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

Short answer, it depends on what the choices are. As others have already said.

I remember while ago, when a young woman joined our team at work. She was very sycophantic and quite ruthless in her ambition, and irritated a lot of people by behaving in that way.

I mentioned it to a friend, who didn't work where I did, and didn't know the woman concerned, and was told in no uncertain terms that I was letting the side down and should support her because she was a woman. I was quite taken aback, as I would have felt the same if she had been a man, and wasn't seeing her behaviour as 'out of order' because she was a woman.

As the older woman, I could have explained why she was getting so many people's backs up, but it wasn't my place to do that, and there wasn't an obvious way to do it without seeming patronising. I couldn't really support her anyway, as she was managed by someone else, I didn't know her well (so taking her to one side to tell her something awkward 'for her own good' would probably have gone down badly) and I couldn't see what else I was supposed to have done.

I always take these things to heart, though, and the criticism has stayed with me, although it was years ago. This might be why I responded when I heard the same accusation today. I just don't know how or why women should act as one big support group, even when people are being annoying (and she really was!), and wondered what the thinking behind it was.

TBH, it felt as though women couldn't win - we should not only put up with bad behaviour, but act as therapists to those who display it, just because we are women. That doesn't seem very feminist to me, and it happens a lot in one way or another. Women are supposed to be 'nice', and act as peacemakers or mentors, which is not always how we feel or what is necessarily the best thing for us (personally) to do.

Has anyone had similar experiences, and how did you deal with them?

For me it wouldnt be about being obliged to be supportive of a woman because she is a woman, it would be more that was it seen as ambition in a man is often seen as something else in a woman. I am not saying that's what happened in that case but I think it's something we need to be wary of.

We can support a persons right to say/ believe act etc
But we do not / should not support the possible ensuing behaviour If we do not agree with said behaviour.

Galaxy

For me it wouldnt be about being obliged to be supportive of a woman because she is a woman, it would be more that was it seen as ambition in a man is often seen as something else in a woman. I am not saying that's what happened in that case but I think it's something we need to be wary of.

I completely agree, but I can guarantee that this was not the case, and also that a man doing what she did would have been every bit as annoying to colleagues (who were of both sexes).

It was the fact that I didn't support her that was pulled up by my friend. I don't know how I could have done so, and I didn't think to ask whether she would have felt that I should also have supported a male colleague - I'm the mistress of hindsight .

Doodledog I always take these things to heart, though, and the criticism has stayed with me, although it was years ago. This might be why I responded when I heard the same accusation today
I’m sure you’re right, that the memory of this incident a long time ago triggered your response yesterday.
But I suspect that had the incident at work happened yesterday, the older, wiser and more assertive you would have responded to your friend’s criticism in a rather more robust way and not taken it personally

Yes and I think your friend was offering input on a situation that she couldn't possibly judge. If she had been in the same workplace then the view might have had validity but as an outsider she couldnt possibly have known.

On the flip side, I remember working with a woman who was quite vocal in her thoughts of having difficulties supporting women who chose to have children getting paid maternity leave. This was while I was expecting my first child, and the maternity leave at the time was only about 3 months.

She was of the mind that I was the one choosing to have a child, so should be prepared to take time of work without any government benefit. It's like I was getting a paid holiday.
I did remind her that the next generation would one day be working, paying taxes to help support her long retirement.

So no, we do not all support each other's choices. As for feminism, I am thankful for all those women who fought for the vote, for equal pay for equal work, maternity leave, etc. Even during my working life things have come a long way.

Galaxy

Yes and I think your friend was offering input on a situation that she couldn't possibly judge. If she had been in the same workplace then the view might have had validity but as an outsider she couldnt possibly have known.

This is very true, and confirms my thought that it it a ‘one size fits all’ philosophy.

CanadianGran, yes, when my children were young I came up against the same sort of thing. There was a vociferous ’child-free’ lobby, who kept going on about how having children was a ‘lifestyle choice’, as though it was some sort of new-fangled self-indulgence. My line manager at that time was fixated on the idea of everyone having time off in August, when she knew I saved up my leave to take it in the school holidays to be with my children . It was silly of her, but every year was the same - she tried all ways to stop me from taking time off in the school holidays, but failed, as the others much preferred to take their leave when it was cheaper, and everywhere wasn’t full of other people’s children.

jane - I did argue, but my friend wouldn’t have it, and kept repeating the mantra that it was ‘unsisterly’ of me. You are probably right though - nowadays I would probably have laughed loudly and come back with a very short response .

There was a vociferous ’child-free’ lobby, who kept going on about how having children was a ‘lifestyle choice’, as though it was some sort of new-fangled self-indulgence

Perhaps that was an unintended consequence of contraception becoming more freely available to women in the late 60’s - it’s certainly true that it did give women the choice to become mothers or not. Prior to that, contraception did at least involve the co-operation of the man involved and only the arrival of the Pill gave women autonomy. Apart from just saying No.
The question is whether the choice is a right, or a self-indulgence, or a self-sacrifice.
I remember reading a book in the early 70’s called ‘The Baby Trap’, the title of which speaks for itself. It had the effect of delaying the arrival of DS by several years

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.

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.

* 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.