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

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!

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, Smileless - cross posted!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Going off course a bit; I remember quite a few years ago that 'Boots' were actively trying to recruit mums to their workforce.
They offered very flexible arrangements, including a start time which factored in the school run, and the option of school holidays off.
Their said that their records showed that it was in their interests to do this, as mums made the most reliable, hardworking and committed employees.

I try not to make assumptions trisher as they can make an ass of you and me.

I can believe that, MissAdventure. If someone has a job that fits around things like school runs, and they know that their employer is sympathetic to parents, they are going to want to keep it, which will make them committed.

It's a model that other business might benefit from following.

Well, I suppose it could be construed as sexist, but then the reality is that in a lot of homes, it is the women who are the organisers of children and their care.

I suppose it depends what is meant by 'actively encouraging'. So long as the jobs were also open to men (and they probably would have employed a father with childcare responsibilities), it wouldn't be sexist.

It's the fact that there are fewer fathers who take on childcare that is sexist, I think, not that Boots wants to employ people who do.

I was just wondering if Boots still work so flexibly for parents, or if that idea has been eased out of being considered?

Sadly, I'm too lazy to google though.

Any emloyee has the right to request flexble working hours after 26 weeks in employment.

That doesn't mean they are guaranteed to have their request granted.

Nothing is certain but death and taxes.

So true.

As a (very) small employer, the problem about maternity leave wasn’t the pay, which I could claim back retrospectively, but finding a suitable person to cover, which was just about impossible and which did affect the business simply because things just didn’t run as smoothly.

However, I fully support maternity rights
because not only are they good for mothers and families, but in the long term, better employment terms and conditions are good for businesses too, because they engender employee loyalty and continuity for businesses.

Smileless I said you seemed to be suggesting that perhaps there should not be maternity pay. You responded " what part of my post led you to that assumption?". It was this part:

"Maybe one answer would be for maternity leave to be unpaid".

No, I have not run a business but it seems not all businesses view paid maternity pay as such a burden. As janeainsworth says, it can create pressures in terms of finding someone to cover but in the long term it reaps benefits for the individual, the company and society in general.

As 92% is paid back, and the repayment is made monthly, I don't see why that should be a very significant issue for a reasonably functioning business.

janeainsworth

As a (very) small employer, the problem about maternity leave wasn’t the pay, which I could claim back retrospectively, but finding a suitable person to cover, which was just about impossible and which did affect the business simply because things just didn’t run as smoothly.

However, I fully support maternity rights
because not only are they good for mothers and families, but in the long term, better employment terms and conditions are good for businesses too, because they engender employee loyalty and continuity for businesses.

What a great post showing how benefits can reward business and how a well run business appreciates its employees Thanks janeainsworth
I wonder if there could be some sort of maternity /training scheme where young people are offered short term placements, perhaps with a longer period of employment- maybe 1 year but commencing before the maternity leave started so they had some training before taking over. Maybe with government help for the cost. But perhaps the area you work in is too specialised for that to be of benefit

I didn't just refer to maternity pay in previous posts Eloethan I also referred to the difficulty some small business' face in finding cover for a staff member on long term leave. This was also mentioned by janeainsworth

I am not, and have not disputed that paid maternity leave in the long term "reaps benefits for the individual, the company and society in general".

I agree trisher that "benefits can reward business and how a well run business appreciates its employees".

Our independent family business that started in 1890 and was continued by 4 generations, ended nearly 3 years ago with
Mr. S.'s retirement. Our business always appreciated those who worked for it which is why it was one of the oldest business' to remain solely in the hands of the family who started it, throughout its life time.

I’m certainly not going to “support” every woman as part of a sisterhood, we all make our own life decisions and have to live with them. I’ve seen women raised on benefits prosper and those who had the silver spoon fall into penury. Even sisters who had the same chances, opposite outcome, because they chose a different lifestyle.