the young man all else being equal.

Wouldn't that keen on hiring a disabled person either, would you? Better screen prospective employees for future cancer chances while you're at it.

@EightWheelGirl

People who believe that women who have children are less reliable /worthy of employment are likely to apply that logic to all women not just those that have had, or intend to have children.

That's illogical. Most people get annoyed with the ones who accept jobs knowing full well they won't be able to do it for nearly a year, inconveniencing the company and making them regret hiring a young woman. It's a self serving move that screws over other women.

It's not illogical. You're blaming the wrong people. Instead of blaming women for systemic discrimination you should look at those doing the discriminating.

@EightWheelGirl

If I was going to 100% need to rely on a new employee and was in the critical early days I'd absolutely pick the young man all else being equal.

So you advocate sex discrimination?

For starters, as I previously wrote, when you expect an employer to keep a position open, that's not 'society' but an individual

Society dictates norms and laws - we have these for individuals, for individuals in companies, for everyone - women are part of 'everyone'. Children are part of 'everyone', we say that, for example, everyone should drive on the left in the UK, that a certain amount of sick leave is acceptable, that reasonable accommodations should be made for all sorts of reasons, because as a society, we've decided that that is best for our society, and best for the individuals in that society.

You can say that women should lose their job if they get pregnant. You could say that if a person is hit by a bus they should lose their job, if they are over a certain BMI, or diabetic they should lose their job - but personally, that sounds like a shit society to me. Personally, I want a society where, to a reasonable extent, people aren't restricted from earning a living because of (in the course of a 40-50 year career), they might need a year or two off occasionally.

And the trouble is, that you might say you're alright, that you're not going to get pregnant/hit by a bus/fat/diabetic, but you're playing the odds there, any of them might happen, and you're saying it's fine, you accept that if it does, you'll be screwed, and that's the society you want to live in.

If I was going to 100% need to rely on a new employee and was in the critical early days I'd absolutely pick the young man all else being equal.

Really? What if he came into work every day on a motorbike? Kite-surfed in summer and skied in winter? What if he didn't tell you, but he has a heart condition, and lives on sugar and alcohol? (This sounds made up, but I've worked with more than one guy that's met 5/6 of these - and often added a couple more vices on top!). It's bizarrely sexist to ignore all the other risks that come with hiring someone and concentrate solely on whether that person might get pregnant.

So you advocate sex discrimination?

I don't blindly agree with it just because it's the law, just like I won't agree with self ID and enforcement of pronouns if they become law too.

I've just become sick of picking up the slack for entitled parents who always leave on time and still expect their equal share of the team bonus. When I was a proposal manager I raised the fact that I always had to stay late to finish stuff because there was literally nobody else to. One woman actually told me I should be prepared to do my bit for society as kids are the next generation. I'm still unconvinced she would've done a few hours overtime for the societal good whilst I helped my elderly neighbour with her shopping.

Part of the reason I don't want kids is because I don't want the responsibility. So I certainly don't want responsibility for your kids. And yes it's down to the company to manage it better but the entitlement of many parents is a separate issue.

When I was still in the office at 8pm I couldn't really give a shit about whether little Jemima got to her ballet class.

@Kotatsu

If I was going to 100% need to rely on a new employee and was in the critical early days I'd absolutely pick the young man all else being equal.

Really? What if he came into work every day on a motorbike? Kite-surfed in summer and skied in winter? What if he didn't tell you, but he has a heart condition, and lives on sugar and alcohol? (This sounds made up, but I've worked with more than one guy that's met 5/6 of these - and often added a couple more vices on top!). It's bizarrely sexist to ignore all the other risks that come with hiring someone and concentrate solely on whether that person might get pregnant.

I'm not convinced that the above examples are anywhere near as likely to be factors in most 28 year olds.

@EightWheelGirl

So you advocate sex discrimination?

I don't blindly agree with it just because it's the law, just like I won't agree with self ID and enforcement of pronouns if they become law too.

I've just become sick of picking up the slack for entitled parents who always leave on time and still expect their equal share of the team bonus. When I was a proposal manager I raised the fact that I always had to stay late to finish stuff because there was literally nobody else to. One woman actually told me I should be prepared to do my bit for society as kids are the next generation. I'm still unconvinced she would've done a few hours overtime for the societal good whilst I helped my elderly neighbour with her shopping.

Part of the reason I don't want kids is because I don't want the responsibility. So I certainly don't want responsibility for your kids. And yes it's down to the company to manage it better but the entitlement of many parents is a separate issue.

When I was still in the office at 8pm I couldn't really give a shit about whether little Jemima got to her ballet class.

You're clearly projecting due to your own negative experiences. That shouldn't be a reason to actively advocate for discrimination.

Poor performance should be dealt with whether you're a parent or not. I've never believed that my childless colleagues should do more work than me just because I'm a parent. You've clearly had issues in your workplace and as a result you're judging all working mothers..... I've witnessed all kinds of people taking the piss at work but I don't judge an entire group of people based on limited experience.

I believe very strongly we should do all we can to address discrimination and inequalities. Women are systematically discriminated against in the labour market due to their sex. It is important that we have policies and laws that prevent this from happening.

I'm not convinced that the above examples are anywhere near as likely to be factors in most 28 year olds.

Do you only employ 28 year olds?? What has age got to do with it?

I think that if a company clearly wants somebody to start right now, it's a piss take to apply and then say "thanks for the job but actually I can't start for nine months. I'll take you to the cleaners if you try and fire me though." It just makes people not want to hire us.

@EightWheelGirl

So you advocate sex discrimination?

I don't blindly agree with it just because it's the law, just like I won't agree with self ID and enforcement of pronouns if they become law too.

I've just become sick of picking up the slack for entitled parents who always leave on time and still expect their equal share of the team bonus. When I was a proposal manager I raised the fact that I always had to stay late to finish stuff because there was literally nobody else to. One woman actually told me I should be prepared to do my bit for society as kids are the next generation. I'm still unconvinced she would've done a few hours overtime for the societal good whilst I helped my elderly neighbour with her shopping.

Part of the reason I don't want kids is because I don't want the responsibility. So I certainly don't want responsibility for your kids. And yes it's down to the company to manage it better but the entitlement of many parents is a separate issue.

When I was still in the office at 8pm I couldn't really give a shit about whether little Jemima got to her ballet class.

I feel really sorry that you work for a shit company. Hardly the mothers faults that you work til 8pm though is it? Maybe you should speak to management about them needing more staff, or you needing to work your contracted hours. :)

@EightWheelGirl

I think that if a company clearly wants somebody to start right now, it's a piss take to apply and then say "thanks for the job but actually I can't start for nine months. I'll take you to the cleaners if you try and fire me though." It just makes people not want to hire us.

On the other hand it's quite shortsighted to not employ someone who could be a real long term asset to an organisation just because they are going on maternity leave.

In many sectors it's common for people to have long notice periods. Three months is standard in my sector so by the time you've advertised the post, arranged and carried out interviews, negotiated a contract and the preferred candidate has completed their notice period it could easily be 5/6 months before someone actually starts.

I recruited someone who informed us before the interview that she was 10 weeks pregnant. She was appointed because she was the best candidate. She's been with the organisation now for 12 years and is a fantastic employee.

the entitlement of many parents is a separate issue.

I don't have and never wanted kids either. I have absolutely experienced entitled parents. If a colleague with kids told me I should be prepared to do my bit for society I would tell them where to go in no uncertain terms.

But all that IS, as you say, a separate issue.

And as for being able to 100% rely on a new employee: ha hah hah hah hah hah
What if he/she goes under a bus? What if they get very ill?

And you think it's unlikely that many employees will be unreliable because they ride a motorbike/kite-surf/ski/live on sugar and alcohol. Running with your '28 year olds' idea, I'd say that actually that sort of lifestyle is not hugely uncommon among younger men. And there are a few of us on this thread alone who don't have kids. So I don't see how you can be so confident that pregnancy/maternity is THE differentiating factor for discrimination when it comes to choosing who to employ.

Running with your '28 year olds' idea, I'd say that actually that sort of lifestyle is not hugely uncommon among younger men
True.

In my experience most unreliable employees I've employed or worked with have been men in their 20's/early 30's. I've worked in female dominated teams where most of the female employees had children during their time in that job. They were all still excellent at their job which often involved unsociable hours. I had a number of men on the team who refused or complained heavily about having to work evenings and weekends because it interfered with sporting commitments.... i was once asked to refund someone's football season ticket because I'd made them work weekends! Despite that being part of their contract!
Has that stopped me employing men? No, because i understand that it is an issue with an individual employee not all male employees.

@IntermittentParps

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.

It isn't men vs women in the ideological sense, ie this isn't misogyny or misandry. It's a fact of biology that women are the ones who give birth, and therefore will have to take extended breaks from work. Whether society as a whole has to mitigate against this is a different question, but it's certainly not about bigoted discrimination.

[quote BellatricksStrange]@IntermittentParps

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.

It isn't men vs women in the ideological sense, ie this isn't misogyny or misandry. It's a fact of biology that women are the ones who give birth, and therefore will have to take extended breaks from work. Whether society as a whole has to mitigate against this is a different question, but it's certainly not about bigoted discrimination.[/quote]
it's certainly not about bigoted discrimination.
I don't understand the weird distinction you try to make between bigoted and not.
Society as a whole DOES have to mitigate against biology here. If we don't –and if we talk about not wanting to or why we think we shouldn't – that IS discrimination. By definition.

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).

As to this, I keep making the point that societal obligations should fall on everyone equally. If birthing women need to be supported, and as a society we hold that value, it should be the government doing so via taxes. It shouldn't be down to individual employers to shoulder an unfair share of this societal burden.

Yes, it's a "burden" on employers that their employees are not automatons who have no purpose in life beyond ensuring their uninterrupted availability 9-5 each weekday. Humans get ill. Humans reproduce. Humans change jobs. Humans get distracted by their affair with their secretary and fuck up the smooth running of the business. If you don't want to deal with that, don't hire a human. But if you want (or need) a human brain to do the work, then you need to accept the issues that come with humans and a well-functioning society depends upon a safety net when people need to be temporarily unavailable for work.

While holidays and occasional sickness is part and parcel of hiring a human being, a year off due to having a baby is not. It's true that humans procreate, but how is that relevant in the context of a employer-employee relationship.

Humans also buy clothes - should it be down to the employer to buy nice shoes for their employees? Humans take sabbaticals to better themselves - is the employer's responsibility to support that?

In so far as the employer-employee relationship goes, the employer should only be obliged to support issues which are extensions of work.

If you want your employees to commit to working only for your company, rather than hiring themselves out to whoever is willing to pay them the highest rate on any given day, ditching your task mid-project, then you have to give them some sort of commitment back in return. Which is, you won't fire them if they get ill, have an accident, or have children (something which the entire of society depends on people to do). Otherwise hire, and pay, for a day-rate contractor.

Actually one could argue that in return for the employee committing to show up for work every day, the employer is committing to pay them, regardless of whether they were needed or if the company made money that week. Committing to support every life choice of the employer goes far beyond the remit of employer-employee relationship.

If your company budget is so precarious and poorly run that you can't afford to employ women in case they have children, and can't hire people with disabilities in case they are unable to work, and can't hire men who might want to take paternity leave, then ultimately it's you who will suffer long-term, as all those talented people will work somewhere else, leaving you with the industry's dross that couldn't get a job at a better employer

There are enough talented people who don't fit into the above categories. If it weren't that way, why would women need discrimination laws that prohibit companies hiring talented men over talented women just because of their gender?

Fact is most companies could run very well without the legal obligation of keeping an employee's position open for a year while she has a baby. In fact they do run very well in countries that don't have this anti-business protection racket.

'birthing women'? You sound like The Handmaid's Tale.

Not just women but MEN need to be supported in having children.

The government DOES provide statutory maternity leave. Individual employers can choose to offer better incentives than statutory pay and other terms. Many do. (I feel like we've said all this before). If employers thought ML and 'birthing women' were such a 'burden', why would they choose to offer attractive terms?