jhoijhoi wrote:
^Well, in terms of the pregnancy thing, it works both ways. The father asking for paternity leave is often seen as "soft"; if he does successfully get it (it's illegal to deny paternity leave here in Oz), he returns back to work and is seen positively as a father, more capable of many things (responsibility, bread winner, masculine).
However, if a women gets pregnant and takes maternity leave for however long and comes back - she is seen as less capable and is often not considered at all for promotions due to the fact that she has a young child at home.
However, if a women gets pregnant and takes maternity leave for however long and comes back - she is seen as less capable and is often not considered at all for promotions due to the fact that she has a young child at home.
This is a pretty weird double-standard. I would almost expect the father to get less respect since it's less apparent that he'd need leave from work when having a child (and historically women have been the ones taking care of newborns usually, though that's changing a bit). You'd think a woman who returns to work after her maternity leave would be seen as diligent. Kind of surprising and sad that it's the other way around, apparently. :/
I don't really see how the you-can't-get-pregnant contract thing is discrimination though. It's not like they said you can't have a period or something. Getting pregnant doesn't happen unless you make it happen. Work contracts should have some say in your personal life if it can affect your productivity as a worker. A contract could say that you're not allowed to leave the country or something like that without infringing on your rights since it's an agreement that you assent to beforehand.
Regardless, it's definitely not very comparable to a situation with race or even weight. You can't choose to just not be a black person while working at a company (which is why it would be discriminatory to deny someone a job based on their race unless it somehow affected their ability to perform the job, like an actor for a Caucasian character). To an extent, you also can't decide not to be fat in order to work at a job. You can, however, decide to not have unprotected sex, or sex entirely, while you're working at a job if that's in your contract.
Personally I don't see why that kind of stipulation would even be necessary, but even if it's a stupid part of a contract that doesn't make it discrimination.
Thanks to Lugignaf for the sig!
PsiGuard wrote:
I don't really see how the you-can't-get-pregnant contract thing is discrimination though. It's not like they said you can't have a period or something. Getting pregnant doesn't happen unless you make it happen. Work contracts should have some say in your personal life if it can affect your productivity as a worker. A contract could say that you're not allowed to leave the country or something like that without infringing on your rights since it's an agreement that you assent to beforehand.
Nailed it right on the head there. You and Sirell are absolutely right.
@xIchi and Janitsu
Your views on this topic seem narrow-minded to the point of silliness. Read the link Jhoi posted if you're actually interested in the topic:
https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/2014-03-04_PP_different_genders_different_lives.pdf
There are a few inconsistencies and while I suspect that it's very slightly angled, it's not enough to skew it much. It's a correct representation of how things would turn out, for the most part.
Edit: to clarify, my main problem with it is that it severely changes the situation for the woman towards the end with a divorce while not doing the same with the man, all to prove a point. That's not a fair comparison. Everything before that I have pretty much no qualms with.
Nighthawk wrote:
there are far more important things in the world than pay inequality
let's start with the reasons there's pay inequality, for example
and it's not because employers just pay women less than men
let's start with the reasons there's pay inequality, for example
and it's not because employers just pay women less than men
There are always more important things.
Stop using it as a reason to dismiss things, ya dummy.
"every now and again you come across a game that has so little emotional connection to who you are that you end up standing there, gazing at the screen and saying "I'm just pressing buttons and my life has no meaning,"" - Colin Campbell
The general reason, I think, is that women are usually more involved into the whole "having a kid" thing. This isn't a clever joke or something, nor is it a pun on pregnancy, but it's rather about the fact that women are simply more emotionally involved. Once a woman becomes a mother, usually the child becomes top priority, as in, child first, then work. This means that an employee becomes a liability as there's always a 1 in X chance that something occurs that causes them to prioritise the child and thus divert attention from the job. This makes it more risky to put someone like this at a higher position in a company. Men, on the other hand, are generally about as emotional as a brick and have an easier time distancing themselves.
jhoijhoi wrote:
And this sort of thinking is what is holding back progression. Women are fully capable of performing their duties up to a point during pregnancy (strippers and manual laborers excluded). Your statement assumes that a woman's work standard becomes subpar sometime during pregnancy. Where do you get that opinion from? Agreeably, there may be a disadvantage of the loss of an employee, but many employees leave employment at any time; at least you have a few months warning :P
I'll start with this section, since it bares relevance to consequent points.
Let me highlight something that seems to imply something contradictory:
Quoted:
Women are fully capable of performing their duties up to a point.
It seems you are saying that they are fully capable of being limited, implying that pregnant women can and can't perform their job optimally. Either that, or you are admitting that women can't perform their job to the utmost of their abilities. Regardless, even you seem unwilling to fully commit to the idea that a women's performance isn't affected by pregnancy.
However, even if you aren't suggesting that pregnancy causes subpar performance, it is simply not true. For the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, the woman experiences fatigue, dizziness, nausea, cramps and sickness, as well as other symptoms. After this, she may continuously experience cravings, mood swings, increased urination, as well as any others from the early stages which would not occur had she not gotten pregnant. Towards the end stages, her movement becomes increasingly limited in addition to some of these symptoms. A counter to your point is simply to rephrase your question how does pregnancy NOT affect your performance? It's a severe biological change and saying it doesn't affect your performance (depending on the job) is very... well, ignorant. I'm not sure when maternity leave is granted, but then her absence affects the work. I am not assuming anything. Pregnancy really DOES make your job making ability sub-par. And I haven't even begun to talk about the emotional changes that may occur with pregnancy. Depending on the job, I very much think that her working ability is very strongly compromised. Or at least, it's extremely understandable for an employer to view it as such.
A most critical disadvantage is one you point out yourself - the absence of the worker. Having to employ another worker to take their place requires time and effort - interviews, recruitment advertisements, administration paperwork, which you can avoid by employing someone who doesn't get pregnant or, if they do, use contraception, in the first place and can thus continue working. This is completely 100% pragmatism. Even if states and countries rule these as 'pregnancy discrimination', I outright disagree with their position. In my opinion, this ruling practically makes it that I shouldn't be discriminating on ability either, that I should just hire anyone! God forbid that I want to avoid hiring someone who may get pregnant and therefore have to get time off, and whilst she is still working, possibly have her undergo fatigue, illness, mood swings and what have you. Why don't I just hire someone who won't get pregnant and avoid ALL of that? Not pragmatism? It surely is.
This thinking isn't holding back progression at all. If anything, allowing workers that will get pregnant will get in the way of progression, if you really want to go that route. I honestly think that a solid case can be made that removing pregnancy discrimination is slowing progression.
Disagree. Just because the states make it so doesn't mean it actually is. As I said previously, I don't think it's 'unfair' and getting a worker who will work continuously without having to get maternity/paternity leave nor be a subpar worker during pregnancy will, in the eyes of an employer, be far more pragmatic. If we can judge on ability in order to consider candidacy for employment, why not consider pregnancy, which will affect one's ability during work?
jhoijhoi wrote:
The quality that females have is the ability to get pregnant. "From a human rights perspective, women have the right to be free from discrimination in the work place on the basis of their pregnancy, or deemed potential pregnancy." You are saying that just because women can get pregnant, it's okay for a contract to be written wherein the woman is not allowed to get pregnant. Whilst I'm not arguing that there aren't scenarios where contracts like this might exist (porn stars, actors, whatever), in a normal employment contract it WOULD be discrimination to not hire a woman just because she plans on becoming pregnant in the near future. That was my point.
I think it's completely okay for a contract to include that, actually. I can completely understand why an employer would want a worker who doesn't have to be absent nor have their physiology possibly affect their performance. In the same way, I can understand why a woman who wants to have a child would think it's unfair that she gets penalised for candidacy because that's her lifestyle choice. Putting the anti-pregnancy discrimination laws into effect, if such a woman doesn't fit the bill that the employer is looking for, I honestly don't think that the employer should be, by law, forced into having to employ such a person out of fear of getting sued. It seems like he is offering a potentially subpar service just to avoid another disadvantage, which is getting sued.
jhoijhoi wrote:
"Potential pregnancy means discrimination against employees who may become pregnant or who are believed to be pregnant." Pragmatism is a belief that a certain way is more practical; do you really believe a pregnant woman is less capable of performing a job to the same level as before the pregnancy?
Not necessarily less capable, but it certainly runs the risk (for above physiological reasons).
jhoijhoi wrote:
Does a woman suddenly become incapacitated during pregnancy? In terms of practicality, sure, it can be practical to have a man at work 9-5 every day for a year, as opposed to a woman having to leave after a certain time - but this practically completely ignores how successful the woman makes the company.
Then that's up to the employer to discern the trade-off between an absent but great worker as opposed to (let's say) a consistently average worker. I don't see any reason why the state should interfere and say, 'Hey! No pregnancy discrimination!'.
jhoijhoi wrote:
There's a difference between discrimination and suitability for a job. "Denying someone employment, or disallowing one from applying for a job, is often recognized as employment discrimination when the grounds for such an exclusion is not related to the requirements of the position, and protected characteristics may include age, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, height etc". I was merely referring to the idea that a fat man may not be hired to be a salesperson due to his weight. Not that the fat man was denied the right to participate in the Olympics ;)
Yes, there's a subtle difference, but there are very common overlapping points (if I assume I accept that it's 'discrimination', which I don't). You can't just differentiate just because it's convenient. There are cases where an employer will think that suitability for a job includes considering whether or not the worker will become pregnant. Sure, he's 'discriminating', but he's discriminating for the sake of the suitability of the job, particularly long-term.
Psi, Ichi and Nick: That's the problem, you assume that a woman IS the primary caregiver, that the woman WANTS to take care of a child once the child has been born. That's simply not the case for women who do want to continue their careers. But the problem is men and women in this society do not consider whether or not the woman is the primary caregiver - they just assume it.
Leaving a country is different from being part of a company and getting pregnant. Getting pregnant is the choice of the woman, not the choice of the employer. A similar contract could state, "You are not allowed to pray during your time here" - that's religious discrimination. A contract that withholds the rights of a human being can be discrimination if it's targeting a particular quality, or perceived quality (pregnancy).
Due to this reprieved stereotype that women are not capable of work during pregnancy, or capable of returning to full time work after pregnancy, women in positions of being promoted are often asked, "What are your plans for family" or "Are you planning on taking a 6-12 month leave of absence". These questions are not only potentially unlawful, they also defeat the purpose of open recruiting by basing selection criteria on irrelevant matters.
Not just that, "For women employees who choose to have a family, it is in the interests of employers to understand their rights and responsibilities, accommodate the pregnancy, and encourage employees to remain with them." - the employer shouldn't be seeking to eliminate women who plan to get pregnant, but to accommodate for pregnancy. You can't fire a pregnant woman because the floors are often slippery, thus too dangerous to have her around; you should fix the floor. As an employer you shouldn't be thinking that pregnancy "gets in the way of business", thus you shouldn't be writing contracts about it. Keep in mind, I'm referring to "normal" job positions. Not positions that require a woman to remain unpregnant, like porn stars. Even TV presenters, A-list actors etc are "allowed" to get pregnant during their contracts/employment. What I'm trying to say, is unless the job requires you not to get pregnant for some reason, it is discrimination to write a contract forbidding a woman to get pregnant. The only example I could find was this one, and even then, it's from a country where women have less rights away.
Here's an example of pregnancy discrimination:
There are so many sources of information out there. Unless I am absolutely completely missing the point of pregnancy discrimination, it is unfair for a contract to exist wherein the employee is forbidden to get pregnant.
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/pregnancy-guidelines-2001
http://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/maternity-and-parental-leave/pregnant-employee-entitlements
I'm going out with a friend now, but will reply when I get back.
Edit: Something I forgot to add earlier, maternity leave is subsidized by the government, meaning employers are not out of pocket paying for the woman for not working.
PsiGuard wrote:
I don't really see how the you-can't-get-pregnant contract thing is discrimination though. It's not like they said you can't have a period or something. Getting pregnant doesn't happen unless you make it happen. Work contracts should have some say in your personal life if it can affect your productivity as a worker. A contract could say that you're not allowed to leave the country or something like that without infringing on your rights since it's an agreement that you assent to beforehand.
Leaving a country is different from being part of a company and getting pregnant. Getting pregnant is the choice of the woman, not the choice of the employer. A similar contract could state, "You are not allowed to pray during your time here" - that's religious discrimination. A contract that withholds the rights of a human being can be discrimination if it's targeting a particular quality, or perceived quality (pregnancy).
Due to this reprieved stereotype that women are not capable of work during pregnancy, or capable of returning to full time work after pregnancy, women in positions of being promoted are often asked, "What are your plans for family" or "Are you planning on taking a 6-12 month leave of absence". These questions are not only potentially unlawful, they also defeat the purpose of open recruiting by basing selection criteria on irrelevant matters.
Not just that, "For women employees who choose to have a family, it is in the interests of employers to understand their rights and responsibilities, accommodate the pregnancy, and encourage employees to remain with them." - the employer shouldn't be seeking to eliminate women who plan to get pregnant, but to accommodate for pregnancy. You can't fire a pregnant woman because the floors are often slippery, thus too dangerous to have her around; you should fix the floor. As an employer you shouldn't be thinking that pregnancy "gets in the way of business", thus you shouldn't be writing contracts about it. Keep in mind, I'm referring to "normal" job positions. Not positions that require a woman to remain unpregnant, like porn stars. Even TV presenters, A-list actors etc are "allowed" to get pregnant during their contracts/employment. What I'm trying to say, is unless the job requires you not to get pregnant for some reason, it is discrimination to write a contract forbidding a woman to get pregnant. The only example I could find was this one, and even then, it's from a country where women have less rights away.
Here's an example of pregnancy discrimination:
Quoted:
Example: Discriminating against a pregnant employee
Melissa is a full-time employee and works in a clothing store. She tells her boss Peter that she is pregnant.
A few weeks later her hours are reduced and she is told that she is now a part-time employee. When Melissa asks Peter about this he tells he is reducing her hours to help her with her pregnancy and that in his family the women always reduce their hours when they are pregnant.
Even though Peter thinks he is helping Melissa this is still discrimination. He is treating her differently to his other employees because she is pregnant.
Melissa is a full-time employee and works in a clothing store. She tells her boss Peter that she is pregnant.
A few weeks later her hours are reduced and she is told that she is now a part-time employee. When Melissa asks Peter about this he tells he is reducing her hours to help her with her pregnancy and that in his family the women always reduce their hours when they are pregnant.
Even though Peter thinks he is helping Melissa this is still discrimination. He is treating her differently to his other employees because she is pregnant.
There are so many sources of information out there. Unless I am absolutely completely missing the point of pregnancy discrimination, it is unfair for a contract to exist wherein the employee is forbidden to get pregnant.
Quoted:
Indirect pregnancy and potential pregnancy discrimination takes place when there is a requirement, condition or practice that disadvantages pregnant or potentially pregnant women. It will not be discriminatory if the requirement, condition or practice is reasonable in the circumstances. In assessing whether an action was reasonable, a court will consider, among other things, the disadvantage to the employee, how the disadvantage could be overcome and whether it is proportionate to what an employer sought to achieve.
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/pregnancy-guidelines-2001
http://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/maternity-and-parental-leave/pregnant-employee-entitlements
I'm going out with a friend now, but will reply when I get back.
Edit: Something I forgot to add earlier, maternity leave is subsidized by the government, meaning employers are not out of pocket paying for the woman for not working.
sirell wrote:
However, even if you aren't suggesting that pregnancy causes subpar performance, it is simply not true. For the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, the woman experiences fatigue, dizziness, nausea, cramps and sickness, as well as other symptoms.
So you think it's okay to fire someone or not hire someone because of these symptoms that can be caused by any numerous amount of causes? Such as cancer treatment, disability, PTSD - any number of things. You can't just fire someone due to these conditions unless the job specifically necessitates them to be of sound health.
sirell wrote:
Pregnancy really DOES make your job making ability sub-par. And I haven't even begun to talk about the emotional changes that may occur with pregnancy. Depending on the job, I very much think that her working ability is very strongly compromised. Or at least, it's extremely understandable for an employer to view it as such.
Sirell, it's not okay to think this way. Some women work a week before they are due to give birth and are not affected by those symptoms above. You can't just assume that a woman will work subpar due to "expected symptoms". Even then, as a work employer, you should be making accommodations for a pregnant woman, not firing them because they're pregnant.
I have so much more to say, but my friend is over now and they're more important than trying to convey to you that your opinions of pregnancy AND women is outdated, misogynistic and discriminatory.
Edited to add something my friend just said:
"Sorry, we can't hire you, you're fertile!"
jhoijhoi wrote:
So you think it's okay to fire someone or not hire someone because of these symptoms that can be caused by any numerous amount of causes? Such as cancer treatment, disability, PTSD - any number of things. You can't just fire someone due to these conditions unless the job specifically necessitates them to be of sound health.
jhoijhoi wrote:
Sirell, it's not okay to think this way. Some women work a week before they are due to give birth and are not affected by those symptoms above. You can't just assume that a woman will work subpar due to "expected symptoms". Even then, as a work employer, you should be making accommodations for a pregnant woman, not firing them because they're pregnant.
I have so much more to say, but my friend is over now and they're more important than trying to convey to you that your opinions of pregnancy AND women is outdated, misogynistic and discriminatory.
Edited to add something my friend just said:
"Sorry, we can't hire you, you're fertile!"
First of all, telling someone 'it's not okay to think this way', along with calling their thinking 'outdated, misogynistic and discriminatory' is really discriminatory as **** and quite frankly, uncalled for. You basically implicitly said 'you're a sociopath' just because I think slightly differently from you or even maybe even the majority. What the actual ****. That was so hypocritical on several different levels and I honestly expected better from you. I expected a reasonable discussion after the initial things you get, instead I'm just met with a direct attack on my person (also largely WRONG perceptions of my person). Hell, you don't even UNDERSTAND my opinions on women; I haven't said ANYTHING about them. We have been speaking of pregnancy and its link to the workplace, not women.
No, **** it, you don't deserve a proper reply any more. As soon as you brought insults into this discussion, you lost all right to be taken seriously.
Btw, last I checked, females can be fertile too. Seriously, **** your sexist ********.
You need to log in before commenting.
there is stuff after pregnancy.
A child requires quite some amount of time to be taken care of.
After pregnancy, in most cases, the woman will care for the child which then goes back to the employer having an employee that is less efficient.
In some countries the husband can apply for martial leave, letting the wife going to work.
But it is mostly expected for the woman to take care of the child and thus being less inefficient.