A feminism discussion thread - should all women's life choices be 'supported'?

If you propose a solution it is usual to assume that is a solution you would accept. Personally there is no way I would even consider unpaid maternity leave as an acceptable alternative, so I wouldn't suggest it. It's a retrograde step which would return women to a dependent state.

What part of my post that you've quoted suggests that I am against maternity leave trisher?

I responded to a post of Doodledog's where she asked what the alternatives regarding paid maternity leave could be. Responding with "maybe one answer would be for maternity leave to be unpaid" isn't saying or even suggesting that I think it should be.

No worries Doodledog. It can be and often is a problem for small business' and as you say, this could and probably does explain why for some there's uncertainty about employing younger women.

Smileless2012
Maybe one answer would be for maternity leave to be unpaid. I know depending on the length taken payment is on a sliding scale (it was when we were running our business) but it can still be an added, difficult to absorb financial liability.
Perhaps this part of your post?

To be fair to Eloethan, I also read your post as suggesting that maternity leave should be unpaid, and also that it is paid back to businesses at the end of the leave period, so I can see why she thought that this was what you were saying.

If it is claimed monthly, and businesses get back over 90%, it doesn't seem to me to be reason enough to think twice about employing a woman of childbearing age.

Sorry, Smileless - cross posted!

I understand that the USA does not mandate maternity pay, but it is the only developed country not to do so.

A friend of mine lives in the US, and as well as it costing her a fortune to have her babies in hospital, had to go back to work when her son was just weeks old (about 3 weeks, I think). Any woman who has had a difficult birth and an emergency section may very well be physically unfit for work so soon postpartum, and I can't imagine how difficult it must be to leave such a tiny baby.

Lucca Thank you for your comment - it is much appreciated .

I'm not sure what 'support' means in this context either. It seems to mean not criticising or saying anything negative about any action carried out by another woman, which seems to be both unreasonable and, as you say, sexist. Men are not expected to 'support' one another's actions in this way.

I've never been an employer, so don't know the detail of how maternity leave impacts on businesses, but I have heard many people say that it is a problem for small companies, and I can believe that this is the case, otherwise why would there still be unease about employing young women? I don't know why a company should have to claim the money after it has been paid - it would make more sense if they (or even the woman) could claim monthly - but I definitely don't think that unpaid leave is the way forward. That would be a massively retrograde step, I think.

Because it is paid back retrospectively on a month by month basis Eloethan.

I'm not suggesting there shouldn't be any maternity pay, what part of my post led you to that assumption?

Have you ever run your own small independent business? Employers factor in as much as they can when it comes to potential outlay to meet ever changing legislation.

When finances are tight it can be hard enough meeting the existing outgoings without trying to factor in any that may or may not arise.

Smileless Why do you think maternity pay is paid back to employers retrospectively? Would you be OK with it if it were paid in advance? A 92% repayment seems pretty fair to me.

You seem to be suggesting that, as this creates some difficulties for some employers, there should not be maternity pay. I understand that the USA does not mandate maternity pay, but it is the only developed country not to do so.

Surely employers should factor in this potential outlay when they are setting up in business. Otherwise women will have even further obstacles to overcome if they wish to pursue a career. As it is, pregnancy is very likely to negatively affect a woman's employment security and progression.

By “support” do we mean “agree with”? If we support a woman because she is a woman would we not be guilty of reverse sexism ?
I wholeheartedly support the ideal that women and men must have equal rights and be viewed equally, but this shouldn’t be taken to the extreme of backing up a woman who behaves in an unpleasant way at work , merely because she is female.
I’ve read all the posts and found this a really interesting thread, thanks OP!

Yes they can trisher, after it's been paid which for some makes balancing the books, especially if they've had to employ someone to fill the role, extremely difficult, even on a monthly basis.

I wouldn't support a woman just because she was a woman. For instance, I would never vote for someone like Thatcher even though her gaining the prime ministership was seen by some as an achievement for women as a whole.

I am not sure I go along with women who have a very rigid view as to how people who would describe themselves as feminists should behave. For instance, I have no problem with women wearing make up or caring about their outward appearance but I do not think women who do not care for such things should be criticised either. And I do think females (and males) have been - and to some extent continue to be - unscrupulously targetted by marketing campaigns that portray them in a stereotypical way or which are designed to make them feel inadequate in some way.

Of course, there are some very serious issues, such as domestic violence, unequal opportunities, etc., that do need addressing. In general, I would hope that women would support each other on such issues and I don't go along with the view some women put forward that women are no longer subjected to discriminatory practices and just make a fuss about nothing.

Smileless2012

It's difficult for small businesses Doodledog and not just the cost but being able to take on someone just to cover maternity leave. Not everyone wants to take on a temporary contract if there are permanent ones available and in our business for example, had this arisen we simply didn't have staff to cover for anyone on long term leave.

There is paternity leave available but I seem to remember it's only for a couple of weeks.

Maybe one answer would be for maternity leave to be unpaid. I know depending on the length taken payment is on a sliding scale (it was when we were running our business) but it can still be an added, difficult to absorb financial liability.

I don't understand this. Small companiies can reclaim 92% of maternity pay. trustedtraders.which.co.uk/for-traders/articles/small-business-responsibilities-maternity-leave-and-pay

The trouble with that is that it would be impossible for people on low incomes, and women would probably end up going back to work after a very short time, which is bad for them and their babies. The child years often coincide with a time when people are at the start of their careers, when salaries are relatively low and mortgages high.

I don't think that the burden should fall on the employers, though. Personally, I think that maternity leave should be a benefit, paid for out of taxation (or NI - I'm never sure which budget covers what). The cost wouldn't come close to the costs of other benefits/health costs, as most people don't have lots of children, and it would probably cost a total of around 18 months' salary per couple (assuming nine months per child and two children).

Purely financially and obviously the social and human side of this is more important), if parents are forced out of the workplace, it might prove more costly in the long run, in lost tax/NI contributions and in possible benefit claims as a result of loss of income.

It's difficult for small businesses Doodledog and not just the cost but being able to take on someone just to cover maternity leave. Not everyone wants to take on a temporary contract if there are permanent ones available and in our business for example, had this arisen we simply didn't have staff to cover for anyone on long term leave.

There is paternity leave available but I seem to remember it's only for a couple of weeks.

Maybe one answer would be for maternity leave to be unpaid. I know depending on the length taken payment is on a sliding scale (it was when we were running our business) but it can still be an added, difficult to absorb financial liability.

What do people think is the answer? People are going to keep having children, and they will, by definition, be of working age. It does cost employers money when women go on maternity leave, so maybe there should be a more imaginative way of dealing with it?

Should maternity pay be covered out of taxes, so it is cost-neutral to an employer? Should there be some way (not sure what it would be) to encourage fathers to take their share of time off to look after sick children or attend school meetings - maybe both parents could have an allowance between them that could not be rolled over to one parent if the other didn't use it?

Do you think that the answer should be (as I have seen suggested) that everyone - parents or not - should get some sort of special leave to use as they wish? The rationale for this is that non-parents feel discriminated against because parents take time off for child-related reasons, and should be compensated for this.

I'm not convinced, really. That would be even more costly for employers, and in my experience parents are careful not to abuse the situation, as they are often made very aware of how much it is resented by some. I would also worry that in some companies it would end up coming out of existing leave arrangements, so parents would effectively have their allowances reduced, which would make family holidays and time together more limited.

Aged 22 and being interviewed for my first job in 1976, a woman interviewer said to me "I notice you are wearing an engagement ring! Do you plan to have children when you get married?" (It was not a "friendly chat" question, it was in the middle of the interview!) My response "Why? Does that impact on my getting this job?" The panel chair jumped in very fast to "reassure me it had no impact whatsoever!" I got that job too Smileless. Times have changed but not convinced it's not just a more hidden agenda

We had a similar conversation with some friends a few years ago grandmajet.

I was interviewed for a job in the late 80's and one of the panel, a woman, asked me what arrangements I had in place if one of our boys was ill and couldn't go to school.

I asked her if she'd have asked that question to a male applicant. She didn't answer my question so I didn't answer hers. I got the job!!

I believe attitudes have changed over the years. I remember being told by a child-free couple that they resented having to pay for the education and other state funded costs of other people’s children. I did point out that those same children would be working to support them in their old age!

My son and his wife, who also do not want children of their own, are much more open minded and realise that supporting those with children who need flexibility in the workplace is part of their duty to society as a whole. Also, a business does not want to lose a valuable employee because they need this flexibility for a few years. I think their feelings represent those of many younger people now.

Each to their own.
I don`t critisize what any women does or says as long as it doesn`t affect me.
None of my business.

And there you have the real reason that feminism is still needed these are qualities which would have been described differently in a man- he was ambitious and used all his contacts to make his way up the ladder.

Yes, I agree that feminism is still needed, but I genuinely think that had a man behaved as she did he would have been equally unpopular. I don't want to give too much detail, but it wasn't really about contacts - it was more about smarming around people higher up the 'ladder', agreeing with everything they said, turning up early to meeting rooms so she could get the seat next to the Chair - that sort of thing. Some of it will have been immaturity, but regardless, I don't think that the fact that she was female had anything to do with her unpopularity, which is why I thought the comment about how other women should support her was so unfair.

Men are not expected to be 'fatherly' towards irritating colleagues, or to rally round each other regardless of behaviour, which is my point, really.

I suppose it was marginally better than not employing women in professional roles at all, but yes, it was responsible for some of the 'divide and conquer' thinking that still persists.

I had one male colleague with parental responsibilities, and the difference between the way he and mothers were treated was noticeable. His child was the same age as mine, but he was viewed as a saint when he left early to go to a parents' evening, whereas I had to make elaborate plans ages in advance and still got raised eyebrows, and that is only one of numerous examples.

* She was very sycophantic and quite ruthless in her ambition, and irritated a lot of people by behaving in that way*
And there you have the real reason that feminism is still needed these are qualities which would have been described differently in a man- he was ambitious and used all his contacts to make his way up the ladder.

I've posted before about "pregnant then screwed" an organisation supporting women who have lost their jobs when pregnant, and seeking to change the law to give them more time to take legal action against their employer. It is currently 3 months and most women made unemployed in late stages of pregnancy do not take action because they have other priorities. You can sign the campaign for 6 months here www.change.org/p/greg-clark-mp-give-new-and-expectant-mothers-six-months-to-pursue-discrimination-claims

I also remember someone saying that she would willingly put on her CV that she guaranteed not to have children, in the hope that this would give her preferential treatment over other women

That was another unintended consequence of improved maternity leave & pay - that employers did indeed choose to employ women who they thought weren’t likely to have babies in preference to those who they thought might.
It took further legislation to outlaw such discrimination & I imagine it still goes on.

Oh yes, I think the fact that for the first time women could choose not to have children made a massive difference to attitudes. I did choose to have my children (first one aged 32, so also considered decision ), but I still don't think that mothers should give way to the child-free as a matter of course.

There should be consideration on both sides, and whilst I'm not in any way saying that only parents should be able to take leave during school holidays, to deliberately try to prevent it (against the wishes of other colleagues) seems spiteful.

I also remember someone saying that she would willingly put on her CV that she guaranteed not to have children, in the hope that this would give her preferential treatment over other women. She meant it - she did not want children, and many years later hasn't had any (and it would never have stood up in court in any case) - but it was such a strange thing to want to do.

I don't think she would do the same now, as she has mellowed enough to realise that despite the fact that it is now a choice, most women do have children, and any feminist viewpoint has to include this in its thinking. She definitely defined herself as feminist then, but I suppose that she was an example of being judgemental about the choices of others, or maybe an example of how thinking has moved on over the years.