I give you this example, from mx, in an earlier thread:
This is hardly an isolated occurrence. Ask any practically childfree professional woman and she'll probably tell you she's experienced something like this. Feminism isn't addressing issues like these though.
Feminism isn't addressing instances where the issue is parents vs. nonparents? Well gee, I wonder why. Why isn't feminism addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Why isn't feminism addressing the lack of regulations in our food supply system? Why isn't feminism addressing the obesity crisis? Why isn't feminism addressing fracking?? WHY feminism, why do you not care?
I don't know that this is a fair argument, though. Sure, it might be in some cases, but IME, this is definitely a female childless v. mother thing. But it's way more far-reaching than the inside of one's individual office setting. As a childless female, do you know who I am here with late every day? All males, who have children, at that. Every woman with children that I work with has left to pick up kids, and every man with kids has a partner that's doing it for them. MX's example plays out frequently. It's difficult for a job to give the same respect to a childless person's free time that is given to a parent's time. Because at the end of the day, someone HAS to take care of kids. I don't HAVE to go to the gym, you know?
Post by Scout'sHonor on Mar 9, 2015 9:46:30 GMT -5
Let me guess derp, you don't like that your taxes help pay for schools even though you don't have kids attending them. I may or may not have kids. But I have no problem funding the educations of future leaders. Just the same, I have no problem with companies making easier for mothers to stay in the workforce. I am lucky that I haven't dealt with being burdened with extra work while others are out, I'm lucky to be in a pretty flexible workplace as it is. H's company recently announced 8 wks paid maternity and 6 wks paid paternity, which is a good step in the right direction.
I'm coming in at the end and haven't read all of the replies but I thought one of the biggest reasons women are discriminated against, particularly in white collar professions is because it is thought that at any minute they will marry and have babies and become less effective workers?
So obviously addressing the maternity concerns helps all women, even the child free ones.
My SIL is a widow. In her job interview her kids came up. (Things happen) Then they asked her who would care for her kids if she has an important deadline. How would she deal with that? Do you think they would have asked a man those questions? Her kids are 6 and 8. No maternity leave issues.
This is a case of a private company choosing to improve benefits to a group of people (new mothers) they wish to retain. They think it's worth it to give that group some paid time off and a lighter schedule for a while returning. They think that this will help their company - I really doubt they're in it to improve society. They want to retain their talent, and it will work because the competition is so abysmal in this area. As a woman planning children, you would stay with Vodaphone through your baby producing years. They want you do to that, so they may it attractive to do so.
Don't like it? Don't work there. This isn't even big bad government being unfair. This is the market.
Stop being angry about a position that a company is taking to eliminate discrimination against women. By putting pro-women policies into practice and making money while doing it, true good is being done. These are the stepping stones to true equity.
Uh, no. You don't get to tell me what to do or how to feel. It is my stance that pro-mother policies are not necessarily pro-all women.
Look, there are tons of studies out there showing that women with children are discriminated against FAR more than women without children, and that having children itself - just becoming a mother, even if you don't take more than a week of maternity leave - is harmful to your career. At the same time, men *with* children get promoted more and end up doing better just by becoming fathers.
So that's why this is an issue and that's why this is important. Yes, there are stories of workplaces where mothers get special treatment, but those are far and few between, and overall, the opposite happens much, much more often.
This is really a lot like "but black people get special treatment! It's not fair to white people!!!"
Well, this is an interesting point. Fathers get propped up (this is a valid point), now we want to prop up mothers. So, ok. Where does that leave the rest of us? Is it really so awful to have a problem with feeling left behind? So, we're stuck working full time, while the parents in the workplace are either getting paid more for the same hours (fathers) or working fewer hours for the same pay (mothers), and those without kids are supposed to be ok with it? Meanwhile, we don't have the same access to holidays, we're expected to pick up the slack after hours, and all those other fun things you hear about. If there's an elderly parent or spouse that needs to be taken care of, we don't get the same access to FMLA (yes, that happens). We pay more in taxes, we don't get the same access to government programs if we end up down on our luck (food stamps, gov't housing, etc.), forget about equal access to student loans...shall I go on?
I mean this is all getting rather irrelevant, but a couple of people asked upthread about what other government policies need to be addressed and I missed it because the thread is moving quickly, so I tossed in a couple of examples.
Anyway, it's ridiculous to turn this into a discrimination pissing match, but to suggest the childfree don't get discriminated against, or don't get discriminated against so oh well, they don't matter, let's drown out their voices, just really sucks.
I obviously don't work in your area b/c several of the bolded aren't applicable to consulting/private industry STEM job that I have had.
Less work for more pay after having a kid - Yup, totally unfair for childless (and a slap for those who want kids, but can't have them or for women who don't want kids, but want to work less and get paid more).
Access to holidays - everyone gets the same holidays at my job and has to manage their own PTO/sick leave. If you have an obligation to a client, you have to fulfill that or find someone else in your group who can for you in order to be able to leave. In almost a decade and a half at my career I have worked over the majority of my "vacations" at least 1-2 hours per day in order to meet my obligations - it sucks, but I do what I have to. I've also had to cancel vacations at the last minute if a field event did not go as planned or a client meeting became more important. Men and women both do this (and it's a bit ridiculous IMO). Oh and yes, I have asked people with <5 years on the job to do more while I'm gone, but I supervise them and they have less freedom in general over their own schedules due to less experience (men or women, but most men).
After hours work - you are required to work after hours without compensation and more so since you're childless? So like someone with kids is like, "Oh, I have to go pick up the kids and make dinner, but I didn't finish my own work, so can you please spend 4 hours tonight finishing my work for me?" The answer I would give is, "Sorry, I can't I have plans; however, let's talk during business hours tomorrow." Now if I'm managing my own project, yes, I do work more than the others b/c that task is my responsibility so if it gets delayed, I'm the one who is putting kids down at 8pm and working from 9pm to 2am to finish it. I don't ask others to do that for me.
FMLA - Your employer should be challenged on that one b/c they are being illegal, "The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitles an eligible employee to take up to 12 workweeks of job-protected unpaid leave to care for a parent with a serious health condition." Link
You claim to pay more in taxes - That one confuses me. Do you mean you get less deductions (b/c that is what kids are)? Because you also pay WAY less in childcare... if I pay thousands per year in childcare b/c I chose to have kids, the measly $1,000/kid deduction on my taxes is laughable, but yes. You don't have access to that. Oh and my tax bracket and your tax bracket are based on our income, so that is pretty equitable.
Government Program Access - Yes, a child-bearing mother gets more access to health-care and nutrition while she is pregnant. Kids get special programs too, but it's only when the mom is pregnant, breast-feeding or just post-partum b/c women do need good nutrition, but it's not eligible to moms who aren't pregnant or have infants. Most of the systems for food-based help are based on number of mouths to feed. WIC is the only one who supplements that for women who are actively pregnant or with a newborn. That's hard to argue against b/c science/medicine tells us woman need better nutrition to grow babies. But don't worry, not all moms get that.
Student Loans - Can't speak to that, I'd have to research b/c I didn't realize that moms had more access to student loans. I thought it was need-based, so someone who is in a family of 3+ and trying to get loans would have more "need" than a person who is in a family of 1-2. But I don't know.
ETA: Oh and I'm a mom of three kids, so I could be biased. But I never once got paid for my maternity leaves - all are just FMLA unpaid. I still chose to do it, but I'd like to see that changed for anyone who wants kids in the future.
I'm glad they're taking this step, it's a great place to start from, and a big step. It does annoy me that they worked so hard to go out on a limb and be innovative but weren't wiling to go all the way to supporting non-birth parents.
Why can't the dads get this? Yay for making it easier for moms but it just reinforces that women should bear the brunt of parenting responsibilities.
I think it reflects the fact that women DO bear the brunt of parenting responsibilities. I'd be perfectly happy to see the policy revised to include "primary care taker" rather than "mother." But this is a policy that helps women. I don't think it "reinforces" anything. It just addresses an existent problem.
My wife's workplace offers 12 weeks of paid leave to the "primary caretaker." A secondary caretaker receives 1 week. It is a policy designed to be accommodating of adoptive and gay parents. But because I gave birth they automatically viewed me as the primary caretaker and she couldn't use the 12 weeks. But guess what? The only reason I was the primary caretaker was because I was at home - because I was on maternity leave. I went back to work at 13 weeks and then she took 10 weeks off. Guess who was the primary caretaker then? That's right, the person who was home. I was still breastfeeding, but no way did that trump BEING HOME ALL DAY. Her spending those 10 weeks at home was invaluable for us, and made a big difference in how our family works. We were prepared for her to take it unpaid, but I will be deeply and eternally grateful to her boss who felt the policy was unfair and basically under-the-table gifted the time to her. (He told HR she was "working from home.")
Uh, no. You don't get to tell me what to do or how to feel. It is my stance that pro-mother policies are not necessarily pro-all women.
I don't know why I am surprised that was your takeaway.
Yes... and derp, they aren't anti-women policies or anti-men policies. They are just policies to promote more women staying in careers after having kids b/c those are the people that are hard to retain. I see it expanding to more flexible working environments for all, but it will take time.
As someone who was forced to quit her job because her FMLA ran out the same week that her baby came home from the NICU, I think this is pretty awesome. I really tried to work out some sort of flex, PT, WFH schedule so I could keep my job and they wouldn't budge
derp, you said that you are met with hostility if you bring up a childfree POV.
If I am going to pinpoint where things turned hostile in this thread, it would be the post I've quoted. Your post. You were really snarky to heyjude's perfectly civil response and didn't even provide specifics. I still don't know how maternity leave has fucked you up way into adulthood.
origami offered a criticism, and I don't think sbp was particularly hostile. She responded with no more than her usual bitchiness (and I say that with love).
If we're splitting hairs, I perceived this to be deliberately condescending:
I am assuming, though I can't be sure, you were once born of a woman, yes?
That being said, heyjude has a history of being an asshole to me and perhaps I was getting revved up based on that. I will concede on that.
But in general, I'm referring to the internet in general (where I've not even been a participant), along with my past experiences here. I get shouted down frequently even when I remain calm.
Hey. Listen here. I don't even remember having any other conversation with you. If you had a previous name, I dont know it. If you have a tragic backstory with your mom, I'm not aware of it. I frankly don't ever remember communicating with you in the past, asshole or not. I do recall the "derp derpped" when you previously imploded but I dont remember the context nor did I coin it.
But you know? You can't come in here and start saying assholish things and expect a tea party with scones and fine China. You came in with guns blazing and got what you got. Furthermore I was actually civil with you despite the fact that I was quite pissed at your "but this doesn't benefit meeeeeeee" argument against maternity leave. You are the one who didn't engage, cussed, and called ME names. You were the asshole.
I don't know why I am surprised that was your takeaway.
Yes... and derp, they aren't anti-women policies or anti-men policies. They are just policies to promote more women staying in careers after having kids b/c those are the people that are hard to retain. I see it expanding to more flexible working environments for all, but it will take time.
And to encourage women of a certain age to work with the company.
Also, I can't be the only person who is encouraged when a company spells out policy to care for employees that are otherwise overlooked. It makes me feel like they'll be more understanding of other situations as well. For instance, my company has a domestic abuse policy. I don't believe I'll ever need to take advantage of that but if they are willing to do that much for a victim of domestic violence, I feel pretty confident I won't be fired if I call in because I'm a victim of a crime.
If we're splitting hairs, I perceived this to be deliberately condescending:
That being said, heyjude has a history of being an asshole to me and perhaps I was getting revved up based on that. I will concede on that.
But in general, I'm referring to the internet in general (where I've not even been a participant), along with my past experiences here. I get shouted down frequently even when I remain calm.
Hey. Listen here. I don't even remember having any other conversation with you. If you had a previous name, I dont know it. If you have a tragic backstory with your mom, I'm not aware of it. I frankly don't ever remember communicating with you in the past, asshole or not. I do recall the "derp derpped" when you previously imploded but I dont remember the context nor did I coin it.
But you know? You can't come in here and start saying assholish things and expect a tea party with scones and fine China. You came in with guns blazing and got what you got. Furthermore I was actually civil with you despite the fact that I was quite pissed at your "but this doesn't benefit meeeeeeee" argument against maternity leave. You are the one who didn't engage, cussed, and called ME names. You were the asshole.
It's probably my fault - last feminist thread, I told her I wanted to drop kick her after about 4 pages of discussion. Maybe you and I look alike, heyjude?
An August 2011 survey by the Center for Talent Innovation found that 61 percent of women ages 33 to 47 without kids believe that their parent colleagues receive more flexibility at work. While businesses are increasingly sensitive to helping parents manage their time, they still assume, says DePaulo, that "single people don't have lives. No life means no need for balance—when, of course, everyone has important obligations, whether it's a class, exercise, caring for an elderly family member, or taking a vacation."
I'm not making this stuff up. It's not just me being whiny.
Going back to the actual argument made against this policy in that it "enforces gender norms of parental care" I just still so totally disagree with this opinion.
1. This opinion would have more merit if the policy was "hey ladies! We will pay you stay home for 18 years to raise your kids." Instaed we are talking about a mere 16 weeks, a tiny blink of the eye of the time that it takes to raise a kid. And 16 weeks leave is truly medical leave. Your body and mind are still recovering. Something men, no matter how egalitarian we become with respect to parenting, will have to endure.
2. This opinion doesn't even jive with reality. The reality is that maternity leave in this country has only improved over the past 100 years. At the SAME TIME men have also taken on more responsibility in the home and with the kids. Are we at parity? No! Is there still so much more we can do? Yes! But the facts do not suggest that enhanced maternity benefits for women enforce gender norms.
3. Finally, pumping. Men will never have to return to work and find time and space 3 times a day for as long as 10 months to pump, no matter how much they co-parent. For that reason alone, the burdens on moms in the workplace will never be equal with dads. Ever. And if a workplace wants to recognize that fact by giving moms more time at home, good for them.
Yes... and derp, they aren't anti-women policies or anti-men policies. They are just policies to promote more women staying in careers after having kids b/c those are the people that are hard to retain. I see it expanding to more flexible working environments for all, but it will take time.
And to encourage women of a certain age to work with the company.
Also, I can't be the only person who is encouraged when a company spells out policy to care for employees that are otherwise overlooked. It makes me feel like they'll be more understanding of other situations as well. For instance, my company has a domestic abuse policy. I don't believe I'll ever need to take advantage of that but if they are willing to do that much for a victim of domestic violence, I feel pretty confident I won't be fired if I call in because I'm a victim of a crime.
This is why I said that we don't know that this wouldn't be offered to a man who asked. The company has a problem with retaining women. It doesn't have a problem retaining men. Now maybe they'll be total turd burglars if a dude asked, but it would not shock me if a guy said, "Hey, I am gay/we adopted/my wife is the president of Uzbekistan/my wife suffered a medical trauma during childbirth/I am the most sensitive dude on the planet, and I would like to request this TEMPORARY flexible arrangement" and the company responded with, "We value you as an employee and want to keep you, so yes, let's work something out to make that happen."
Maybe not. But a company that recognizes these barriers to retention is a fuckton more likely to do that than a company with a track record for assholishness.
You are dead fucking wrong if you believe that I, as a child of a mother, benefited from maternity leave. It fucked my world up way into adulthood. You are woefully ignorant.
If we're talking about anecdotes here.
If we're talking about a larger scale, it's simply discrimination, beyond the medical leave portion.
derp, you said that you are met with hostility if you bring up a childfree POV.
If I am going to pinpoint where things turned hostile in this thread, it would be the post I've quoted. Your post. You were really snarky to heyjude's perfectly civil response and didn't even provide specifics. I still don't know how maternity leave has fucked you up way into adulthood.
origami offered a criticism, and I don't think sbp was particularly hostile. She responded with no more than her usual bitchiness (and I say that with love).
Exactly, tacosforlife. A company cannot and will not codify every single possible life event. But putting some of them on the books spelled out in detail gives employees much further leeway in negotiations when it comes to similar events. I refuse to believe a company with this policy would not consider non-standard requests more carefully than those without this policy, even for people who are child free.
Being against this policy, particularly when it's company driven makes no sense to me. It's not going to make things equal but it's a step. By the thought processes of some here, Civil Rights pioneers should have rejected every gain that wasn't full parity.
I am trying to see what derp is saying, but for family life (children or not), we probably need to start somewhere if we purport to be a country tied to good family values. Or, we are not and then people who need family time off cn go screw themselves, I guess.
Because giving birth is something that only women are capable of. It is something that biologically makes women different from men, and it is something that has resulted in discrimination and marginalization of women since literally the beginning of humankind. Hence, it is by definition a women's issue.
Childfree issues are not specific to women. Hence they are not "women's issues" and don't fall within the area of feminism.
Perhaps you're not aware that childfree women are marginalized in ways that childfree men are not. That aside, can you possibly understand why (some) childfree women feel that a brand of feminism, so focused on motherhood, often to their detriment, would feel betrayed and/or left out by it? While also at the same time feeling that feminism is so important in so many other ways?
Okay, is this going to become a thing about skinny people are more marginalized than fat or vice versa? This is odd.