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

BellatricksStrange you clearly are a misogynist. The more you write the more that clearly comes across.

You're also not coming across as very bright. Can you really not understand why there are employment laws in place to protect employees for being sacked on a whim?

Laws around maternity leave are required because women as a group are routinely discriminated against due to the fact that only women can get pregnant. When a couple choose to have a child it disproportionately disadvantages the female partner. It's important we have laws which at least try to address this disadvantage.

Your transactional view of employment ignores the fact that employees are people not robots.

When I was pregnant I suffered from severe morning sickness and was hospitalised a number of times. By your logic I probably shouldn't have had a job to return to but thankfully I did and as a result I've given over 15 years of my career to my organisation and have made my department a significant amount of money. I'm a university academic which isn't known for being the most female friendly but at least they don't hold your views!

@Toomanyradishes

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.

Agreed.

And no thought given to physical recovery after pregnancy and childbirth either.

@FlyingOink

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?

That's biology, not sociliogy.

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.

Mat pay to be paid by the government, and when it runs out, she can then find a job. Just like any other person who's unemployed.

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 this this is?

Mat pay to be paid by the government, and when it runs out, she can then find a job. Just like any other person who's unemployed.

You genuinely can't be for real. Nobody is this stupid surely? I'm calling troll.

Ive reached that conclusion too @spinsforgin no one can be this stupid, they clearly are just having fun in their twisted way

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.

Sorry but you are a misogynist. Your contempt for women who choose to have children shines through. You might dress it up as purely a 'not available for work' issue but that's just a smokescreen as nothing you say takes into account that children also have a dad. It's all aimed at women.
It's obvious that you think women who have children don't deserve jobs.

@Toomanyradishes

Ive reached that conclusion too *@spinsforgin* no one can be this stupid, they clearly are just having fun in their twisted way

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond!!

It's an area I research and write about and its very close to my heart so I always get dragged in!

Yeah I also think no one can be this wilfully ignorant, stupid and spiteful to half the population 🤷‍♀️

That's biology, not sociliogy.

That didn't answer the question

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

And in many sectors it isn't. Your anecdote doesn't trump mine. I haven't seen a temporary maternity cover in my particular sector for over 20 years- and even then it was at secretarial level- not professionally qualified.

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

Are you seriously dictating that parents should have no say in how much or which one should take leave?

How does this work for mothers for whatever reason don't want contact with the father?.

@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

And in many sectors it isn't. Your anecdote doesn't trump mine. I haven't seen a temporary maternity cover in my particular sector for over 20 years- and even then it was at secretarial level- not professionally qualified.

It's my job to research and analyse the labour market so it's not anecdotal. It's actual data.

Your anecdotal experience doesn't negate years and years of analysing this data!

@KimikosNightmare

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

Are you seriously dictating that parents should have no say in how much or which one should take leave?

How does this work for mothers for whatever reason don't want contact with the father?.

Well, the current system isn't working is it? Less than 2% of couples use shared parental leave. We need a different approach.

What would you suggest?

I had a significant promotion (40% payrise on an already decent salary) when I was on my last mat leave.

I'd been with the company eight years (worked for six, mat leave for two) and now they've had three years at the new grade out of me. If I stay until I retire at 60, they'll have had me working for 28 out of 30 years. We're not going off every other year for 20 years!

Part of me hoped my second child was twins, as I wanted three kids but couldn't justify the financial cost and potential hit to my career of three mat leaves. I was still paying off my first mat leave overspend when I started my second leave my choice to take the full year both times.

I think the insight from a PP around being the higher earner but expecting to take the flexibility hit as the mother is interesting. Our set up is a bit like that as I work locally and have significant autonomy and a good team supporting me. His job is further away and is a key-worker role with zero flexibility, so I often have to step up. He has relatively young but retired parents who live nearby so they often step up when I can't.

It's really certain types of work where this becomes problematic.

Small businesses, maybe, but not if it's say, a clerk or even a secretary. Those positions are relatively easy to fill in many labour markets. Or very large organizations like the civil service or military have enough experts and staff to move people around in many cases.

Where it really gets sticky is where there is a combination of very specific or hard to find skills, or people in roles where you can't just swap them out, or people who have developed relationships with people that can't just be replaced.

If someone is in a position supporting vulnerable kids, for example, it's not just a difficulty for the business if they are swapped. It makes a material difference to the life of that kid. My husband's job at one time was a fly in position which he shared with one other guy, they swapped out six months each a year. And it took about three months to train anyone new. He didn't take paternity leave when he was working in that job.

We have good paternity leave here and in general people are very supportive of it. But it tends to be taken most in the same kinds of industries that are already appealing to women because they can offer good leave and coverage, often have better hours, and so on.

@SpinsForGin

Mat pay to be paid by the government, and when it runs out, she can then find a job. Just like any other person who's unemployed.

You genuinely can't be for real. Nobody is this stupid surely? I'm calling troll.

I am not for this, but it's an interesting idea, a useful thought experiment maybe.

If women who wanted a maternity leave had to agree with the employer about returning, I suspect in many jobs they would want the person to return if they were any good. Especially if the maternity leave pay wasn't their responsibility.

It would be interesting to see which sectors tended to do that and which didn't.

@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

And in many sectors it isn't. Your anecdote doesn't trump mine. I haven't seen a temporary maternity cover in my particular sector for over 20 years- and even then it was at secretarial level- not professionally qualified.

Yeah, there are some jobs where there are a lot of people who are available for temporary work. Like teaching. Maybe even things like medical doctors, locums can fill in.

In other jobs you can't just hire someone temporarily to take over an individual's work. People qualified in those jobs are not waiting around looking for a short term position .

If women who wanted a maternity leave had to agree with the employer about returning, I suspect in many jobs they would want the person to return if they were any good. Especially if the maternity leave pay wasn't their responsibility.

It would be interesting to see which sectors tended to do that and which didn't.

I can only see this further disadvantaging women in the labour market. We might see pockets of good practice but on the whole this would not be a positive step. We already know that many women are discriminated against in the workplace when pregnant and that's with legal protection. Removing that would have no benefit for women.

@SpinsForGin

If women who wanted a maternity leave had to agree with the employer about returning, I suspect in many jobs they would want the person to return if they were any good. Especially if the maternity leave pay wasn't their responsibility.

It would be interesting to see which sectors tended to do that and which didn't.

I can only see this further disadvantaging women in the labour market. We might see pockets of good practice but on the whole this would not be a positive step. We already know that many women are discriminated against in the workplace when pregnant and that's with legal protection. Removing that would have no benefit for women.

No, I don't think it would advantage them. I think it would be bad for kids too.

But companies need employees, and under current practices I don't think many can avoid hiring women and would want to maintain their investment in them as employees. Where that is less likely is where there are many interchangeable workers available.

YABVU, for a company to have to train someone for them to then take a year off is a pisstake. A small company anyway.

If we are talking multi national companies that's different but I'm sick of people acting as if having children is a god given right and entitlement. No one forced someone to have a baby and certainly not switch jobs during the process.

Parents seem to think their needs trump everyone else's.

companies need employees, and under current practices I don't think many can avoid hiring women
Of course they can. Except if it's part time minimum wage work, then employers may find (depending on the local job market) that they have to hire some.
Have you ever been to an interview for a competitive job where there were no male candidates? I haven't. Companies could hire men every single time if they wanted to. In fact I'm sure I read if you're the only female candidate the statistical likelihood of you being offered the job is practically zero.

@bagheaven

YABVU, for a company to have to train someone for them to then take a year off is a pisstake. A small company anyway.

If we are talking multi national companies that's different but I'm sick of people acting as if having children is a god given right and entitlement. No one forced someone to have a baby and certainly not switch jobs during the process.

Parents seem to think their needs trump everyone else's.

So you think sex discrimination is okay? Is it only women who decide to have babies? Are men not involved in the process at all?

@bagheaven

YABVU, for a company to have to train someone for them to then take a year off is a pisstake. A small company anyway.

If we are talking multi national companies that's different but I'm sick of people acting as if having children is a god given right and entitlement. No one forced someone to have a baby and certainly not switch jobs during the process.

Parents seem to think their needs trump everyone else's.

Yeah the problem is an employer can't scan a woman's brain to find out if she's likely to have kids, so they just avoid hiring women. So unless you're very obviously too old to have children you'll find yourself equally disadvantaged by employers.

Also plenty of women are forced to have babies, it's naïve of you to assume all is sweetness and light in the world of baby-making.

Youranecdotal experience doesn't negate years and years of analysing this data!

It still doesn't erode my 35 years working experience.