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

Oh and btw at the end of last year we offered a senior post to someone who told us during her second interview that she was unexpectedly pregnant. And no of course we didn't ask - she thought it was fair to tell us. But of course that probably never happens either according to you.

Why would I say that never happens. Of course it happens .......

it's not stereotypes though it's reality. The reason I know this is because I once posted on this very forum to explain I want 50/50 parenting if I decide to have kids and the thread went down like a lead balloon with me being told I am not fit to be a parent basically for purely wanting a 50/59 parenting structure!

. Someone must have made those comments? I assume these are the same people (women too) integrated within society.

That's strange because I've read numerous threads where that is actively encouraged!!
MN is hardly representative of society as whole though is it?
I'll stick to using actual research to inform my opinions.

@Toomanyradishes

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

Oh yes, the minute someone disagrees with the orthodoxy and makes their case coherently, they're either stupid or a troll. Is that your best counterargument?

@SpinsForGin

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.

What a load of cow's bollocks. I have nothing against women and do not think they are any less or more worthy than men. What I am against is the ridiculous anti-employer culture, whereby once you employ someone, you become responsible for their entire well-being and every personal choice they make.

For me it's as simple as can be. When it comes to hiring, you hire the best person for the job. If that person misses work for an extended period of time, you can let them go and find another person.

It matters not one jot if it's a mother taking ML or a father taking PL. A employer-employee contract is fundamentally one that expects the employee to show up and work, and the employer to pay. If either of the two doesn't keep their end of the deal, the contract is void. This isn't a gendered issue at all.

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

Proving my point that when you are valuable to the company, they will make sure to keep you. What is ridiculous is the way we do things now, whereby businesses are obligated to keep the jobs vacant for a year or more.

It matters not one jot if it's a mother taking ML or a father taking PL. A employer-employee contract is fundamentally one that expects the employee to show up and work, and the employer to pay. If either of the two doesn't keep their end of the deal, the contract is void. This isn't a gendered issue at all.

Except that it is because only women can give birth. Why is that so difficult to understand??

The data me and my team collect and analyse is used nationally to support recruiters and career development professionals - so who knows, it might come in useful one day?

Well it hasn't been the case that temporary cover has been used for the sort of staff I need for at least the last 20 years, so I doubt it- but never mind it's keeping you in a job.

Well it hasn't been the case that temporary cover has been used for the sort of staff I need for at least the last 20 years, so I doubt it- but never mind it's keeping you in a job.

It certainly does....it's a very interesting job too. Although, it's only a small part of my job.

You can be dismissive about it if it makes you feel better but labour market information and intelligence is useful.
You talk about skills shortages and the difficulty in recruiting temporary staff and you explained how you deal with those challenges.... that's some of the information that we collate, analyse then disseminate so people can try and act upon it.

Oh yes, the minute someone disagrees with the orthodoxy and makes their case coherently, they're either stupid or a troll. Is that your best counterargument?

But you haven't made a coherent argument..... not even close! The basis of your whole argument is to essentially support sex discrimination because you appear unable to understand why women take maternity leave and should be able to return to her job after having a baby.

The suggestion that it should be perfectly reasonable for a woman to be sacked from her job for being pregnant is so ludicrous that it can't possibly be a serious suggestion.... hence my suggestion that you are a troll.

@SpinsForGin

Oh yes, the minute someone disagrees with the orthodoxy and makes their case coherently, they're either stupid or a troll. Is that your best counterargument?

But you haven't made a coherent argument..... not even close! The basis of your whole argument is to essentially support sex discrimination because you appear unable to understand why women take maternity leave and should be able to return to her job after having a baby.

The suggestion that it should be perfectly reasonable for a woman to be sacked from her job for being pregnant is so ludicrous that it can't possibly be a serious suggestion.... hence my suggestion that you are a troll.

Totally agree with this. Cannot believe someone is trying to defend themselves about sex and maternity discrimination

I'm getting serious deja vu from some of the arguments on here.
Fuck it's depressing.

Let's see how economically viable those small businesses are in 40 years when they can't get any employees because of our plummeting population.

I have said this before but it's worth repeating.

Reproducing is not only a biological imperative but an economic one. Capitalism has done a great job of convincing the masses that having a child is a frivolous exercise that benefits nobody but the parents but this simply isn't true. South Korea is now offering cash incentives for people to have kids due to their population crisis. Other developed nations are not far behind them.

As a society we need to take collective responsibility for this.

People accusing others of "putting their head in sand" regarding costs to small businesses might want to consider that actually its business that has its head in the sand by ignoring the upcoming population crisis we are going to walk into.

For me the issue is that we live in a patriarchal society where children are seen as a lifestyle choice and one that unfairly impacts women. If we were to start again from the basis that children, childcare and childbirth are an important part of a functioning society and that the labour involved is as valid as any other labour such as working in a shop or office we’d all be in a much better position!

@MoonlightApple

For me the issue is that we live in a patriarchal society where children are seen as a lifestyle choice and one that unfairly impacts women. If we were to start again from the basis that children, childcare and childbirth are an important part of a functioning society and that the labour involved is as valid as any other labour such as working in a shop or office we’d all be in a much better position!

It's not just an "important" part it is utterly critical under any form of society.

For me the issue is that we live in a patriarchal society where children are seen as a lifestyle choice and one that unfairly impacts women.

I agree with this. In addition, some people seem to believe that having children is choice made only by women and is therefore the responsibility of women.

@SpinsForGin

Well it hasn't been the case that temporary cover has been used for the sort of staff I need for at least the last 20 years, so I doubt it- but never mind it's keeping you in a job.

It certainly does....it's a very interesting job too. Although, it's only a small part of my job.

You can be dismissive about it if it makes you feel better but labour market information and intelligence is useful.
You talk about skills shortages and the difficulty in recruiting temporary staff and you explained how you deal with those challenges.... that's some of the information that we collate, analyse then disseminate so people can try and act upon it.

You don't seem terribly interested in anything which doesn't support your own personal opinion.

MissLucyEyelesbarrow's also made a post about how unrealistic the "just get maternity cover ! " cure all is.

You don't seem terribly interested in anything which doesn't support your own personal opinion.

MissLucyEyelesbarrow's also made a post about how unrealistic the "just get maternity cover ! " cure all is.

You don't seem terribly interested in reading what I'm actually writing or looking beyond your own sector.
I've said numerous times that I understand that not all sectors find it easy to find maternity cover or people to take short term contracts - that actually applies to my job. We struggle to recruit to permanent contracts because it's such a niche area never mind fixed term contracts.

I'm not disagreeing with you when you say that you find it hard to recruit to cover maternity leave.

What I have said is that that is not representative of all sectors and many, many people do find it relatively easy to cover maternity leave. That's not just my opinion - it's based on research and data as well as experience. In a previous role most people started by covering a maternity leave! It was always considered a standard way in!

@SpinsForGin

Oh yes, the minute someone disagrees with the orthodoxy and makes their case coherently, they're either stupid or a troll. Is that your best counterargument?

But you haven't made a coherent argument..... not even close! The basis of your whole argument is to essentially support sex discrimination because you appear unable to understand why women take maternity leave and should be able to return to her job after having a baby.

The suggestion that it should be perfectly reasonable for a woman to be sacked from her job for being pregnant is so ludicrous that it can't possibly be a serious suggestion.... hence my suggestion that you are a troll.

It seems to me you haven't read anything I wrote, or if you have read it, you interpreted it to mean whatever you wanted it to mean.

I'll put forth my argument as simply and as clearly as I can.

The employer-employee relationship is one of job/work for pay. That is the core basis of the contract, and any other benefits or obligations are side shows, tacked on to the fundament.

When one side doesn't honour their obligation, they are by default voiding the contract.

This means if the employer doesn't pay, the employee has no obligation to work. And vice versa, if the employee doesn't work, the employer has no obligation to continue employing them.

Seeing as we're dealing with human beings who get sick or have other emergencies, we need to have some leeway built into the contract. This is really an arbitrary number, but I'd say the maximum is one month for the employee not to turn up. If they exceed that, for whatever reason, the employer has no obligation to continue employing them. Because their relationship is one of work for pay.

To me it doesn't matter whether they miss due to being in a coma, buying a new dog, or having a baby. The entire employer-employee relationship is predicated on the employee being available to do the work. Without that, there is no employer-employee relationship, hence no job. It's not even that the employer is laying off the employee. On the contrary, the employee is de facto quitting by not showing up.

In a separate issue, since having babies is beneficial, nay crucial, to society, the government should cover the cost of a mother leaving work to have a baby. IOW, what we call mat pay, paid directly to the mother.

In practical terms, what would happen if this were the law, is that women who'd want to have a baby (personal choice), would be financially protected for the first 6-12 months due to gov mat pay. Afterwards, either they were so valuable that their old company would offer them their job back, or they'd look for a new job. No different than say if they took a sabbatical to join a Tibetan monastery.

You're entitled to leave work to do your own thing, but you can't dictate the terms for the company. They are just as entitled to find a new employee.

Now would it mean that woman would have to make a choice between having a child or potentially quitting their job? Yes, but so what? Why should anyone have the right to have children at the cost of a stranger who happened to employ them at some point?

People make many choices in life. You often have people sacrificing money for spiritual fulfillment. This is a personal choice, as is sacrificing a steady job in order to have a baby.

There is nothing sexist or misogynistic in this idea. It's simply a specific choice that only woman can make. But it's still their own choice.

There is nothing sexist or misogynistic in this idea. It's simply a specific choice that only woman can make. But it's still their own choice.

It IS sexist to discriminate against one sex by not allowing them back to their jobs because of a biological function unique to them.
As for choice, it's been done to death, but do men not get involved in the choice to have children?

BellatricksStrange have you ever actually had a job?
You seem to be ignoring a few important facts.
It's pretty standard for maternity benefits to be written into an employees contract (as is sick pay) so there is no breach of contract when someone goes on maternity leave.
Some organisations also have policies on sabbaticals (paid and unpaid), career development, volunteering etc.

Most organisations see the benefit of investing in and supporting their employees which is why the offer benefits - they want to attract the best! This includes enhanced maternity benefits.

The whole premise of your argument is based on sex discrimination. At no point are you acknowledging that it takes two people to make a baby. You talk about women choosing to have babies - are they doing this on their own?? You suggest that women should choose between children and having a job - what about those households that rely on two incomes? Do they not deserve to have children? You seem to think it's fair that women should be disadvantaged purely due to biology. I find this attitude disgusting.

You claim not to hate women but I fail to see how these ideas can come from someone who likes or has any respect for women.

@SpinsForGin

You don't seem terribly interested in anything which doesn't support your own personal opinion.

MissLucyEyelesbarrow's also made a post about how unrealistic the "just get maternity cover ! " cure all is.

You don't seem terribly interested in reading what I'm actually writing or looking beyond your own sector.
I've said numerous times that I understand that not all sectors find it easy to find maternity cover or people to take short term contracts - that actually applies to my job. We struggle to recruit to permanent contracts because it's such a niche area never mind fixed term contracts.

I'm not disagreeing with you when you say that you find it hard to recruit to cover maternity leave.

What I have said is that that is not representative of all sectors and many, many people do find it relatively easy to cover maternity leave. That's not just my opinion - it's based on research and data as well as experience. In a previous role most people started by covering a maternity leave! It was always considered a standard way in!

Oh I have been reading and re- reading your posts. For some- one's whose job is analysis of data there's quite a lot of backtracking going on in your last couple of posts.

You started by saying

In many, many sectors it is perfectly normal

You airily dismissed my many years of experience as irrelevant.

I guess I can stop collating and analysing labour market information for the whole of the uk covering every sector because of one persons experience of one sector. I'll tell my team to step down ......
(You and your team clearly didn't cover "every sector" given you seem to have missed out mine)

You added in a later post
I've never said that it wasn't difficult and challenging for some sectors

whereas you'd said nothing of the kind on this thread- quite the opposite.

There is nothing sexist or misogynistic in this idea. It's simply a specific choice that only woman can make. But it's still their own choice.

It's the very definition of sex discrimination.

Are women making babies by themselves? Have I misunderstood how babies are made?

@BellatricksStrange

Now would it mean that woman would have to make a choice between having a child or potentially quitting their job? Yes, but so what? Why should anyone have the right to have children at the cost of a stranger who happened to employ them at some point?

People make many choices in life. You often have people sacrificing money for spiritual fulfillment. This is a personal choice, as is sacrificing a steady job in order to have a baby.

There is nothing sexist or misogynistic in this idea. It's simply a specific choice that only woman can make. But it's still their own choice.

This proposal is honestly nuts and deeply rooted in misogyny. Your proposal is for women to cease employment at the employer’s choice at the end of their mat leave.

What this means in real terms is that if a woman has a year off, and is the same age as a man, a man then has one more year’s work experience than the woman. If it came to replacing the woman at the end of the mat period, a business is more likely to go for a man who has more work experience. So then it becomes a cycle of men getting more work experience > more senior roles > women not getting them > advancing at the same rate > gender gap widens.

You’re also massively missing two practical elements:

1. Cost of morale to a company: the general staff morale is going to take a massive dip if people think they cannot take a month off or be fired. Imagine the situation of someone signed off work for a month with stress, knowing they’ll be fired because of having that month off. Or if someone had cancer and was off for that time, knowing they have no job to return to and things like private medical insurance provided by the company will cease.
2. The practicalities of returning to work after mat leave: I don’t know if you have actually had a mat leave but those initial weeks after returning to work are a head spin of getting your work brain switched back on and the emotional upheaval of leaving your baby, not to mention the practicalities of juggling childcare etc. It is utterly unfair on women to expect them to apply for new roles in their mat leave and then be so pressured to perform in the way a new employee is. It puts strain and pressure on the whole family, and if a woman isn’t at her absolute best it widens the gap further. Whereas guaranteeing her previous role means there is a bit of leeway built up from previous proof of performance

Ultimately you’re arguing for women to be dismissed just for having babies, and until men can have babies, then all this falls to women

Can’t you see how it disadvantages women long term?