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

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.

Because discrimination based on arbitrary characteristics of people is morally wrong. But there is nothing morally wrong in making prudent choices based on hard cash.

Refusing to hire a woman or sacking her just because she's a woman and women are inferior to men, is morally reprehensible. But sacking a woman because she will not show up to work for a year is moral and ethical. On the contrary, obligating the employer to suffer financially because their employee made a personal choice to have a baby is unfair and morally wrong.

But it is only women who can biologically have children, so yes, we should level the playing field to ignore the additional experience a man gets while a woman is on mat leave otherwise the men will continue to progress leaving women behind You can share the leave though which would level it up. My neighbours daughter was the higher earner so she went back to work and her DH had the leave (not sure what to call it he can't have been classed as being on maternity leave)

It isn't compulsory for a woman to take a year off and employers are actually at risk with new male staff choosing to take the leave so it shouldn't just be about women and new employers.

@IntermittentParps

'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?

Those employers obviously don't think it's worth offering attractive terms? So what? What of those employers who would struggle with having to keep the position open, is their opinion not equally valid?

Women can obviously make their choices where to seek employment, and if companies have a need to attract women, they will offer better terms. Just like all perks offered by companies.

@SpinsForGin

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.

I might be biased as I'm not into sports but I agree that it was usually men in their 20s/early 30s who were unreliable and all too often because they had broken something playing football/rugby/skiing or whatever. I used to think someone who drank a bit too much, smoked like a chimney and needed to lose a bit of weight was a much better bet.

I never actually recruited on that basis but I was tempted.

Because discrimination based on arbitrary characteristics of people is morally wrong. But there is nothing morally wrong in making prudent choices based on hard cash.

I don't know how many more times or in how many more slightly different ways I (and others on here) can say this, but you are discriminating arbitrarily – you are saying, effectively, that women should be punished for a biological characteristic that we cannot and do not choose.

sacking a woman because she will not show up to work for a year is moral and ethical.
You persist in using terms like 'will not show up to work for a year' and 'made a personal choice to have a baby', which clearly show your dislike for women (in this context, at least). Again, we've been over this, but how about someone who doesn't 'show up to work for a year' because they have a serious accident after choosing to ride a motorbike?

What of those employers who would struggle with having to keep the position open, is their opinion not equally valid?
Again, there is lots on here on this subject already, but:
if a business cannot afford to absorb predictable (and less predictable) staff absences and hiatuses, it is not a particularly viable business.

I don't know how many more times or in how many more slightly different ways I (and others on here) can say this, but you are discriminating arbitrarily – you are saying, effectively, that women should be punished for a biological characteristic that we cannot and do not choose.

You cannot choose to be the only sex to be able to give birth, but having a baby is a choice. But regardless, it's not a punishment at all. It's just that the employer isn't the one who needs to support this. If a woman works for me, my moral obligations are to pay her and hers are to work. I don't have any moral obligation to support her personal choices - even if that's the only way she and her partner can have kids. That is still not my responsibility.

You persist in using terms like 'will not show up to work for a year' and 'made a personal choice to have a baby', which clearly show your dislike for women (in this context, at least). Again, we've been over this, but how about someone who doesn't 'show up to work for a year' because they have a serious accident after choosing to ride a motorbike?

Nonsense. You're projecting your own biases and inserting hatred where none exists. I am an employer. I don't want to go through hardship because an employee has a baby. Simple as that. I wish them all the best, and if they are indeed valuable employees I'd most probably make sure to rehire them when they are ready. But I can't be held hostage just because of their personal choice.

And BTW yes, if an employee couldn't come for an extended period due to an accident, I'd also be for the employer having the choice of finding someone else. We've taken this you work I pay relationship to ridiculous lengths, whereby they employer is held responsible for the entire well-being of their employee.

Again, there is lots on here on this subject already, but:
if a business cannot afford to absorb predictable (and less predictable) staff absences and hiatuses, it is not a particularly viable business.

This is neither here nor there. The viability or profitability of a company has noting to do with the previous points. Even if it's the most profitable company in the world, employee's personal choices are beyond the remit of a company's moral responsibility.

having a baby is a choice.
Yes, I agree up to a point.
But if people all chose not to (through fear of the work repercussions), where would businesses be a few generations down the line when there was no one of working age to hire?
If a woman works for me, my moral obligations are to pay her and hers are to work. If we look at employment law we clearly see that the law has decided otherwise. Your constant use of the term 'moral' is puzzling. 'Legal' and 'moral' are not always diametrically opposed; they reflect and support each other. People's 'moral' convictions that women should be supported to enter and stay in the workplace led to better provisions for maternity. (along, I would add, with sound economic arguments as to why half the potential workforce should not be so disadvantaged as to make working their least good option).

We've taken this you work I pay relationship to ridiculous lengths, whereby they employer is held responsible for the entire well-being of their employee.
Why 'entire well-being'? There are many areas of well-being in which employers have zero obligations.

The viability or profitability of a company has noting to do with the previous points. If that's so, what is the problem then? Your whole argument seems to be that these pesky 'birthing women' insist on affecting companies' viability/profitability.

I'd love the know what the cost would be of Government covering every single woman who has a baby's salary for a full year of mat leave, at 100% pay? Does anybody know?

I bet it would be a hell of a lot less than has been thrown around for Covid, often to little or no effect.

That would leave even small businesses with some inconvenience in finding cover, but no financial hit really beyond what they'd have to spend on recruiting or training any new employee when somebody moves jobs, for example. So all excuse for discrimination would be eliminated.

Given how much money the Government wastes on absolute rubbish I'd say this would be a good investment. Why aren't all women and all businesses lobbying for this?

@BellatricksStrange

I don't know how many more times or in how many more slightly different ways I (and others on here) can say this, but you are discriminating arbitrarily – you are saying, effectively, that women should be punished for a biological characteristic that we cannot and do not choose.

You cannot choose to be the only sex to be able to give birth, but having a baby is a choice. But regardless, it's not a punishment at all. It's just that the employer isn't the one who needs to support this. If a woman works for me, my moral obligations are to pay her and hers are to work. I don't have any moral obligation to support her personal choices - even if that's the only way she and her partner can have kids. That is still not my responsibility.

You persist in using terms like 'will not show up to work for a year' and 'made a personal choice to have a baby', which clearly show your dislike for women (in this context, at least). Again, we've been over this, but how about someone who doesn't 'show up to work for a year' because they have a serious accident after choosing to ride a motorbike?

Nonsense. You're projecting your own biases and inserting hatred where none exists. I am an employer. I don't want to go through hardship because an employee has a baby. Simple as that. I wish them all the best, and if they are indeed valuable employees I'd most probably make sure to rehire them when they are ready. But I can't be held hostage just because of their personal choice.

And BTW yes, if an employee couldn't come for an extended period due to an accident, I'd also be for the employer having the choice of finding someone else. We've taken this you work I pay relationship to ridiculous lengths, whereby they employer is held responsible for the entire well-being of their employee.

Again, there is lots on here on this subject already, but:
if a business cannot afford to absorb predictable (and less predictable) staff absences and hiatuses, it is not a particularly viable business.

This is neither here nor there. The viability or profitability of a company has noting to do with the previous points. Even if it's the most profitable company in the world, employee's personal choices are beyond the remit of a company's moral responsibility.

Not sure where you are, the US maybe? Or developing world?

The morality in most of the developed world is somewhat different to yours, and the law reflects that. The law is always a little way behind, and it'll catch up, and you'll hate it. So if you live anywhere in Europe or Canada or Australia or NZ your best option is probably to move off to pastures new and "employ" (exploit) more vulnerable people who you can still prey on with less resistance.

It's astonishing what awful people in exist in the world.

Every time a woman knowingly takes a new senior job whilst pregnant, she screws over the rest of us who are female but don't want or have kids. I'm fed up of being treated with suspicion by employers because I'm "of childbearing age."

Men don't take a lot of time off when they have kids. In my experience, it's a couple of weeks then they're back at work. A couple of weeks isn't disruptive. They're not seen as a problem.

Whereas, because I could potentially have children (who knows if that's even true, as I've never had cause to check if my parts are in working order), I'm a massive risk.

If you're going to go on mat leave as soon as you're trained up, the timing isn't right for the move, and it's bloody unfair on the team who then have to scrabble around for a long, unknown period of time whilst you exercise your life choices.

I get that not all pregnancies are planned, and sometimes you might start a new job and then find out you're pregnant, but I think women who actively seek to change jobs whilst knowing they're pregnant, are helping to keep that glass ceiling in place.

Don't agree with that at all, the system is stacked against women. Most do go on to have children and with an unfair system you have to play it to your advantage. It may feel unfair to some but you have to pay the bills and you only have a certain window of time to have kids. How my pregnancy impacted on my team wasn't a concern when I was pregnant.

Yes, I agree up to a point.
But if people all chose not to (through fear of the work repercussions), where would businesses be a few generations down the line when there was no one of working age to hire?

I don't think that would be a concern even if mat leave laws were changed. After all people are still having children in countries that don't give so much obligatory leave. Not to mention we've reached this point in history, despite mat leave laws never existing.

If we look at employment law we clearly see that the law has decided otherwise. Your constant use of the term 'moral' is puzzling.

That's because many posters were simply telling me to read up on the law. As if I don't know it. In fact that's what I'm challenging. I don't think there is a moral case for obligating individual employers to support their employees while they take a year off to have a baby.

I'm not even sure there a societal moral obligation, but even if I'll accept there is, the burden should not be on any individual.

And just BTW, we're not talking about half the working population, but a sub-section of that half. The issue is only women who actually take off to have a baby.

Why 'entire well-being'? There are many areas of well-being in which employers have zero obligations.

Don't be so pedantic. My point is that employers should have no obligations for parts of well-being which are completely beyond the remit of work. Having babies being one of these examples.

Your whole argument seems to be that these pesky 'birthing women' insist on affecting companies' viability/profitability.

Much of your arguments seem to consist of being pedantic about a particular term I used, and projecting any imagined hatred I have towards women. FTR I don't hate or disrespect and women just because they're women (or men because they're men). Any feelings I have are towards individuals based on my interactions with them or their actions. For all the rest of humanity my feelings are neutral.

And my argument was that an employer should not be obligated to suffer hardship or monetary loss because their employee made a choice to have a baby. No more and no less. It's quite irrelevant whether the business is struggling or booming; supporting an employee who takes a year off to have a baby is not in any way the moral obligation of an employer.

If we look at employment law we clearly see that the law has decided otherwise. Your constant use of the term 'moral' is puzzling.
That's because many posters were simply telling me to read up on the law. As if I don't know it. In fact that's what I'm challenging. I don't think there is a moral case for obligating individual employers to support their employees while they take a year off to have a baby.
I'm not even sure there a societal moral obligation, but even if I'll accept there is, the burden should not be on any individual.
See my previous comments about the law and morality and how they intersect.

And just BTW, we're not talking about half the working population, but a sub-section of that half. The issue is only women who actually take off to have a baby.
But the upshot of an attitude that women are 'more likely' to take a year off work is that people will try to avoid hiring ALL women of childbearing age. Several posters on this thread demonstrate this thinking.
Your whole argument seems to be that these pesky 'birthing women' insist on affecting companies' viability/profitability.
Much of your arguments seem to consist of being pedantic about a particular term I used
Yes, I threw 'birthing women' in; but my point was not about that or any term. It was about you saying 'The viability or profitability of a company has nothing to do with the previous points.' when throughout the thread you argue that women taking ML affects companies' viability/profitability.

FTR I don't hate or disrespect and women just because they're women
You do by definition disrespect women as a group if you believe they should be disadvantaged by a fact of female biology.

But the upshot of an attitude that women are 'more likely' to take a year off work is that people will try to avoid hiring ALL women of childbearing age. Several posters on this thread demonstrate this thinking.

But if the law were to be changed that women can be fired for taking a year off, employers wouldn't be reluctant in the first place. So the protectionist laws are essentially what is causing employers to balk at hiring women in the first place.

It was about you saying 'The viability or profitability of a company has nothing to do with the previous points.' when throughout the thread you argue that women taking ML affects companies' viability/profitability.

What I said that the fact a company might not be viable or is struggling, doesn't negate the point I made about an employer not being morally obligated to support pregnancy of their employees.

You do by definition disrespect women as a group if you believe they should be disadvantaged by a fact of female biology.

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion but regardless I beg to differ. I don't disrespect women as a group. I also don't think any particular woman should be able to hold any particular employer 'hostage' in order to have a baby. These two statements are not contradictory.

But if the law were to be changed that women can be fired for taking a year off, employers wouldn't be reluctant in the first place. So the protectionist laws are essentially what is causing employers to balk at hiring women in the first place.
Again, from this thread alone we've seen that many employers/recruiters aren't reluctant.

You do by definition disrespect women as a group if you believe they should be disadvantaged by a fact of female biology.
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion but regardless I beg to differ. I don't disrespect women as a group. I also don't think any particular woman should be able to hold any particular employer 'hostage' in order to have a baby. These two statements are not contradictory.
I can't say it any more clearly, or differently. You do not think much of women as a group if you want them treated less favourably because of biology and the concomitant potential pregnancy/maternity. This is not a 'neutral' position, however much you say otherwise; and you cannot separate 'any particular woman' from a society. They are intrinsically interwoven.

You do not think much of women as a group

I don't think at all of women - or men - as a group. Haven't I said that numerous times already?

I only relate to individuals. As an employer, I do not wish to be forced to support an employee who has made a personal choice in their life. Nor do I believe there is a moral case to be made for me to have to do that. That's it.

If it means my female employees will have to take into account before having a baby, that there might not be a job for them when they return, so be it. I wish them the absolute best, but I can't be held responsible or obligated to support them. This is their personal matter, and has no connection to our relationship as employer-employee.

The above has nothing to do with how I view them as people, or how I view women in general. Simple as that.

Not wanting to allow a woman back to their job because of something to do with a fact of uniquely female biology is by definition having an issue with women as a group.

If an employer puts women off applying to work for them because of their stance on this, or routinely recruits men over equally suitable women, over time the effect is deleterious to women as a group as well as to individuals.

Not wanting to allow a woman back to their job because of something to do with a fact of uniquely female biology is by definition having an issue with women as a group.

Repeating it doesn't make it more true. Not to mention that you've mangled my position. This isn't about 'allowing a woman back', but whether an employer should be obligated to keep the position open. Two distinctly different things.

Furthermore, the reason the employer should be allowed to hire a replacement, is because they have a job that needs doing, and the previous employee won't be showing up for another 12 months. Why they won't show up is immaterial. All that concerns the employer is that they have a reliable employee.

So it's not 'not allowing women back', and it's certainly not because of something to do with 'uniquely female biology'. It's hiring a replacement worker because the previous employee isn't coming.

How you can extrapolate from this to be a sweeping opinion about women as a class is beyond me.

The days of the average woman having 8 babies are long gone. Yet We’re still worried about some women needing 1 or 2 outside 3 mat leaves - and that can be shared with a partner, that could be considerably less than a year, that might occur sometime in your working life between 16 and 45, that many women run leave together and don’t return to work inbetween as nursery care is so expensive etc.

Given how much people change jobs these days or travel or go off on secondments, recruitment can be so expensive etc it just seems another cost we have to work around.

So it's not 'not allowing women back', and it's certainly not because of something to do with 'uniquely female biology'. It's hiring a replacement worker because the previous employee isn't coming.

The 'previous employee isn't coming' because of a situation of her biology that sets her apart from a man.

If this is not a position on women as a class, I don't know what is.

Every time a woman knowingly takes a new senior job whilst pregnant, she screws over the rest of us who are female but don't want or have kids. I'm fed up of being treated with suspicion by employers because I'm "of childbearing age."

I've had 2 kids, whilst running my own consultancy, and as such, being a senior consultant to more than one company. - you know what? When you have an understanding employer (ie. myself) it works just fine. Perhaps because I can choose my clients, and they are generally also people with families, so they understood the couple of times I took a 2 month old in with me, or when a child interrupts a conference call or one of us takes a call in the car at a kids activity, or has to reschedule because someone's (them, me, one of our kids) is in the ER with something busted.

In return, when they need a call at 6am, or at 9pm, or something crazy happens and I have to work solidly for 36 hours (parking the kids on ipads/feeding them haribo) then I do it.

Now yes, that won't work for something like a supermarket - but then they don't have an issue with maternity cover (which I have provided before I got my degree).

I guess what I'm saying is, and have said before, the problem isn't us. The problem is some employers, and you, who apparently has the same attitude. In my experience, if you treat employees well, and flexibly, they do the same back, and that works better for everyone.

The premise that women getting pregnant is a bad thing in the workplace, is the ultimate in short termism. Society cannot function if children are not being born. A future workforce depends on women being able to have children in the present and the present workforce depends on that future workforce for their pensions. It is really in nobody's long term interest to make it difficult for women to have children.

@IntermittentParps

So it's not 'not allowing women back', and it's certainly not because of something to do with 'uniquely female biology'. It's hiring a replacement worker because the previous employee isn't coming.

The 'previous employee isn't coming' because of a situation of her biology that sets her apart from a man.

If this is not a position on women as a class, I don't know what is.

No, it's because there is no available job.

Imagine without the punitive mat leave laws. I'm an employer and my female employee lets me know she'll be leaving in three months to have a baby. Probably not be returning to the work arena before the baby is 9 months old.

My reaction is extremely positive. She's been a valuable and beloved worker, and I'm very excited for her. I organize a lovely baby shower, and even give her a bonus.

However, I also start looking for her replacement, because you know, I need someone to do the work for the next year.

Now you show up and demand I don't fill this employee's position, and only muddle along with temps for the next year (if and when she returns). Because otherwise it shows I 'don't think much of women'.

Do you realise just how ridiculous this sounds? You want me to hobble my business for a year, just to demonstrate a high regard for women?

I can have the highest regard for women in general, and this employee in particular, but I've still got a business to run.

@334bu

The premise that women getting pregnant is a bad thing in the workplace, is the ultimate in short termism. Society cannot function if children are not being born. A future workforce depends on women being able to have children in the present and the present workforce depends on that future workforce for their pensions. It is really in nobody's long term interest to make it difficult for women to have children.

TBF humankind survived quite well for many millennia despite there being no mat leave protectionist laws.

'punitive'
Honestly, the way you feel about mat leave laws/women (and they're the same thing; your splitting of women as a class apart from your stance on ML is false, and sophistry) is howlingly clear from the language you consistently use.

However, I also start looking for her replacement, because you know, I need someone to do the work for the next year.
Fine. Great. You'll get someone grand. Maybe someone who likes short-term jobs for their own reasons and, because they don't have the security of a salaried perm job, has worked harder and better than a lot of people and is super-skilled and experienced. Or maybe someone internal, moving sideways or acting up temporarily; in which case, down the line, with their new skills and experience, they'll be of great value to the company.

Now you show up and demand I…only muddle along with temps for the next year (if and when she returns).
If you're 'muddling along' then you have not recruited, trained or managed very well. Nothing to do with the ML person or, indeed, anyone filling the job.
If it 'hobbles your business', again, that's all about your business.

TBF humankind survived quite well for many millennia despite there being no mat leave protectionist laws.
'protectionist' is again an interesting term to use in this context.
And 'humankind survived quite well'. Did it? So you consider it doing just fine that women have long been forced to leave their jobs/the wider workforce; offered inferior and unsuitable jobs on their return that they could not take and therefore found themselves out of work; or taken these jobs and being underemployed, therefore representing a misuse of skills and/or being disadvantaged by having accrued less pension etc?