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

@KimikosNightmare

it isn't legally enforceable for men to take it

Seriously? You think men should be forced to take paternal leave? Do you think women should be forced to?

I think we should have a 'use it or lose it' policy. It should be standard practice that parental leave is shared between both parents. Until this is the norm we won't see anything close to equality for women in the work place.

@KimikosNightmare

or accept that it is totally normal to offer temp cover roles with the proviso that they may be just that – temporary

I Iove the way this gets trotted out as a cure all for any problems a business might face.

It is not "totally normal".

In many, many sectors it is perfectly normal.

@KimikosNightmare

or accept that it is totally normal to offer temp cover roles with the proviso that they may be just that – temporary

I Iove the way this gets trotted out as a cure all for any problems a business might face.

It is not "totally normal".

I've seen so many job ads along these lines over the years. I don't know where you're looking. I've taken temp ML jobs myself.

@ShirleyPhallus

So how is it suddenly a misogynistic decision just because A happens to be a woman of childbearing age?

Is this a joke @BellatricksStrange? That’s literally almost the definition of misogyny - a sexist decision that keeps women in a lower pecking order

My point is the decision not to hire a high-risk (of missing work) candidate isn't motivated by misogyny. And it certainly has no deeper meaning of 'keeping women in a lower pecking order'.

It's simple maths, if the employer can get more productivity per £ spent from one candidate, that's the one they're going to hire. The gender, race, age or any other arbitrary marker is irrelevant.

In terms of the why do we need a diverse workforce the jobs can simply be done by men, there are reams of studies that prove the impact of non diversity (of all kinds) in the workplace.

There aren't really any. At most there are some studies done on large corporations, demonstrating correlation - which we all know isn't the same as causation. And those studies show that racial diversity is the most important, so it would be more beneficial for an employer to hire a black man than a white woman!

Is there any way you can logically explain why my local Indian takeaway, or MOT test centre would benefit from a more gender-balanced workforce?

I take it you havent read invisible women then @bellatricksstrange, if you think these studies dont exist

But you know what you are right, I cant point you to a single study that says an mot centre needs a diverse workforce. But I would absolutely love to see one done, as the majority of mot testers are male so I would love to find it if unconsious bias makes them more likely to find issues with a womans car than a mans. That would be a very interesting study.

Given women are more likely to die if their surgeon is male, you are wrong in thinking sex diversity is unnecessary.

My point is the decision not to hire a high-risk (of missing work) candidate isn't motivated by misogyny. And it certainly has no deeper meaning of 'keeping women in a lower pecking order'.

Motivation is irrelevant when it comes to sex discrimination.

Ironically that sexism also affects women who have no plans to get pregnant too. And as for "but that would be discrimination" yes, it would, but try proving it.

Of course this happens. It wouldn't make sense for it not to happen. What I believe would be the best solution, which would both be fair to employers (humans like you and me), and wouldn't cause discriminatory hiring practices, would be a fundamental change to ML.

Ideally, when a pregnant woman takes off to have a baby, the government should pay their mat payment directly - much like every other benefit is paid. That would take the burden of payroll costs off the employer.

Additionally, it should be entirely her employer's choice whether to keep her on. In that way, employees who truly are worth enough for the company to keep on would get the same benefits as they currently do. And even when it truly isn't worth it for the employer not to try and fill the vacancy, at least (in theory) they wouldn't hesitate to hire them in the first place.

At the very least people who are not actually in work (this goes for sick leave too) should not accrue holiday pay. That should be solely a reward for doing actual work.

Additionally, it should be entirely her employer's choice whether to keep her on. In that way, employees who truly are worth enough for the company to keep on would get the same benefits as they currently do. And even when it truly isn't worth it for the employer not to try and fill the vacancy, at least (in theory) they wouldn't hesitate to hire them in the first place.
Jesus. What a terrible idea.
You really think women who have children don't deserve to work do you?

There is no way this would do anything except disadvantage women.

@spinsforgin oh no, she doesnt just think women with children shouldnt work, she thinks any women pre menopause shouldnt work. I would love to see the state of care homes, nursing, teaching etc then. You know those areas usually full of 18-45 year old women and currently struggling with recruitment. I'm sure men will be queuing up round the block for the job if you just got those pesky working womb people out of the way

Some employers are bad employers, that poster is clearly a shit one!

wouldn't cause discriminatory hiring practices

Additionally, it should be entirely her employer's choice whether to keep her on

Because thats not discriminatory at all, to have to go through a defined process to get rid of a man, but to be able to get rid of a woman on a whim if she gets pregnant.

I really feel like you dont understand discrimination here.

[quote Toomanyradishes]@spinsforgin oh no, she doesnt just think women with children shouldnt work, she thinks any women pre menopause shouldnt work. I would love to see the state of care homes, nursing, teaching etc then. You know those areas usually full of 18-45 year old women and currently struggling with recruitment. I'm sure men will be queuing up round the block for the job if you just got those pesky working womb people out of the way

Some employers are bad employers, that poster is clearly a shit one![/quote]
Exactly!

If we took women of childbearing age out of the labour market then society would be in serious trouble.

My point is the decision not to hire a high-risk (of missing work) candidate isn't motivated by misogyny. And it certainly has no deeper meaning of 'keeping women in a lower pecking order'.

@BellatricksStrange feel like I’m banging my head against a wall. The reason why these women will be missing work is because they are women and women who are having children

It’s a totally misogynistic viewpoint

If we took women of childbearing age out of the labour market then society would be in serious trouble.

And lets face it we wouldnt just be taking women of childbearing age out of the equation, because employers wouldnt exactly be falling over themselves to hire 50 year old women with zero work experience. We are talking about taking women out of the equation full stop. In the uk at least our society has never existed without at least some of tge female population working. It would cease to function without female workers. Its a ludicrous viewpoint.

@Toomanyradishes

wouldn't cause discriminatory hiring practices

Additionally, it should be entirely her employer's choice whether to keep her on

Because thats not discriminatory at all, to have to go through a defined process to get rid of a man, but to be able to get rid of a woman on a whim if she gets pregnant.

I really feel like you dont understand discrimination here.

An employer should be able to get rid of anyone if they don't turn up for extended periods of time. Male or female, for whatever reason.

The employer-employee relationship is one of work for pay/job (or pay/job for work, depending on your POV). When there is no work, there is no job.

Women with children have as much 'right to work' as anyone else. Meaning they have to appeal enough to potential employers to be offered a job.

There is no misogyny or discrimination in telling an employee if they don't come to work for an extended period, they lose their job. In fact, why should pregnancy carry special privileges that no other project does?

Ideally, when a pregnant woman takes off to have a baby, the government should pay their mat payment directly - much like every other benefit is paid. That would take the burden of payroll costs off the employer. I agree, I've said this several times.

Additionally, it should be entirely her employer's choice whether to keep her on. In that way, employees who truly are worth enough for the company to keep on would get the same benefits as they currently do. And even when it truly isn't worth it for the employer not to try and fill the vacancy, at least (in theory) they wouldn't hesitate to hire them in the first place. I don't understand this. Are you suggesting women on maternity leave should be laid off as a rule?

@ShirleyPhallus

My point is the decision not to hire a high-risk (of missing work) candidate isn't motivated by misogyny. And it certainly has no deeper meaning of 'keeping women in a lower pecking order'.

@BellatricksStrange feel like I’m banging my head against a wall. The reason why these women will be missing work is because they are women and women who are having children

It’s a totally misogynistic viewpoint

Misogyny is "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women". There is none of that in a simple decision not to hire people who will likely miss work.

And the reason they will be missing work is because they made a personal choice to have a child, and this is what having a child entails. It has nothing to do with their womanhood, but with a particular personal choice that happens to be only women can make.

why should pregnancy carry special privileges that no other project does
You've suggested the government pay maternity pay, so what would be the point of laying off women on maternity?
Do you think all people on long term sick should be laid off also? It's a very harsh and short-termist view.

I don't understand this. Are you suggesting women on maternity leave should be laid off as a rule?

What I'm saying is it should be the employer's choice. There shouldn't be an expectation of the position remaining vacant/temped until if and when she returns. If she's truly an asset to the employer, they will do it of their own accord.

It has nothing to do with their womanhood, but with a particular personal choice that happens to be only women can make.
Well that isn't true, it takes two to tango. If a man makes a personal choice to have a child he isn't treated in the same way you suggest.

@FlyingOink

why should pregnancy carry special privileges that no other project does You've suggested the government pay maternity pay, so what would be the point of laying off women on maternity? Do you think all people on long term sick should be laid off also? It's a very harsh and short-termist view.

See my most recent post. What I'm saying is that if someone doesn't come to work for a long time, for whatever reason, the employer should be allowed to let them go and seek alternatives.

@FlyingOink

It has nothing to do with their womanhood, but with a particular personal choice that happens to be only women can make. Well that isn't true, it takes two to tango. If a man makes a personal choice to have a child he isn't treated in the same way you suggest.

Because it's not about actually having a child, but missing work due to it. While the father only usually misses a day or two, the mother misses up to a year.

@BellatricksStrange

I don't understand this. Are you suggesting women on maternity leave should be laid off as a rule?

What I'm saying is it should be the employer's choice. There shouldn't be an expectation of the position remaining vacant/temped until if and when she returns. If she's truly an asset to the employer, they will do it of their own accord.

So she's lost her job - so where does the maternity pay come from? Government paid or company paid, she's effectively unemployed now. And will be out of pocket as soon as the mat pay runs out.

Women would be coerced into taking less leave. Look at the US - not something to emulate.

Because it's not about actually having a child, but missing work due to it. While the father only usually misses a day or two, the mother misses up to a year.
Why do you think that is?

It has nothing to do with their womanhood, but with a particular personal choice that happens to be only women can make.

Couples can make a choice to have a baby. Couples can make a choice to have shared parental leave. Its just in your case only one of them gets to go back to a job at the end of it.

You know what, i have no skin in the game here. I cant have kids, I get riled up on the annual threads about how childless people should always work christmas, I am more irritated that the standard adoption policy is usually in place in most companies even when they have enhanced maternity. But your views really are abhorrent and I am so glad I dont work for you, or anyone like you, and thst laws protect me from the views of people like you.