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

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.

No. You keep doing this but you're just as wrong now as the first time you did this. I have no truck with women. I do have a problem with anti-business laws. I have a problem that as an employer I should be held responsible for personal choices or at-home well-being of my employees.

To me this is a straightforward transaction. I pay, they work. Just as if I can't pay, they won't work, if they can't work, I don't pay. Simple.

I have the same problem with not being able to replace a male employee if they go on long term sick leave. As much as I feel for them on a personal level, sorry, but this isn't my responsibility.

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.

If this is an option, great. But as has been pointed out by PP it often isn't. I don't mind trying to accommodate a valued female employee, but if it's too much hassle, I shouldn't be held over a barrel.

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.

Be that as it may, I still shouldn't be forced to keep the position open for a year.

And 'humankind survived quite well'. Did it?

I replied to a poster who claimed making it difficult for women to have babies will result in their being a dearth of eligible employees some years down the line. I pointed out that history tells us otherwise.

And as I've previously written clearly and at length, I have no problem with government supporting women during and after pregnancy, to help them overcome this natural hurdle.

But this should be a collective burden, not one shouldered by individual employers by luck of the draw.

No. You keep doing this but you're just as wrong now as the first time you did this.
No. I'll say it again: you make a false distinction between your opinion on women as individuals and your opinion on women and their rights as a group. Your thinking is— I was going to say 'wrong', but actually maybe it's deliberately tortuous, and self-serving.

If this is an option, great. But as has been pointed out by PP it often isn't… I shouldn't be held over a barrel…Be that as it may, I still shouldn't be forced to keep the position open for a year.

I would refer back to PearPickingPorkys post from Thu 13-Jan-22 17:46:44 for a clear-eyed business-savvy response to these points.

I replied to a poster who claimed making it difficult for women to have babies will result in their being a dearth of eligible employees some years down the line. I pointed out that history tells us otherwise.
a) for a long time work has been dominated by men. There are screeds written and discussed regarding the negative effects of this.
b) the population is generally ageing.

Most businesses in the UK are small. While I do think pregnant women should be supported, how would you like to be running a small business when half your staff is off on maternity leave? I've seen several businesses fail because of this. Sadly, this just means that many small businesses will avoid recruiting women of childbearing age. Which helps no one.

No. I'll say it again: you make a false distinction between your opinion on women as individuals and your opinion on women and their rights as a group. Your thinking is— I was going to say 'wrong', but actually maybe it's deliberately tortuous, and self-serving.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

FTR:
I am very much opposed to anti-business laws, especially those that make the employer responsible for far more than should be within the remit of employer-employee relationship.

If women need to be supported, it should be the government doing that.

Employers shouldn't be held responsible for personal choices of employees. This doesn't mean they don't see employees as human beings.

Employers are human beings.

I don't think highly or lowly of women as a group. I only care about individuals based on their actions, and my interactions with them.

I am very much opposed to anti-business laws, especially those that make the employer responsible for far more than should be within the remit of employer-employee relationship.
Yes, I get that loud and clear. Although I find the phrase 'anti-business laws', like much of your language, rather revealing. And seeing as the UK has had successive governments who prioritise business and productivity etc, I do wonder how anti-business' the laws really are, that they haven't been changed.

Employers are human beings. Some of whom will also need to go on leave for maternity/illness etc. I wonder how they'd respond to attitudes such as yours.

I don't think highly or lowly of women as a group. I only care about individuals based on their actions, and my interactions with them.
So you keep saying, but it's a hollow distinction puffed up by hot air. You wish for women to find it harder to get into/stay in employment. It's that simple.

@Isonthecase

It's an interesting point but I think brushing it under the carpet that it is an issue doesn't solve any problems as the discrimination will still go on (I've faced it myself). I'm not sure on the solution but reckon it's more along the lines of a big push to flexibility and sabbatical type options for everyone so it's not uniquely a concern for women of childbearing age that are a risk and the thinking of how to deal with career breaks is more baked in all round. Plus it could give a marked improvement to quality of life for employees in general. Pretending it's not sometimes catastrophic for a small business to need to cover maternity leave just makes the discrimination more subtle.

I absolutely think women should be able to move jobs when pregnant, but most small businesses operate on a knife edge as it is, so it needs a centralised approach, so the businesses and the workers are protected and supported.

It's a sensible thing to pump money into - we need small businesses to grow, we need women (+ anyone with caring responsibilities to stay in the workplace). Although given the lack of tax breaks on childcare I'm not holding out hope.

I also think the problem is bigger than that, UK hours are long, but productivity is low. A proper overall to reduce hours and improve productivity would also make staying in the workplace easier to manage.

Although, one other thing I would like to see is standard maternity leave to move back to 6 months. A year is very hard for small teams to handle, it was 6 months until recently.

@Luredbyapomegranate

Although, one other thing I would like to see is standard maternity leave to move back to 6 months. A year is very hard for small teams to handle, it was 6 months until recently.

Maybe changes like the ones you describe would mean this didn't need to happen.

The UK issue with hours and productivity certainly does need addressing, I agree.

@IntermittentParps

I am very much opposed to anti-business laws, especially those that make the employer responsible for far more than should be within the remit of employer-employee relationship. Yes, I get that loud and clear. Although I find the phrase 'anti-business laws', like much of your language, rather revealing. And seeing as the UK has had successive governments who prioritise business and productivity etc, I do wonder how anti-business' the laws really are, that they haven't been changed.

Employers are human beings. Some of whom will also need to go on leave for maternity/illness etc. I wonder how they'd respond to attitudes such as yours.

I don't think highly or lowly of women as a group. I only care about individuals based on their actions, and my interactions with them.
So you keep saying, but it's a hollow distinction puffed up by hot air. You wish for women to find it harder to get into/stay in employment. It's that simple.

Your insistence on making this a broader issue and one of making things harder for women in general is bizarre. Previously I've given you a very plausible scenario, which I'll quote in short.

*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. I 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'.*

This. Nothing more. No broader issue. No wish to keep women down or make things difficult. I'd happily employ women who want to work, but I'd replace them if they miss work for a year. Same as I'd do with a male employee.

To make it anything more than that is at best a ridiculous leap.

Nobody owes you not having children (which in effect is what you want).

What are you on? I have no problem with anyone having babies. I just don't want to hobble my business because of it. If you go off to have a baby, I should be able to find a replacement. Simple as that.

Bellatricks, I responded to your 'I'm an employer and my female employee lets me know she'll be leaving in three months to have a baby.' scenario in my post of Mon 24-Jan-22 16:50:04

Your partial response was that getting someone in temporarily might be 'too much hassle'. But you didn't really address the idea that the specific scenarios I suggested could be good for your business.

And your response to my suggestion that if taking on someone else 'hobbles your business' is all about your business was just 'Be that as it may'
And you still talk about 'keeping the position open for a year', when the scenarios I suggest (and others have suggested) are precisely designed so you DON'T have to do so.

If you genuinely don't see that you have a broader issue or a problem with women in the workplace, you are not thinking properly.
However, I tend to think that you do understand and are being deliberately obtuse.
If you would replace women if they 'missed work' for a year (my quotes; it's not missing work, it's a right), then you are discouraging all women of childbearing age from applying to work for your business. And any business. Which is the definition of a broader issue.
That being the same as you'd do with a male employee is a red herring (again, I think you know this) because ML is needed for women specifically, because of a fact of biology.

*Your partial response was that getting someone in temporarily might be 'too much hassle'. But you didn't really address the idea that the specific scenarios I suggested could be good for your business.

And your response to my suggestion that if taking on someone else 'hobbles your business' is all about your business was just 'Be that as it may'
And you still talk about 'keeping the position open for a year', when the scenarios I suggest (and others have suggested) are precisely designed so you DON'T have to do so.*

That's because we keep going round in circles, where you give unsolicited advice about how to patch a p[problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.

For me it's so mind-blowingly simple, I just don't get how someone could argue otherwise - unless they're consciously or sub-consciously malicious.

You (the abstract you, not you personally) work for me, we have a business relationship. The second you stop working, so does our relationship. It matters not one bit whether you left to have a baby, to sunbathe in the Bahamas or indeed to cure cancer. All of these are your personal choices, and have nothing to do with me.

It's as simple as that. If you don't come in to work, I don't owe you anything. Nothing more or less. I don't need advice on how to manage for six months or a year without you, nor do I need judgement on how viable my business is or how good of a manager I am.

All this is relevant. Our only connection, in context of employment, is work for pay. That's it. When that stops, so does the connection and any obligations.

What am I supposed to support someone for life because they did a stint for me in '98?

I mean let's say you want to cure cancer, but you need an assurance that I'll give you back your old job after a year. Still not my problem. I might decide to do it altruistically, for the sake of mankind. Or I might not. There is no moral obligation on me to support your decisions.

No broader issues. Not my problem how women will have kids. Not my problem of who will do work in 20 years if women don't have kids. All of these are societal issues, and it's up to society's leaders to fix them. Nothing to do with me as a shopkeeper who needs a shelf-stacker or whatever.

To pretend this shows I have a problem with women in general is ludicrous. I just do not want to be beholden to anyone's personal choices.

Except that’s not the law. Get a grip of how things are, rather than how you feel they ought to be.

My entire argument on this thread was how things ought to be. I'm talking about the moral argument for maternity leave laws, or rather the lack thereof. What I'm saying is the law is unfair and immoral.

I would argue it's more immoral to leave a women at risk of loosing her job due to her sex. It's pure discrimination, women are the only ones able to have babies. Women also need to work, we don't live in a society where it's possible for many women to stay at home and care for children even if they wanted to, the cost of living is too high, that aside, their career aspirations are also as important as any man's. Your views are very old fashioned and don't reflect the reality of the world we live in.

how to patch a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.
It's not 'patching' to have structures/procedures/ideas for how to manage changes and fluctuations in staff availability. It's part of running a business.
And there isn't a moral argument for what you want. Because you want to disadvantage a whole set of people because of a characteristic of theirs.

All of these are societal issues, and it's up to society's leaders to fix them. Nothing to do with me as a shopkeeper who needs a shelf-stacker or whatever.

I'm enjoying lurking on this thread, but this is completely illogical. 1. As a shopkeeper, you are part of society, and individuals who make up society contribute to that society - societal issues are very much your business as an individual (and most small business owners I know work really hard at working within their communities, for local charities etc.). 2. "Society's leaders" have fixed the issue - by providing laws that protect ML. If you don't like them, vote for someone else by exercising your right as, you know, a member of society.

It's a particular bugbear of mine when an individual says that changing or fixing an issue is up to someone else - it's up to all of us, and you shouldn't complain about it if you don't try to do your bit, regardless of what angle you approach it from (abolishing ML in your instance).

@IntermittentParps

how to patch a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. It's not 'patching' to have structures/procedures/ideas for how to manage changes and fluctuations in staff availability. It's part of running a business. And there isn't a moral argument for what you want. Because you want to disadvantage a whole set of people because of a characteristic of theirs.

And round we go again, with the same malicious lie.

'I' don't want to disadvantage anyone. Nature has saddled (or endowed) woman with the unique ability to give birth, which in turn hobbles them in context of a career. T'wasn't me who designed them that way.

What I want, or rather don't want, is to have to shoulder the burden of reverse discrimination to correct for anyone's career taking a hit.

There is no moral argument for telling any specific individual, that just because they hired a woman, they must now support her through pregnancy and birth.

@AvocadoParsnip

All of these are societal issues, and it's up to society's leaders to fix them. Nothing to do with me as a shopkeeper who needs a shelf-stacker or whatever.

I'm enjoying lurking on this thread, but this is completely illogical. 1. As a shopkeeper, you are part of society, and individuals who make up society contribute to that society - societal issues are very much your business as an individual (and most small business owners I know work really hard at working within their communities, for local charities etc.). 2. "Society's leaders" have fixed the issue - by providing laws that protect ML. If you don't like them, vote for someone else by exercising your right as, you know, a member of society.

It's a particular bugbear of mine when an individual says that changing or fixing an issue is up to someone else - it's up to all of us, and you shouldn't complain about it if you don't try to do your bit, regardless of what angle you approach it from (abolishing ML in your instance).

1. The point I keep making is that a societal burden should be shared equally by all of society. It is unfair and immoral that my friend who hired a man can now hire a replacement when said employee left for a year to cure cancer, while I can't do the same when my female employee left for a year to have a baby.

It is no more the responsibility of the employer who hired the female employee, than it is the responsibility of the rest of society.

I am not expected to pay extra because my employee isn't earning enough for rent - we have housing benefit for that. As do we with every other social issue.

The only exceptions are employers, who are seen as fair game, and are lumped with an unfair share of the burden.

1. It is bordering on the impossible when there are far more employees than employers (not to mention about 50% of population are women), and nobody likes being told their free ride is up. These laws might have passed the democracy test, but they most certainly don't pass the moral test. They are akin to all the neighbours voting to rob one resident. Democratic, perhaps, but also deeply immoral.

These laws might have passed the democracy test, but they most certainly don't pass the moral test. They are akin to all the neighbours voting to rob one resident
Really not following the neighbour thing here.

'I' don't want to disadvantage anyone. Nature has saddled (or endowed) woman with the unique ability to give birth, which in turn hobbles them in context of a career. T'wasn't me who designed them that way.
You not designing women that way doesn't automatically mean you can't personally have an issue with them. I know you don't like to hear that you DO have an issue with women, but, although you persistently pretend not to understand the thinking, if you would like to not give women ML, and if you would prefer to recruit a man over an equally suitable woman of childbearing age, you DO have an issue. Plus you perpetuate the issue for all women.

The unique ability to give birth only hobbles women's careers when/if employers/society (being the same thing) make it so. What we have done instead is decided – legally AND morally – to support rather than punish women for this.

I don't think you ever responded to my point about how morality and the law intersect. But that is one of the cruxes of this issue.
Your insistence on splitting morality and legality is false and self-serving and just doesn't make sense.
And morality is bound up with individuals and their relationships with each other, yes; but also with society, which includes you and all other employers and their employment activities.

Your argument simply doesn't work.