Washington state does not have a paid maternity leave program yet. While the Washington program was approved, there has been no funding mechanism put in place, and the program is not slated to begin paying benefits until Oct. 1 2009. It will pay $250/week for five weeks, and I believe those benefits are cut for women whose employers already pay any benefits.

The concept of "Pregnancy Discrimination" is absurd. Why should a business owner hire a woman who is seven months pregnant - knowing that she will be frequently sick, frequently tired, and, after giving birth, will need several months off of work. Why would any sensible business owner hire such a person when they can instead hire someone who is not in a physical state that will diminish their ability to work? The labor market is not a charity, it is a competition - and it should not be hindered by absurdities like "Pregnancy Discrimination Acts".

But I guess opinions like that make me a troll.

But I guess opinions like that make me a troll.

You'll be called one for it.

I'd add that pregnancy (as stated in a previous article) is not a disability. It's not an injury, it's not something that befell you with you having no say in the matter.

Getting pregnant, and staying that way, in the vast majority of cases, is a clear choice. It was/is a voluntary decision. It's not an illness.

I don't really believe in the concept of forcing people to pay maternity leave. It's ridiculous. People scream for paid maternity leave, but, naturally, no paternity leave.

Look at it from the employers perspective. Not only do you have to pay an employee who isn't even working, but you also have to pay for a temp in her absence.

"knowing that she will be frequently sick, frequently tired, and, after giving birth, will need several months off of work. Why would any sensible business owner hire such a person when they can instead hire someone who is not in a physical state that will diminish their ability to work?"

Do you need to perpetrate the stereotype that pregnant women are sick, frail creatures who can't pull their own weight around?

And I won't call trolling this time, but seriously, why are some of you here? A feminist space was created and then some people trumpet in without a clue and bring out all the old MRA arguments that we've heard before. Calling pregnant women "sick, tired" and unable to accomplish their work, is just plain sexist.

There are reasons why women aren't allowed maternity leave and why men aren't allowed paternity leave by some companies (and some companies DO allow BOTH) and it's called The Patriarchy. I'm tired of hearing: "Oh, she's a waste of resources, we better fire her because she got pregnant." There is a reason people are fighting against unfair and discriminatory practices and this is one. Companies already fuck with women by paying us less simply because we're women, but then you add in "getting pregnant" ...which takes two to tango, I might add...and they dock pay, take away benefits, and fire us.

Yeah, I'd say that's worth a pregnancy discrimination complaint.

"knowing that she will be frequently sick, frequently tired, and, after giving birth, will need several months off of work. Why would any sensible business owner hire such a person when they can instead hire someone who is not in a physical state that will diminish their ability to work?"

Do you need to perpetrate the stereotype that pregnant women are sick, frail creatures who can't pull their own weight around?

And I won't call trolling this time, but seriously, why are some of you here? A feminist space was created and then some people trumpet in without a clue and bring out all the old MRA arguments that we've heard before. Calling pregnant women "sick, tired" and unable to accomplish their work, is just plain sexist.

There are reasons why women aren't allowed maternity leave and why men aren't allowed paternity leave by some companies (and some companies DO allow BOTH) and it's called The Patriarchy. I'm tired of hearing: "Oh, she's a waste of resources, we better fire her because she got pregnant." There is a reason people are fighting against unfair and discriminatory practices and this is one. Companies already fuck with women by paying us less simply because we're women, but then you add in "getting pregnant" ...which takes two to tango, I might add...and they dock pay, take away benefits, and fire us.

Yeah, I'd say that's worth a pregnancy discrimination complaint.

A feminist space was created and then some people trumpet in without a clue and bring out all the old MRA arguments that we've heard before. Calling pregnant women "sick, tired" and unable to accomplish their work, is just plain sexist.

How is it related to men's rights, to comment on what pregnant women can or cannot do?

Fact is, yes, pregnant women operate in a diminished capacity. Not at first, no, but as they reach their due date, there are many things they cannot do.

It's not sexist to notice that a pregnant woman has serious physical changes that will impede her ability to do certain things.

It also isn't sexist to note that she will require some time off work to have the child, as well.

They also do start to have a degraded energy level because of it.

There are reasons why women aren't allowed maternity leave and why men aren't allowed paternity leave by some companies (and some companies DO allow BOTH) and it's called The Patriarchy.

I'd also think it's because pregnancy is not a disabling accident that you had no say in. The initial pregnancy may have been accidental, but there was a voluntary choice made to continue it. A choice with consequences.

then you add in "getting pregnant" ...which takes two to tango, I might add...and they dock pay, take away benefits, and fire us.

You can call it sexist, but when a man gets a woman pregnant, while her body is going through various changes, eventually requiring time off work, his body does not change.

Yes, it takes two to tango, but the physical consequences don't affect both.

Why are some of us here?

I can't speak for everyone, but, personally, I find it to be intellectually fulfilling to read and comprehend the arguments of those who are so far out on the left-wing of the spectrum that they believe it is a sexist stereotype to state that a pregnant woman is not able to perform the duties of her job to the same extent that a nonpregnant woman is.

A pregnant woman IS "frail". She CAN'T "pull her weight around". It's part of the discomfort of being a pregnancy. To deny this is . . . well, it's either idiocy or insanity. I'd have to know you better to know which it is.

So, yes, in answer to your question - just as I like to read the comments on Stormfront so that I can understand the mindset behind the ultra-right wing philosophies, I also like to read the commentaries posted here to understand its counterbalance.

Just as you can't discriminate against an autistic man, a man in a wheelchair, a man who is missing an arm or leg, a man who is chronically depressed, a man who is unable to stand due to breathing problems for more than 5 minutes, etc, you cannot discriminate against a pregnant woman.
Sure if a job listed in its original requirements "must be able to lift 50 pounds multiple times daily upon hire" you can probably discriminate against any of the physically disabled since they do not meet the physical requirments If the original job, as many are, is an office job with lots of sitting, you can't.
Even if you're impressionable enough to think a pregnant woman is just a bunch of raging hormones, if you are considering her for a job why hire the chronically depressed man instead? Because you can't SEE that he's chronically depressed, and you can SEE that a pregnant woman might have some extra hormones floating around?
What jobs are you all exactly imagining 7-month-pregnant women applying for where they can't do their work just as well as others (the depressed, the asthmatic, the easily stressed, the people who get panic attacks, the smokers who go outside to take a break for 10 minutes every half hour, the )?
It is cheating to mention jobs that would state in the original posting "must be able to stand for 3 hours at a stretch" or "must be able to lift 50 pounds safely" or anything like that, since obviously most pregnant women can't fulfill this requirement.

*man used on purpose

*please disregard bad grammar and ", the" in parens, I was on a rant and deleted badly.

Mild Ennui--Some pregnant women work in a diminished capacity. I'm not. I'm an editor, I sit at a desk, work at a computer, or sit in a comfy chair and read manuscripts. I'm also chronically ill on top of that, and having a difficult high-risk pregnancy, and I'm still getting more work done than some of my coworkers.

And, fuck you, Lewis Ranja, I'm not FRAIL. I bet I could still kick your ass.

I'm not going to argue whether women or men deserve leave to care for a child--I think few of you actually have any clue how business actually works. A well-run company takes care of its employees because that's the best way to do business. A company cannot be successful while abusing its employees, not unless it's Walmart and has a constant influx of new and desperate workers.

The problem with your argument, LewisRanja, is that you're not paying attention.

The issue is not that business owners will not hire a woman who's seven months pregnant. There is absolutely no way any law can protect a woman from not being hired because she was pregnant; the employer simply has to say "she wasn't a good fit" or "her qualifications weren't up to par." The problem we are discussing is when women are *fired* from the job they already had for being pregnant.

Pregnancy often does result in having impaired ability to do your work for a while. So does going through a divorce, getting into a car accident because you chose to drive while you were tired, contracting the flu because you were staying up too late every night, getting a back injury because you were playing sports, and so on. Many of these conditions are brought on by the person who suffers them, but the difference is:

a. all of them can happen to men
b. none of them have to do with sex
c. all of them *could* have been suffered from involuntary actions or random chance as well as through your own fault

A, B, and C are *all* true and it would be disingenuous to claim that the only difference between pregnancy and the conditions above is C... but A and B are related to sexism.

If a pregnant employee is treated differently than an employee who broke his leg in a ski accident, that is sex discrimination. Pure and simple. She didn't have to have sex and then choose to keep the pregnancy, and he didn't have to choose to ski. Both are lifestyle choices; she wants to be a mother and he wants to be a skiier. There is, in fact, no real difference between the pregnant woman being temporarily disabled because of something she chose to do, and the man with the broken leg temporarily disabled because of something he chose to do. (Someone may point out that he didn't choose to ski in the belief he would get a broken leg, whereas all pregnancy is disabling, but that's not true; I've read of CIA agents who worked until they went into labor, gave birth, and were on a plane to a foreign country the day after giving birth, back on the job again. Not all women are disabled in any way by pregnancy.)

Given that most women will at some point in their lives choose to be pregnant, allowing discrimination against employees who are pregnant unfairly penalizes women for being female. If we were men, we could have children and our careers would not suffer, but because we carry the child, we must either let our careers suffer or be childless? I don't think so. A good employee is worth keeping on even if she has to work on a slightly lighter duty for a couple of months and then take six weeks off, because if she's been working longer than three months before getting pregnant, it would take longer for the company to train someone to her level of skill and familiarity with the work than it would to just ride out her pregnancy and wait for her to come back. And if you don't fire men for breaking their legs in ski accidents, then you don't fire women for getting pregnant. It's that simple.

Just as you can't discriminate against an autistic man, a man in a wheelchair, a man who is missing an arm or leg, a man who is chronically depressed, a man who is unable to stand due to breathing problems for more than 5 minutes, etc, you cannot discriminate against a pregnant woman.

That's just it, those are not the same.

Of all of those conditions, which one is voluntary? There's only one, and it's pregnancy.

the smokers who go outside to take a break for 10 minutes every half hour,

I take one smoke break (timed at precisely 90 seconds), once per hour.

Considering I don't take an hour off for lunch, I figure my productivity is unhurt by my brief breaks.

Even if you were hiring the pregnant woman for a job that her pregnancy would not affect, your comparison to the man in the wheelchair falls flat for one big reason - - - the man in the wheelchair won't be demanding time off after only being on the job for a few months.

Wow, way to perpetuate stereotypes of pregnant women. Women experience pregnancy in a wide variety of ways although popular culture will have us believe that all pregnant women are unstable, vomiting whales. To believe that a woman cannot function to her full capacity while pregnant is discriminatory and insulting. It is not up to the employers to determine if a pregnant woman is capable of doing her job.

I think it's kinda funny, first off, that anyone considers Feministing to be "far" left. It's left, certainly, but far? That's a bit of a stretch.

Also, something I thought of. The idea was raised that there is a difference between discriminating against a women who has become pregnant, because it was her choice, and against someone who has had an accident, because it was not their choice. But consider, if you will, that if a couple chooses to have a pregnancy, the woman is left with no choice about being the one to bear the child (I speak, I am aware, from a very heteronormal POV. There was an article at Alternet recently about a couple consisting of a woman and a trans man, in which the woman was infertile, so the trans man (who had retained his original female fertility capabilities) chose to carry the child. This is an exceptional case).

So in this sense, the woman was given "no" choice about becoming pregnant. Are all working couples to remain childless forever? I think that would be rather ridiculous to ask of anyone. Thus, if a woman has a career, it IS discriminatory to fire her for becoming pregnant.

I feel I should add that I am a fervent supporter of paid maternity and paternity leave. I think it's important for parents to be home with their children in the earliest time after a birth. Thus they would both need financial support shortly after a pregnancy. Also, if a couple consists of two fathers, what are they to do?

Also, an addendum based on the comments that were added since I clicked "Preview."

"the man in the wheelchair won't be demanding time off after only being on the job for a few months." - Lewis Ranja

You make it sound like female employees are just dying to get some maternity leave - going out and getting pregnant, just for that glorious time off! Please be realistic. Individuals who have the means (and given the corporate type of world we seem to have been discussing, I will assume these pregnant women have the means) usually plan their pregnancies.

As a pregnant woman who is due in a couple of weeks, I will bring my left-wing pregnant woman perspective to this.

First of all, not ALL women are unable to do their jobs when they become pregnant. Not all pregnancies are physically disabling (mine is a good example- I still hit the gym for over an hour every day and I'm about ready to pop). I have not found that I can no longer lift the things I could before.

Now, that's not true for all pregnant women, and that's where we discuss "stereotypes". A stereotype is when we say, because person A is like this, and person A is a member of group X, then any member in group X probably is the same way.
That is unfair. It is fair of an employer to make sure that, with reasonable accommodation, an employee can do the job. That's not what this federal legislation is about. It simply prohibits you from failing to hire or firing someone BECAUSE of the pregancy.

Now, "ability" isn't even an issue in many of the contexts where women are fired or not hired for being pregnant. Many office jobs, for example, can be performed until the minute you go into labor. And not every mom takes of months for leave. Yes, some special situations require that. But I know several women who were back to their jobs in less than a month.

In addition, I really take issue with the assertion that the partner of a pregnant woman is not physically affected by pregnancy. The fatigue affects BOTH partners, BOTH of whom are awakened every two hours for the first few months of their child's life.

I would also argue that it IS in most employers' best interest (aside from avoiding lawsuits) to reasonably accommodate an employee who is pregnant. My husband chose his law firm on the basis of its paid paternity leave and the fact that it has an exceptional reputation for promoting women and retaining mothers. Good employees are hard to come by, and in competitive job markets, these things go a long way.

I am really frustrated by a lot of the "if you can't deal with the challenges of pregnancy, don't get pregnant" crap that gets articulated on this FEMINIST website. If you think pregnant women should drop out of the workforce, I do think you're on the wrong website.

Lewis Ranja, Mild Ennui, do you view reproduction as a privilege or a right?

I do hope that the increased reports of descrimination are a result of more women coming forward, rather than more descrimination. It would be great news if this was taken seriously and investigated.

Just one last comment before I call it a day.

Llencelyn writes . .

"I think it's kinda funny, first off, that anyone considers Feministing to be "far" left. It's left, certainly, but far? That's a bit of a stretch."

Then follows it up with . . .
"I speak, I am aware, from a very heteronormal POV. There was an article at Alternet recently about a couple consisting of a woman and a trans man, in which the woman was infertile, so the trans man (who had retained his original female fertility capabilities) chose to carry the child."

I know, I know, I know. In the world you immerse yourself in, all of this seems just normal lightly-left banter. But trust me, to the Average Joe, this website is about as far left as you can get without putting a Hammer-And-Sickle next to the banner.

Trust me on this. I beg you.

Mild Ennui, you may take brief smoke breaks. Other smokers really do stay outside for 10 minutes at a time, every hour or so.

Some pregnant women are disabled by their pregnancies. Others are not.

When I was pregnant and running my own IT business, I was just as productive as when I was not pregnant, up until the last week of the pregnancy. This is in part because my job was always work-from-home. But right now I am recovering from a voluntary surgery to correct problems caused by my pregnancy a year ago, and I have a regular corporate job, and they hired me even though I had the surgery scheduled because they needed someone to do the job and they knew I knew how to do it. And I was out for 3 days and since then have pulled 40-hour weeks working from home. There is no reason the average pregnant IT worker couldn't do the same (which is one of the reasons it appalls me that there are so few women in IT; gals, the profession was *made* for us. IT LETS YOU WORK FROM HOME OR IN A HOSPITAL BED, WITH A BABY NURSING ON YOUR LAP. Screw being a nurse or a schoolteacher; if you want to be a mom choose a career where pregnancy won't matter! But I digress.)

And, y'know, maybe the guy who can't stand up due to breathing problems got that way by smoking, which is voluntary. Or maybe he got that way by getting pneumonia and then choosing not to treat it, like Jim Henson did and died of. So actually, how do you know that the pregnant woman is the only one that got that way from voluntary choices?

Besides, pregnancy per se is not disabling. Many, many pregnancies are disabling, but not all. The 6 weeks off women get for maternity leave is legally permitted to men as well -- FMLA allows both men and women to take leave for adopting a child, taking care of a sick loved one, or having a baby. So since you don't know when you hire a *man* if his *wife* is pregnant and he's going to demand 6 weeks off to take care of her, why would it be fair not to hire the woman who is pregnant? Her, at least, you *know* the situation. She can't lie to you about it.

(True story: I got pregnant about two months before planned layoffs, because I figured hey, I'll be out of work anyway, and I knew *I'd* have a problem pregnancy most likely, so do it while I'm not working. My husband was making huge amounts of money as an IT consultant at the time. But then his consulting gig dried up and we couldn't afford to pay COBRA for the health insurance my employer had been providing, so he had to take a job with health insurance quick. It paid much less than the last one had and he was miserable. He was recruited for a new job making more money, but it would have been right around the time the baby was due. So he just totally failed to mention to these people that his wife was pregnant. And a week after getting the new job, he took several days off to be with me when I had the baby. You have no way of knowing if a man is going to do that to you, because you're not allowed to ask.)

Mild Ennui, you may take brief smoke breaks. Other smokers really do stay outside for 10 minutes at a time, every hour or so.

I'm sure they do, but to say it's done every half hour is a bit of an exaggeration. Even heavy smokers like myself, don't *need* a cigarette every 30 minutes.

The 6 weeks off women get for maternity leave is legally permitted to men as well -- FMLA allows both men and women to take leave for adopting a child, taking care of a sick loved one, or having a baby.

Try getting an employer to agree with it. Besides which, it's a little ludicrous to take 6 weeks off if you're a man, when your partner is taking her 6 weeks.

Where's the income going to come from?

Besides, I see no need for both parents to take the time off. The time off is meant to cover a bit of recovery and somesuch, or whatever. The male doesn't need that.

So since you don't know when you hire a *man* if his *wife* is pregnant and he's going to demand 6 weeks off to take care of her

Because almost no man will take 6 weeks off, because of the reasons I stated above.

I know, I know, I know. In the world you immerse yourself in, all of this seems just normal lightly-left banter. But trust me, to the Average Joe, this website is about as far left as you can get without putting a Hammer-And-Sickle next to the banner.

Wow, Godwin's law in just 19 comments! Is that a new record?

As my British friend was just telling me, only in America is the "left" so far to the right.

Lewis Ranja, Mild Ennui, do you view reproduction as a privilege or a right?

I just now noticed this one.

I suppose I view it as something of a privilege, yes.

Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should. Some people can't afford a child. Some people aren't mentally equipped to raise one. The wanting of something doesn't equate with the needing of it, or the ability to do it.

The privilege part, I suppose, comes from the fact that I think the government has better things to spend my money on than paying for people's children, when those people went into it knowing they were totally unable to do it themselves.

Thanks for answering my question. I think a great deal of the conflict in the thread comes from opposing views of reproduction as privilege or a right. I view reproduction and everything that comes with it as a right. Therefore, I believe that employers have an obligation to have paid maternity/paternity leave.

I think that reproduction/children have been turned into a luxury, therefore society views it as something only within the reach of those who can afford it. Have you noticed the emphasis on giving children 'the best' of everything? To a certain degree, it's consumerism reaching its hands into a woman's uterus and it disturbs me to a great deal.

Thanks for answering my question. I think a great deal of the conflict in the thread comes from opposing views of reproduction as privilege or a right. I view reproduction and everything that comes with it as a right.

Well, I just believe if you need the government to feed your offspring, you shouldn't have had any.

think that reproduction/children have been turned into a luxury, therefore society views it as something only within the reach of those who can afford it. Have you noticed the emphasis on giving children 'the best' of everything? To a certain degree, it's consumerism reaching its hands into a woman's uterus and it disturbs me to a great deal.

It's not even just that. Food, shelter, clothing, are not the "best of everything".

If you need the government to subsidize your reproduction, then you shouldn't reproduce.

I don't think that's unfair to say. Sure, falling back on assistance in times of great emergency is one thing, but relying on it to feed your child on much more than a temporary basis is a serious problem.

If your finances won't allow a child, you shouldn't treat it as a "rights" situation. People should exercise good judgement about it.

"If you need the government to subsidize your reproduction, then you shouldn't reproduce."

I take it you support full, free, comprehensive birth control then, up to and including abortion services.

"A pregnant woman IS "frail". She CAN'T "pull her weight around". It's part of the discomfort of being a pregnancy."

I can't speak for every woman, but I work at a desk so I really don't see how "pulling my weight" would have anything to do with my ability to work. I can sit in a chair and type just as well pregnant or not.

I would love to see women and men have some mandatory paid leave to bond with a new child. Providing parental leave would encourage loyalty in employees and be a good business practice, not to mention just being a human thing to do.

Check out wikipedia's paid maternity leave entry. It has a lovely chart outlining paid and un-paid maternity leave in every country. The U.S. is one of the only ones listed that does not require paid maternity leave. Paid maternity leave is in place all over the world because IT WORKS.

It's only a matter of time before the U.S. catches up to other countries like the U.K., Sweden, France, Canada, Iran, Iraq, Mongolia, Cuba, Congo, Egypt, Cambodia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and pretty much every other fucking country in the world.

I take it you support full, free, comprehensive birth control then, up to and including abortion services.

I fail to see how that relates. You say that like people somehow need sex to survive, and can't stop themselves from doing it.

Paid maternity leave is in place all over the world because IT WORKS.

What do you mean, "it works"? It works...at what?

realityfighter: I take it you support full, free, comprehensive birth control then, up to and including abortion services.

I'm with Ennui on this, actually. People who need government support on a permanent or semi-permanent basis to raise their kids shouldn't be having kids in the first place. I depart from Ennui, it seems, in that I do, in fact, believe in 100% government subsidized birth control and abortion, as well as making both of those extremely easy for anyone to get.

The problem I have with paid maternity leave is that it is a form of compensation, in that a job with it, all else being equal, is more desirable than one without it. Being required to provide women with extra benefits seems like a legitimate reason to give them less cash compensation. For those women planning to have children, it evens out, but it isn't fair to the women who don't. In America, there is no pay gap between men and women who never marry and never have children. Would this cease being the case if such women were now required to accept a company benefit they don't want?

I don't know. Does anyone know if studies on this have been done in nations with paid maternity leave?

Who do you think you're talking to, Mild Ennui?

Feminists support paternity leave as well as maternity leave. Or did you think you were talking to conservatives for a minute?
At my office, women have to go on Disibility when they give birth.
My co-worker had a baby two weeks ago and she did a KICK-ASS job until the week beforehand. You'd never know she was pregnant if you couldn't see her.

"That's just it, those are not the same.

Of all of those conditions, which one is voluntary? There's only one, and it's pregnancy.
"

I think most women who get pregnant would like to be able to choose not to be weak or out of breath or have hormonal problems while pregnant. (Some women have none of these problems). So while the woman chose to get pregnant, she didn't choose the unfortunate genes that cause her to have hormone problems or weakness during pregnancy. There's a chance that she could be one of those women on a plane the next day after a birth.
So discriminating against/not hiring pregnant women just because they *might have been* unfortunate enough to get the genetics that screw up their hormones or strength or ability to work seems pretty sexist to me.
The only thing different is that pregnancy is temporary...

Feminists support paternity leave as well as maternity leave. Or did you think you were talking to conservatives for a minute?

Well, naturally, though, there's a lot less interest on your collective part for working to achieve that, as there is to working to acheive a mandatory paid leave for women.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems more of a "This one first, then that", rather than "Let's achieve these both at the same time", thing.

Regardless, Alice brings up an interesting point.

If mandatory paid leave was reality (for either one or both sexes), what about the people who don't want children?

My problem with belief that a woman should not have a child if she cannot afford one is that it reeks of economic privilege. It is economic social Darwinism.

My problem with belief that a woman should not have a child if she cannot afford one is that it reeks of economic privilege. It is economic social Darwinism.

Not really. In previous eras, if a woman couldn't feed, clothe, take care of, or provide medical care for her child, guess what? They did. Not really economic Darwinism, just plain old regular Darwinism.

Just because the government is there, doesn't mean it's a good idea to get them to feed, house, clothe, and support the children of people that were incapable of supporting them themselves.

It's not economic privilege, really. It doesn't take a millionaire to have a child. But if you can barely feed yourself, and struggle every month with bills, your priorities shouldn't be reproduction.

As I was saying to my husband the other day, "Isn't it funny that the political party that would most like me to shut the fuck up and stay at home with our children is also the political party that has ensured that I can't do the same?"

Boggles the mind a bit.

Mild Ennui: If mandatory paid leave was reality (for either one or both sexes), what about the people who don't want children?

As long as it's available to both sexes, it simply becomes social subsidization of the well-being of babies and children, which we already do. As one who could not have children even I wanted to, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

redKate: My problem with belief that a woman should not have a child if she cannot afford one is that it reeks of economic privilege. It is economic social Darwinism.

It is, and I'm ok with that. Even if economic competition wouldn't be the most ideal form of competition for guiding human evolution, it would still be better than the present state of no competition whatsoever.

The only complication is that I'm also against letting kids starve and die of preventable diseases, so you can imagine I'm in something of a bind about how my principles could ever actually be put into practice.

Why don't you join the cause and throw your support behind it, Mild Ennui?

Or would you rather sit on the sidelines, wagging your finger at the feminists for not working hard enough on your behalf?

I made an error. guess what? They did. Should actually read guess what? They died.

Why don't you join the cause and throw your support behind it, Mild Ennui?

What, for paid paternity leave?

Or would you rather sit on the sidelines, wagging your finger at the feminists for not working hard enough on your behalf?

I'd join the cause if it somehow personally affected me. As it stands, I detest children, and the concept of having them is part of why I'm divorced, and don't date anymore.

So, I'll stick with generalized finger-wagging, because the cause doesn't really affect me, other than academically.

Oh, and my former boss totally tried to force me out of my job while I was pregnant. I went over his head and said "Gosh, I thought FMLA protected me. Should I be concerned?" and HIS boss just about had a coronary, thinking about the lawsuit my boss had just left the company open for. Dumbass.

Let me offer one solid financial reason why it's bad social policy to fire pregnant women: Because if you do, they lose their benefits and they and their children will have to go on state medical care.

Don't want to pay for that? Then it's in your best interest to protect the jobs of pregnant women, don't you think?

Correction: Strictly speaking, there is still competition in the evolutionary sense, since which individuals reproduce in what amounts is not completely random. In America, competition takes the form of "have as many kids as possible."

This whole thread is making my blood boil.

Fuck you, Mild Ennui. (Believe me, you're not mild)

"Besides, I see no need for both parents to take the time off. The time off is meant to cover a bit of recovery and somesuch, or whatever. The male doesn't need that."

You don't have kids, do you? The male is there to support the woman, who is RECOVERING. It's not that he needs to stay home for his own recovery, it's so that he can do some of the childrearing while the mother of his child recovers!

You're a blithering idiot, a troll, or both. I hope you get what you deserve. Asshole.

Well, Mild Ennui, when a man and a woman really love each other...

Without total freedom for women to exercise control over their fertility, your "pregnancy is a choice" claim dissolves like toilet paper. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you were actually speaking out of a sense of fairness. I can see that I was wrong.

I agree that paid maternity leave and paid paternity leave should be available but I think they should be government benefits.

It doesn't cost companies any more or less to hire women that way and they are not paying anyone not actually working for them. That works because companies are all about capitalism and efficacy and competition. Governments on the other hand are (or should be) about keeping society running. That means building roads, hiring police and teachers etc, and I think making it easier for society to continue into the next generation by making it a little easier to have children.

And Mild Ennui one reason for paternity leave might be to spread out the time your baby is with a parent. My husband and I are planning on using our end on end. So I go on maternity leave, have the kid, spend a bit of time with it bonding and such and then I go back to work and daddy takes over and all this time we have at least one income.

alarajrogers-thanks for taking the time to lay this out so clearly.

ennui--i'm not saying one then the other with parental leave--i think it's crucial to have BOTH paid maternity and paternity leave right NOW. if i have to choose only one, then yeah, i'm going to have to pick maternity because of the physical nature of pregnancy, but i strongly favor both. of course, even if paid paternity leave were universal, another hurdle is getting men to actually take it.

the reproduction as a right vs a privilege is kind of a whole other issue that i'm still *headdesk* over from another post here so i won't really get into it. so let's just talk about women who can afford to raise a child for a moment--why on earth should we be discriminated against because we have to be the ones to give birth? some of you really don't seem to understand the whole purpose of any employee benefits at all. i mean, by your logic no one should get paid vacation or health insurance either. employers provide such things because people are more productive when they can work hard without having to worry about how they're going to treat that case of strep throat or when they're ever going to be able to take a day off to spend with their families and friends. pregnancy is a necessary condition of human existence because it's the only way we're going to survive as a species. while clearly not everyone has children, many people will still choose to do so and you can't have a workable labor system without working around that and helping out employees who choose to be parents in some ways. i just don't get why taht's hard to undersatnd.

i've worked for pregnant superiors at the very top of the corporate food chain who managed to stay on top of everything while they could go into labor at any second. especially when discussing non-manual labor, there's absolutely no reason to assume that a pregnant woman wouldn't be able to perform as well as she always has. alara covered the economics issue--it generally costs more to hire a new employee and train them than it does to pay for six weeks of maternity leave for an experienced employee who has a child and then comes back.

it just boggles my mind how anyone can call themselves a feminist or identify with feminism at all and not support the rights of pregnant women in the workplace. how on earth does it negatively impact the rest of you to have equal rights for pregnant women?

You don't have kids, do you? The male is there to support the woman, who is RECOVERING. It's not that he needs to stay home for his own recovery, it's so that he can do some of the childrearing while the mother of his child recovers!

Of course I don't have kids. They disgust me.

But, to your statement, no. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either you're totally able to do everything you did when you weren't pregnant, and aren't disabled in the least, or you aren't able to do everything you were, and need help.

I don't get the double standard. Pregnant women/new mothers are weak and helpless when it suits them, but other times super-capable?

Frankly, though, the male supports the woman by, oh, I dunno, going to work and earning money because she's not working for 6 weeks.

Crazy, right? Handling some of the childrearing, (which, to a newborn, there isn't much "rearing" to be done, aside from watching it sleep and feeding it), isn't nearly as useful as providing money.

Then, consider the upswing in breastfeeding, and you pretty much eliminate everything a man would need to be around the house in those 6 weeks for.

I hope you get what you deserve. Asshole.

And what precisely do you mean by that? "What I deserve"?

Without total freedom for women to exercise control over their fertility, your "pregnancy is a choice" claim dissolves like toilet paper.

Uh, see, thing is. You DO have the freedom to control it. You can have an abortion. You can get on BC. You can get Essure.

I fail to see where you suddenly don't have these abilities.

Unless you're saying that the government should pay for what amounts to a completely elective, unnecessary-for-living act. To that I say, 30 dollars a month (give or take) for BC is not highway robbery. Figure it into your budget. Be responsible.

Yeah, the government is responsible for building roads, but how does that end up as being responsible for feeding the children of people that shouldn't have them?

And Mild Ennui one reason for paternity leave might be to spread out the time your baby is with a parent.

And what if you breastfeed, and are unable to pump? (This is a common problem, so I hear).

Then the child *can't* stay with the father, and his time at home would be useless and silly.

So, this thread has gone to shit, but I wanted to post here as someone who was hired when she was 6 months pregnant and whose company doesn't regret it one bit. It was a bit inconvenient to have to have someone fill in for me so soon after I started, but they are very glad now to have someone who does as good a job as I do. And I worked a week past my due date, with no reduction in the quality or quantity of my work.

Just about all the efforts for paid parental leave focus on men and women, and given that getting men to take equal responsibility for child care is a pretty big feminist issue, I would say paid paternity leave - which would greatly facilitate that - is an equal feminist issue to paid maternity leave. The problem with getting it implemented is with general resistance to it from business and politicians, not that feminists don't care enough.

Crazy, right? Handling some of the childrearing, (which, to a newborn, there isn't much "rearing" to be done, aside from watching it sleep and feeding it), isn't nearly as useful as providing money.

Wow, you sure are pretty clueless. Have you seen parents interact with their children? There's more to childrearing than watching a newborn sleep or eat. You did well in deciding not to have children.

Unless you're saying that the government should pay for what amounts to a completely elective, unnecessary-for-living act.

Just a little side note, BC is many times prescribed for issues beyond birth control. It was given to me as part of my regimen to control my insulin resistance/polycystic ovarian syndrome.

It's not my place to tell the feminists here what to talk about and what not to talk about, but comment threads engaging ME have become totally unreadable without going into a blind rage (which I have a feeling probably amuses him), and they are not productive.

I think the fact that he doesn't care about the deaths of poor children is a reasonable cutting-off point.

I think realityfighter is saying you have to support comprehensive sex ed and access to birth control and abortion before you can really claim pregnancy is a choice. It sounds like you (Mild Ennui I mean) do support those things but upthread when realityfighter asked you directly you said you failed to see how it related. You spoke about sex itself being a choice instead. I think I agree with that (that it is a choice) but if you don't have sex ed to know the consequences then maybe the pregnancy is not a choice so it is all interrelated.

And if I have to breastfeed and am unable pump then we can use formula sometimes or Dad can bring the child to me at work. I don't work far form home.

The roads and governments point I was trying to make is about needing children for the continuation of society. I'm not necessarily arguing that all people should be supported in having 20 children. But that is a whole other argument and I really should be studying! Suffice to say I think society needs children for it's own continuation. So as with other things like policing and roads the government should help make it easier.

Technically we could all get by without roads or rich people could build the ones they need and charge a toll to others but it works out more efficiently and fairly if the government steps in.

ennui--i support maternity and paternity leave that are both PAID, so the issue isn't choosing to stay home vs choosing to work to support the family.

as for the choice to have an abortion, once again, in theory yes, in practice, often much harder. states frequently put all kinds of restrictions on getting an abortion--waiting periods and the like that are difficult for people in some jobs to handle. some states have a very small number of abortion providers and they may be located at a great distance from where you live. if you have to take time off from work (unpaid) to go to a town that is several hours away to first meet with a doctor to set up an abortion, then wait however long and then take more time off to trek back over there, it's a pretty big obstacle. especially for people without cars or anyone to take them and pick them up afterward, etc. anyway, the issue of whether every woman has equal opportunity to exercise her reproductive rights is more complex than simply "abortion is a constitutionaly protected right, therefore everyone can easily obtain one." along those lines, access to birth control is also unequal. 30 bucks a month might represent a significant sum to someone who is living at the poverty level.

And what if you breastfeed, and are unable to pump? (This is a common problem, so I hear).

I don’t know where you heard this, but, no, that isn’t a “common problem.� The opposite is much more common.

Then the child *can't* stay with the father, and his time at home would be useless and silly.

Yes, a man caring for, bonding with, and loving his child - *gasp* - definitely useless and silly.

I hear ya, Luna. I think if someone is at the point where they are being disrespectful, purposefully inflammatory, and derailing than they deserve to be banned. It's happened before, and I know it's not my choice, but if enough people complain...because at a certain point it is very distracting to regular users and it can turn away new users and make the experience bad for a lot of people. But that's the ultimate goal of a troll. So, I certainly share your sentiments and hopefully the situation will get resolved.

On another note I still can't believe that the U.S. has not caught up to other countries as far as maternity leave goes. As ShelbyWoo said, maternity leave works and it the fact that we don't have comparable leave time here speaks to how undervalued child care is in this country. As someone who taught 3rd grade for awhile, I'm actually really concerned about the state of the services we provide to children and mothers in general. I mean we used to have programs that were designed to keep mothers out of poverty (anti-poverty programs have been gutted though).

One of my friends was on Medicaid when she was pregnant and I remember right after she had the baby they cut off her health insurance (the baby got to keep his insurance thank god). But it was just ridiculous because somehow her having an infant and needing follow up care and general health care as a mother didn't matter after she had the kid - they took her insurance away and somehow the state is okay with leaving an infant who relies on his single mother totally uninsured with no money to pay for a doctor if she got sick. I'm constantly amazed at how little parenting and child care is valued here, and the real life impact resulting from the gutting of this country's social programs is just atrocious.

Wow, you sure are pretty clueless. Have you seen parents interact with their children? There's more to childrearing than watching a newborn sleep or eat. You did well in deciding not to have children.

Yeah, let's see. A 2 week old baby sleeps, eats, and shits. Lots of quality interaction there.

Also, let's refrain from the incredibly weak "It's a good thing you aren't having kids!" style insults, which just reek of "I'm better than you!".

My ability to provide one half of a strand of DNA don't really have anything to do with me not liking children.

I could create a perfectly healthy one, I just intensely dislike them.

My dislike of them is why I'm glad I'll never have to worry about having one.

Just a little side note, BC is many times prescribed for issues beyond birth control. It was given to me as part of my regimen to control my insulin resistance/polycystic ovarian syndrome.

I'm aware it has other purposes. I'm also aware most insurance plans cover it. Even if you lack insurance, it's still not incredibly expensive.

Plus, if someone is needing it for it's original purpose of controlling birth, one can assume they're having sex with a fertile, adult male. Between the two partners, enough money should be able to be generated to pay for it.

Frankly, if she absolutely can't afford it, and he's that interested in fucking, make him cough up the cash for it.

And to address your last point, one way that couples who can afford it do it is that the man and woman both take a few weeks off right after the birth when it's craziest, then the man goes back to work while the woman stays home, then the woman goes back to work and the man takes the remainder of his leave. This allows the baby to stay home with his parents for the first five to six months of life, which a lot of people consider better than going into daycare at 2-3 months (which is what we did out of economic necessity).

You seem a little dense on this, but FMLA already provides for parental leave - for men or women, equally - and the two states that mandate paid leave provide it for both. What paid leave does is make it economically feasible for more families to have both parents take some time off.

And while I am a big fan of breastfeeding, it's really not relevant to parental leave because your rights aren't and shouldn't be dependent on whether you breastfeed. So your whole "what's the man good for if the woman is breastfeeding?" argument is pointless.

ennui--i support maternity and paternity leave that are both PAID, so the issue isn't choosing to stay home vs choosing to work to support the family.

as for the choice to have an abortion, once again, in theory yes, in practice, often much harder. states frequently put all kinds of restrictions on getting an abortion--waiting periods and the like that are difficult for people in some jobs to handle. some states have a very small number of abortion providers and they may be located at a great distance from where you live. if you have to take time off from work (unpaid) to go to a town that is several hours away to first meet with a doctor to set up an abortion, then wait however long and then take more time off to trek back over there, it's a pretty big obstacle. especially for people without cars or anyone to take them and pick them up afterward, etc. anyway, the issue of whether every woman has equal opportunity to exercise her reproductive rights is more complex than simply "abortion is a constitutionaly protected right, therefore everyone can easily obtain one." along those lines, access to birth control is also unequal. 30 bucks a month might represent a significant sum to someone who is living at the poverty level.

Also, let's refrain from the incredibly weak "It's a good thing you aren't having kids!" style insults, which just reek of "I'm better than you!".

The insult doesn't reek of "I'm better than you;" really I don't see how you got that. The insult is more of "shit, you would really suck at childrearing." Think what you want in terms of childrearing and interaction, people with kids, on here and offsite, will tell you otherwise.

And $30 for BC? Ha! What a joke!

and believe me, newborns are a great deal more trouble ot care for than you seem to think. they may sleep a lot, but they also often wake up crying. as for that whole feeding thing, they typically need it every few hours, round the clock.

anyway, even if it isn't that much work to provide for the physical needs of a newborn baby, there is as i understand it, reams of scientific support for the notion that contact with parents--holding, cuddling, talking to, etc from the time children are born is important to development.

I support the call for Darwinism. Please cue the Giant Hairy Winged Ban-ded Trollgobblerasaurus to snap up that juicy morsel that is Mild Ennui. He's limping, he's loudly calling attention to himself, and a TG-a-saurus has gotta eat.

Please, no more posting to Ennui. Please, pretty please? I'm getting to the point where I don't even want to read comment threads any more. He derails them and dominates them, he spouts incredibly antifeminist stuff, endorses a gender binary, believes that women have a choice in reproduction, but that supposedly doesn't think they need free or widely available contraception, b/c they could just keep their legs shut, sees no reason for maternity leave, thinks the most valuable thing a father can do is make money, and thinks being a parent to a newborn child consists of watching it sleep and feeding it, that women don't need protection from pregnancy discrimination, and pretty much that feminists are hysterical morons.

Why he hasn't been banned is beyond me, but regardless, the one thing he's actually right about is that he can't control how much attention and derailing his posts command and do. But we can. I'm petitioning all feministing posters to refrain from letting him derail and dominate our space. Pretty pretty please?

I'm with you, kissmypineapple.

he spouts incredibly antifeminist stuff

Disagreement =/= antifeminism. Just because a feminist says something, does not make it gospel.

believes that women have a choice in reproduction

They don't? They're routinely forced to be impregated and carry the child to term against their will?

but that supposedly doesn't think they need free or widely available contraception

Contraception IS widely available. I just don't see why it needs to be free. As I said, if you need to fuck that badly, there are two people doing it. Between two adults, you should be able to scrape enough for BC.

b/c they could just keep their legs shut

Don't put words in my mouth. Seriously. It's ridiculous, and won't win any arguments or discussions.

Point is, sex is not necessary like food or water. Funny thing: I don't want kids, myself. So I don't fuck. It's not a life-essential.

The government is not here to shore up every corner of your life that you can't do yourself, I'm sorry, but I can't see a good reason why the government should subsidize all BC and abortions.

I'm fully for employers offering plans to pay for that, but not the taxpayers.

thinks the most valuable thing a father can do is make money

It's what society tells us as men that we're good for. And courts, custody cases, lawyers, and many women.

Do you have a differing opinion on that?

that women don't need protection from pregnancy discrimination

I simply said when you make a voluntary decision to do something, you shouldn't complain about the consequences. Getting a tattoo on my face is a voluntary life decision, but I might get fired from my job for it. You accept things like that when you choose things in your life.

and pretty much that feminists are hysterical morons.

Again, please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm more than a little sick of people like you trying to prove me evil, or win a discussion with me, by claiming I'm saying things that I have not actually said.

Why is it so hard to accept that *not everyone will agree with you 100%*, and that doesn't mean they're "antifeminist", or that they "hate women". It's really not up to you to define what the boundaries of feminism are, and what constitutes it, and what doesn't.

Just like feminists that claim women that have children are "antifeminist traitors", just because I believe the only people that should reproduce are the ones that can afford it, and that the government is there to keep society orderly, not be your parents and hold your hand, doesn't mean I hate women.

kmp--i gave him a lot of latitude up until recently because it did seem like he really was trying to understand some things and expressed some receptivity to the insights of other commenters. i hesitate to label anyone a troll prematurely who may honestly be looking for some information, even if they sometimes argue from a non-feminist POV. the degree to which misogyny is ingrained in our society makes it hard to cross over and sometimes it takes a lot of time and thougth and debate to adjust one's views. it would be great if someone could use this site to re-examine their beliefs.

however, clearly at this point it doesn't look like anything is sinking in and his comments get more and more ridiculous. i'm with you on ignoring him completely now, absent any compelling reason to do otherwise, until he is banned.

The whole maternity/paternity thing has been a big topic in my house lately as we are trying to conceive. My work, of course, does not offer paid maternity leave. You have to use your vacation and sick time until it's gone. If you run out or don't have any to begin with, it's un-paid maternity leave for you. If you go the un-paid route, you also have to pay your insurance premiums as well as the company's portion. So, it's more like your paying the company for leave. My husband would also like to take time off to spend with his baby, his would also be un-paid.

I generally agree with paid maternity and paternity leaves as I cherish a new life being brought into this world. Its just the execution of it that I wonder about, how exactly it would work, on a federal level, and how badly it could turn out that worries me.

I do not believe that one should be able to fire a pregnant woman although I can see cases where it would make sense. It seems a lot of you work in offices or are in college, let me know if I'm wrong there, my background was working in mills and factories and the like. There were some parts where I worked with women but when they got pregnant they had to be moved as the worksite was usually considered too toxic for an expecting mother. This wasnt in month 7 but usually the moment the woman notified the company. I dont recall anyone getting fired though a few did quit. In those kinds of jobs I could definitely see firing a pregnant woman in a business sense I just wouldnt agree with it personally.

After that for 10 years I was in the military and its interesting, there is both paid maternity leave and pregnancy discrimination. Women who give birth, or if their child is stillborn, receive a minimum of 6 weeks off as well as a reduced work schedule from week 30 on. This does tend to marginalize a lot of them and even though we couldnt "get fired" many women, upon getting pregnant, took the option and got out of the military. Always was conflicted about that, cant quite say a father should be able to do the same since he isnt going through it but what if he wants to be the primary caretaker? Strange thing.
On a much smaller scale than I suspect some of you are used to we also had a tough time dealing with women when they returned from maternity leave (usually combined with regular leave so up to 14-15 weeks total). In my field, I was a linguist, things move incredibly fast and some women lost their positions/were replaced by other women or men. Is this fair? On one hand I dont think so but on the other, you want the best person available at the moment since lives are at stake, I dont see a way around that. Finally there was a definite anti-pregnancy stance among a lot of my peers, especially amongst us deployers. 90% of the women were awesome, good operators and so on but others would take the deployer billet, which does have its perks, and intentionally get pregnant so they couldnt deploy. This happened many times and a lot of the time the woman in question would freely admit to it (at least to us, im sure not to the command), if I could have fired them I would have.

Sorry this doesnt directly pertain to most of the comments.

one last thing:

88mph 2.0?
"Point is, sex is not necessary like food or water. Funny thing: I don't want kids, myself. So I don't fuck. It's not a life-essential."

I'm guilty as charged, KMP - I fed the troll, but I just couldn't help it. A thousand apologies.

one last thing:

88mph 2.0?

Is this another one of those acronym-based insults or whatever? Because I don't get it.

As to my quoted comment, what's so ridiculous about it? You act like I said something insane or unreasonable.

I'm guilty as charged, KMP - I fed the troll, but I just couldn't help it. A thousand apologies.

So, I wonder, how do people like the commenters here ever actually have discussions with any people outside of the internet?

Every time someone doesn't toe your line, fall into place, and nod vigorously at everything you say, do you scream "TROLL" at them and run away?

So, I'm a ridiculous, horrible "misogynist", because I don't agree with everything you say. That's lovely logic.

Yes, I quoted it on purpose, because I'm sorry, disagreeing with something you say doesn't make me a woman-hater any more than you disagreeing with me makes me a man hater.

Though, it's a good way to run off people who agree with you on all the truly important fronts, by insulting and attacking anyone that presents even a slightly dissenting opinion.

Make sure you alienate anyone with a penis as much as possible, and then tell them why they need to listen to everything you say.

I don't ever see you attack women who disagree like this.

I wonder if that's just a coincidence?

Though, I should add: What really tickles me about this, is this is a section to comment with your opinion on the article posted.

The entire time, people ask me to listen to the other commenters, and take in their point of view...while completely trashing mine.

I'm expected to treat this as "everyone is right, I'm wrong, and their job is to convince me how wrong I am".

I just think that's a really strange way to go about things, and it falls easily into the "anyone who disagrees, and even after hearing my TOTALLY CORRECT point of view, STILL disagrees...must be a troll and a woman hater" mentality I see here.

Yes, I quoted it on purpose, because I'm sorry, disagreeing with something you say doesn't make me a woman-hater any more than you disagreeing with me makes me a man hater.

Dammit. That should say:

Yes, I quoted it on purpose, because I'm sorry, disagreeing with something you say doesn't make me a woman-hater any more than you disagreeing with me makes you a man hater.

Oh man. For one thing, "I don't ever see you attack women who disagree like this," is just false. Any time there's an antifeminist female on here who blatantly tries to rile, she gets called a troll. I've seen other women here be called pathological for their views on children, I've seen women get called out for racism, I see oenophile and Gopher called out all the time, and I've seen posters even in good favor with most everyone else called out when they post outrageously antifeminist stuff.

And no one is saying you're a misogynist because you disagree with them; they're saying it because you say antifeminist stuff. Which also happens to cause you to be in disagreements. They are connected but I see posters disagree with each other all the time without the level of nastiness that is usually elicited by your comments. UCLAbodyimage comes to mind. So does dananddanica. There is a whole hell of a lot of disagreement when porn ever comes up as a topic, and it can get quite heated, but not when it comes to you.

And yes, we all think that you're out of line because you have a penis. That's exactly it. Never mind that a good number of us are in heterosexual relationships, or talk about the men in out lives that we love and with whom we get along, even when we post about times we disagree with them or are troubled by said disagreements. It's all a conspiracy against you and your crazy Y chromosome.

But you just keep on saying what your saying, and think what you think, because no one here's going to change your mind, and you're not changing anyone else's either.

Realityfighter, don't feel bad. I do it, too. But this is seriously the last time!

Ennui has some valid points, folks, and he is behaving better than some of those who are yelling 'troll', which is darkly ironic. Just because you don't like what he is saying does not mean he is a troll.

Personally, I've been burned by pregnant co-workers and managers so I tend to take stories about working right up until the due date and pulling 40 hour weeks while nursing a newborn and all the rest with a grain of salt. If true, than I applaud you for your sense of fair play and decency towards your coworkers.

I've mostly seen the other side of the spectrum, however, and it has given me a rather dim view of the whole issue, so I understand why companies are hesitant to employ pregnant women or women who are planning on becoming pregnant.

I've had coworkers who are 'too tired' to work as soon as the test comes back positive and since it would be 'wrong' to fire the lazy jerk, we have to do our job as well as hers, coworkers who wait until the insurance kicks in to get pregnant, take their six weeks and then quit, leaving the rest of us in a lurch scrambling to cover a position we had been saving and a manager who blamed her abuse (she liked to scream and throw things) on hormones and threatened to black list us if we went to the district manager to complain about her behavior. (After the baby was born, she brought the baby to work and spent most of her time cooing at it and parading it around for employees. The district manager finally realized something was going on when he never recieved paperwork or time sheets from our store for several weeks, came and saw first hand what was going on and fired her on the spot.)

Extreme examples, I know, but if I am ever in the position to hire people, experiences like that would have a definite effect on my views about who would work best in the position I was hiring for. Sad, but true.

(I've also had coworkers who treated the whole thing as nothing special and never asked for special comps, which has always had the opposite effect on me, contrarian that I can be, but you know what they say about one bad apple spoiling the barrel.)

All that being said, I can see the reasoning behind paid maternity/paternity leave and understand why it is a good and needed thing. As someone who has been on the opposite side of the issue, however, I am tired of being penalized for not wanting kids and I wish there was some way to equalize it all.

Well, that's the problem. You treat this as a 100% "everything you say is wrong, everything I say is right" situation.

You label things as "antifeminist". I don't see how advocating personal responsibility is "antifeminist", and no one bothers to tell me precisely why it IS antifeminist.

My point was, that I lurked a long time, and never saw anyone get quite so viciously ripped into, as the males have been.

Though, you say about the males in your life you get along with. Do you shred your husbands and boyfriends if they disagree with you on any front? Do you tell them the rule of the house is they are always wrong, you are always right?

I know that sounds like exaggeration, but the prevailing attitude here really does feel like one where anyone who dissents is automatically wrong, and needs to be "re-educated" or they're a "troll".

Did it ever occur that having a differing opinion doesn't mean "trying to rile"?

I don't think that saying that men aren't nearly as necessary for paid leave as women are, and saying people shouldn't have children if they need the government to pay for them is "outrageously antifeminist". I think it's just pretty damn logical.

I just refuse to believe the that you can actually be so obtuse as to believe you are always right, and your job is to tell people that disagree how wrong we are.

FeDhu, you definitely have some valid points.

However, I can't agree with you about ME, who has most certainly proven to be a troll of the most insidious kind. Those of us who are calling him a troll are not basing it solely on this thread, but on seeing the same thing happen over and over again with ME always in the midst of it. It's not any particular disagreement that is a problem; it's a pattern of constant disagreement and disingenuousness, circuitous logic and a demonstrated lack of ability to examine his own prejudices or engage meaningfully with anyone who doesn't 100% agree with him, plus the repeated use of sexist assumptions and actions. If you have the time, you really should read through the many other threads that he has derailed with his peculiar brand of evasion of logic and repetition of anti-feminist, anti-women statements.

However, I can't agree with you about ME, who has most certainly proven to be a troll of the most insidious kind.

I really don't think it's up to you to arbitrarily classify me as a "troll" for disagreeing with people.

What exactly makes me a "troll"? The fact that despite various people telling me their viewpoints, I still choose my own opinion, instead of immediately accepting theirs and making it my own?

demonstrated lack of ability to examine his own prejudices or engage meaningfully with anyone who doesn't 100% agree with him

So far, every person that disagreed with me in any serious way has done this. Refused to engage meaningfully with me for not agreeing with them 100%.

In fact, as soon as I don't fall into line after presenting my differing view, I'm branded a troll, and get insults slung at me.

plus the repeated use of sexist assumptions and actions.

Such as what? People love to say things like "sexist!" and "misogynist!" and "you're wrong!" but...funny thing is, no one can tell me WHY I'm wrong, other than the fact that I don't agree with their opinion.

and repetition of anti-feminist, anti-women statements.

Again, and I'm getting tired of saying this, so please read it this time:

Disagreeing with a feminist does not make someone an anti-feminist, or anti-woman.

If you want to apply that incredible, painfully weak logic, I could say "You disagreed with me, therefore you are a misandrist and anti-man".

Ridiculous, right? That's exactly what's being done to me.

My opinions are immediately wrong and bad, because they aren't exactly what other people tell me I should think.

Again, I'll say it, the way to turn allies into people who don't give a crap about you or the things you fight for, is to try to assume that your duty is to badger them into agreeing with you, and label them terrible enemies if they disagree in the slightest.

Wow, this is certainly a productive thread ...

1. Mild Ennui says something inane that implies superiority to everyone else.

2. Someone calls ME a troll.

3. ME says, "You're just calling me a troll because I'm disagreeing!"

4. Someone carefully explains why exactly ME is a troll.

5. ME ignores them and sticks with the, "You're just calling me a troll because I disagree with you!" story.

6. Repeat 1-5 until the end of time.

Mild Ennui, you've been derailing several threads. I can't have threads hijacked by folks not looking for productive conversation, so consider this a warning. Also, please don't feed the trolls folks.

I can come up with several anecdotes about white men who managed to kiss the boss' ass and have everyone think the world of them, while screwing around online or in the backroom all day and not getting a lick or work done all day. And never getting called on it, and in fact getting 'employee of the month' awards. Does that mean I should never hire a white man? People are people, some will abuse the situation they find themselves in, most will not.

To base your opinion on a few standouts is wrong, and frankly shows where your prejudices may lie.

And for the record, I worked up until the day I went into labor, literally tossing around 40 pound boxes of merchandise. I've worked with women who came back to work the day after giving birth.

Women throughout history have HAD to work right up to childbirth, and immediately after, in order to survive.

If you believe companies should not provide maternity/paternity leave, then they should not provide leave for any elective surgery or a host of other medical leave situations. To single out something that happens only to women and whine about it does out you as sexist.

One thing I'd like to see more of in the young feminist movement is a focus on pregnancy, parenting, and workplace rights. While reproductive rights/bodily integrity rights in the context of abortion and contraception has enjoyed a lot of attention in recent years, many mainstream feminist organizations don't appear to be including the rights of pregnant women in the workplace with their talking points. In my view, the discrimination against new parents, particularly women, is one of the greatest causes of the pay gap and unequal benefits. For those who don't see how pregnancy can lead to discrimination in the workplace, here's what I see happening: A young woman focuses on her career, and eventually becomes financially secure and successful. When she feels she is ready, she decides that she wants to have a child. However, unlike her partner she has to consider that if she's in a competitive, fast-paced job, that time away from work to physically recover from the birthing process and care for a very demanding infant will make her less competitive and hurt her career because most of her male counterparts will never need to take more than a month off work. Therefore, it's discrimination not to provide both paid paternity and maternity leave because the burden of reproduction is unequally placed upon the woman due purely to biology. In order to make the workplace equal, both parents should be given the time and resources to care for their new child and to ensure that women as a group do not lag behind men because they choose to reproduce. It is my belief that the government should care for new parents because in our democracy, we are given the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Forcing new parents to sacrifice between success in the workplace and reproduction (two things essential to the American way of life) is detrimental to the health and well-being of the very citizens the government was created to protect. Furthermore, ensuring the health and continued success of the parents greatly improves the health and future success of the child. It is clear that if both parents need to work to support their child and pay taxes, the government needs to step up and help the parents when they need it most. And going back to my point about discrimination against women, I believe that the pay gap will never close and women will never have more representation in management positions until paid maternity and paternity leave is provided for everyone. This is something that will affect many of us women and our families, so I wish there could be more activism on this issue on our part.

Ktboo--

You're very right. Feminists talk a lot about how we're for choice and how we support abortion rights. Well, what about us who make the other choice, who have chosen to get pregnant, or who got pregnant accidentally and choose to continue the pregnancy? Or, worse, are stuck continuing the pregnancy because of lack of access to abortion services or other, similar reasons. Pregnant women are faced with discrimination at every turn, to the point that many deny that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act is even valid or necessary. Why does only the mother get paid maternity leave? (Or in many cases, just leave.) Yes, the mother needs to recover from the birth, but that's actually a medical concern, it's not about being a new parent. You'd get time off for recovery from any major surgery like a C-section, or for any serious procedure like a vaginal birth. When a person recovers from any other surgery, they're not supposed to do much of anything, certainly not be responsible for the care of an infant. The only sensible course of action is to allow the partner of the mother to have time off to take care of both the mother and the child. What a lovely idea. My husband will take as much vacation as he can when I give birth in late summer, but it will be limited because of the circumstances of his job. If paid family leave were federally mandated, it would be easier for him. The FMLA is a wonderful thing, but how many of us can really afford it? For the money that we'd lose without his paycheck, I could hire a nanny to help me out and have some left over. Still, there's no way we could afford it. And we're middle-class people. What about those who are poor or living paycheck to paycheck,who don't get any paid leave, or get a few weeks, at best. Some friends of mine get six weeks of paid maternity leave. Six weeks! And they work good jobs for major corporations, but because they're young, they don't have the long work history I have (I get 13 weeks of paid leave after twelve years of service.) I took almost that long to recover from my gall bladder surgery, and that's supposed to be enough to recover from a Caesarian and take care of an infant?
Besides the fact that the mother is losing essential bonding time with her infant. But there aren't many women who can afford to be SAHM, so they go back to work. This is all pregnancy discrimination, and feminists should be doing more to combat it. I'd like to, but pretty soon I'll have a young baby and a job that will take up all my time and energy. Maybe that's why not so many feminists fight for this issue--the young childless ones don't think about it, and the mothers are too busy.

I've come into the discussion WAY late, but, whatevs.

I'm a little confused. Mild Ennui was just giving his (rather unpopular) opinion. I found him to always be respectful, intelligent and constructive (doesn't mean I fully agree with it).
A "troll" is someone who comes on msg boards and says things that are random and don't make sense. (i.e. "feminazis are all bitches!")

And, frankly, I consider "fuck you" and "i hope you get what you deserve" to be a much more troll-ish (and disrespectful)thing to say than some of the things ME was saying.

I think ME actually put it quite well here:
"Why is it so hard to accept that *not everyone will agree with you 100%*, and that doesn't mean they're "antifeminist", or that they "hate women". It's really not up to you to define what the boundaries of feminism are, and what constitutes it, and what doesn't."

For information purposes: I believe in gov't paid sex ed, BC and abortion. However, I also believe that reproduction is a privelege (at least in us/canada/western europe/aus/nz).
I also define myself as a woman, a feminist, child-free (with a desire to ALWAYS be), pro-choice, pro-paid mat and pat leave, and open to dialogue and a differing of opinion.

I've come into the discussion WAY late, but, whatevs.

I'm a little confused. Mild Ennui was just giving his (rather unpopular) opinion. I found him to always be respectful, intelligent and constructive (doesn't mean I fully agree with it).
A "troll" is someone who comes on msg boards and says things that are random and don't make sense. (i.e. "feminazis are all bitches!")

And, frankly, I consider "fuck you" and "i hope you get what you deserve" to be a much more troll-ish (and disrespectful)thing to say than some of the things ME was saying.

I think ME actually put it quite well here:
"Why is it so hard to accept that *not everyone will agree with you 100%*, and that doesn't mean they're "antifeminist", or that they "hate women". It's really not up to you to define what the boundaries of feminism are, and what constitutes it, and what doesn't."

For information purposes: I believe in gov't paid sex ed, BC and abortion. However, I also believe that reproduction is a privelege (at least in us/canada/western europe/aus/nz).
I also define myself as a woman, a feminist, child-free (with a desire to ALWAYS be), pro-choice, pro-paid mat and pat leave, and open to dialogue and a differing of opinion.

I've come into the discussion WAY late, but, whatevs.

I'm a little confused. Mild Ennui was just giving his (rather unpopular) opinion. I found him to always be respectful, intelligent and constructive (doesn't mean I fully agree with it).
A "troll" is someone who comes on msg boards and says things that are random and don't make sense. (i.e. "feminazis are all bitches!")

And, frankly, I consider "fuck you" and "i hope you get what you deserve" to be a much more troll-ish (and disrespectful)thing to say than some of the things ME was saying.

I think ME actually put it quite well here:
"Why is it so hard to accept that *not everyone will agree with you 100%*, and that doesn't mean they're "antifeminist", or that they "hate women". It's really not up to you to define what the boundaries of feminism are, and what constitutes it, and what doesn't."

For information purposes: I believe in gov't paid sex ed, BC and abortion. However, I also believe that reproduction is a privelege (at least in us/canada/western europe/aus/nz).
I also define myself as a woman, a feminist, child-free (with a desire to ALWAYS be), pro-choice, pro-paid mat and pat leave, and open to dialogue and a differing of opinion.

whoa.
sorry for the triple post.

wonky kiwi computer!

Mild Ennui is not exactly a troll, as it's frequently defined, but he's pretty much worn out his welcome--in my opinion. Why? He does nothing but repeats his opinion, ad nauseam, and thereby makes many of the comment threads on this blog about him and his opinions, instead of about the issues. It wasn't just about this thread. This isn't his blog. That's the point. Most of us have nothing against dissenting opinions--there wouldn't be much of a discussion or debate if we all agreed. I post some unpopular opinions. But I know they're my opinions, and I don't come here to bait other readers. I can't help but feel that ME is here to bait feminists, as he seems to have little in common with feminist opinions.

And, yes, I did say "Fuck You" to one of the other posters above, but I was extremely insulted by his opinions. I happen to be a pregnant woman, and I don't see this as an academic exercise, this is about ME. And if anyone calls me "frail" again, they'll also get a "fuck you." We may be more fragile than we were before, considering we are at risk of miscarrying, but "frail" refers to something else. Soldiers train by strapping on 30lb packs--pregnancy is a similar thing. Except for those who are ill for various reasons, frail is about the last thing a pregnant woman is.

Ugh, can we please talk about something other than ME? I realize he may not look like a troll in one thread, but he absolutely looks like a troll in many threads. And he's what I've heard called a "concern troll", the type who pretends to be honest, so honest that he's more sincere/thoughtful/smart/etc. tthan anyone else on whatever the particular subject is, which simultaneously paints everyone else as less truthful, thoughtful, intelligent, etc. In the beginning or in small doses, these people may not look like trolls, but eventually they show their true faces.

And I, personally, swear to never mention him again past this point. ;)

Blue Pencils, you have some really good points. Having witnessed up close my stepmother's pregnancy, including the entire 30-something hours of labor, I have never been able to understand how anyone could think that a pregnant woman was frail. It seems like an incredible test of endurance, but one that most women are quite suited for.

In my ideal world, women (and men!) would be able to take their infants to work with them and could stop working anytime they needed to in order to care for or otherwise interact with the child. There would be no need for maternity or paternity leave because the parents would be given as much latitude as possible to deal with whatever they needed to. Unfortunately, the reality is that that would simply never work, or at least not for all people and not in the family/work framework that we have right now.

can i just say...

pregnant women are the FURTHEST thing from frail.

hellz, i reckon one of the main reasons why i don't want kids is that i don't think i'm strong enough!

Waxghost--

talk about who again? ;)

It's true, being pregnant does feel like a ten-month endurance test. It's ten months, BTW, not nine. I wish it were nine! From the beginning when you're vomiting and exhausted yet you have to maintain your old demeanor because no one's supposed to know yet, to worrying about testing and the choices you may have to make there, to carrying around that 30lb pack that sits on your bladder and kicks you in the middle of the night, it's a test of endurance and personal fortitude. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. Personally, I think that if more young people experienced what pregnancy really is like, you'd see a much higher use of birth control. Like Juno said, "I'm the cautionary whale."

I am child-free by both choice and circumstances. I don't care to be around kids except for my niece. But I find the dismissal of the needs of parents in favor of business's bottom line really frustrating.

We all benefit when the younger generations are healthy, well-educated and cared for. They are much more likely to become productive citizens who will, after all, be the ones helping to provide us with care when we're old.

And since I'm a feminist, I think it's important to support women in their decisions and not make childbearing an obstacle to living a full life. Women cannot be fully equal participants in society if pregnancy relegates them to second class status.

I had the same suspicion, rileystclair.

I've grown tired of feminist communities being overrun by non-feminist or anti-feminist men. This seems to be happening all over the place lately.

It just makes me want to sit out of the discussions because I don't have time to back-and-forth with privileged assholes for 48-hours straight.

For the boring "businesses are the most important factor" argument. Businesses wouldn't exist without consumers or workers.

Women take all of the physical risks and most of the social and economic risks of creating those consumers and workers.

Paid maternity leave can be viewed as a prebate or a rebate or whatever troubles one's misanthropic conscience when whining about how unfair paid maternity leave is to businesses. It should be part of the social contract, a consequence of doing business and reaping the benefits of operating in society.

SarahMC, YES.

I read this piece a few days ago and thought surprise surprise.

Now I'm annoyed because a HuffPost Columnist Christine Hassler blogged today about pregnancy and hiring decisions.

"More and more companies today are supportive of maternity leave"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-hassler/pregnant-at-a-new-job_b_94394.html

yes, that's what the 40% increase in pregnancy discrimination cases over the last 10 years says.

I know and like Christine, but she missed some key info this time.

I read this piece a few days ago and thought surprise surprise.

Now I'm annoyed because a HuffPost Columnist Christine Hassler blogged today about pregnancy and hiring decisions.

"More and more companies today are supportive of maternity leave"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-hassler/pregnant-at-a-new-job_b_94394.html

yes, that's what the 40% increase in pregnancy discrimination cases over the last 10 years says.

I know and like Christine, but she missed some key info this time.

I read this piece a few days ago and thought surprise surprise.

Now I'm annoyed because a HuffPost Columnist Christine Hassler blogged today about pregnancy and hiring decisions.

"More and more companies today are supportive of maternity leave"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-hassler/pregnant-at-a-new-job_b_94394.html

yes, that's what the 40% increase in pregnancy discrimination cases over the last 10 years says.

I know and like Christine, but she missed some key info this time.

I read this piece a few days ago and thought surprise surprise.

Now I'm annoyed because a HuffPost Columnist Christine Hassler blogged today about pregnancy and hiring decisions.

"More and more companies today are supportive of maternity leave"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-hassler/pregnant-at-a-new-job_b_94394.html

yes, that's what the 40% increase in pregnancy discrimination cases over the last 10 years says.

I know and like Christine, but she missed some key info this time.

Bitch PhD wrote a post along these lines a while back. It really struck me: she basically said, having children is not a privilege, nor is it something women do, it is something we ALL do as a society. The fact that women bear the brunt of if physically is a reflection of biology: the fact that women bear the brunt of it socially is a reflection of our society's anti-woman attitudes.
I was three months pregnant when I was hired on to a daily newspaper in Canada, where year-long maternity leaves are government paid.
The company didn't know I was pregnant and wasn't allowed to ask or take that into consideration if they knew.
During that time I researched and wrote what would have been an award-winning series about corruption in the city and province in regards to an immigration cosultant bringing immigrants here in exchange for "investments" in local business.
It was ground breaking.
The reason it didn't win awards wasn't because it was pregnant: it was because the series was concocted by myself and my female assignment editor: the editor above us couldn't stand that two women had come up with an idea he hadn't and delayed, pushed aside, refused to give time to work in the series etc. Still, we worked around all his barriers. But then it had to go to him to go through lawyer approval process: where it died for a period of time.
Five months after I began the investigative series I went on early maternity leave due to anger and stress over sexism at work and my assignment editor, my lovely female champion? She was pushed out of journalism entirely because of passive-aggressive harassment from that same incompetent editor. The story? Was passed to a young, fresh male type who didn't have the experience to handle it properly or the connections to pursue follow-ups and never went anywhere.
Yes: I'm bitter. I didn't need special 'help' while pregnant and receiving threats from an immigration consultant for pursuing a story, I needed sexism out of my way.
I had a baby and took time off: still my biggest barrier to doing a good job was sexism, not pregnancy and I suspect that is the case for most women.

Bitch PhD wrote a post along these lines a while back. It really struck me: she basically said, having children is not a privilege, nor is it something women do, it is something we ALL do as a society. The fact that women bear the brunt of if physically is a reflection of biology: the fact that women bear the brunt of it socially is a reflection of our society's anti-woman attitudes.
I was three months pregnant when I was hired on to a daily newspaper in Canada, where year-long maternity leaves are government paid.
The company didn't know I was pregnant and wasn't allowed to ask or take that into consideration if they knew.
During that time I researched and wrote what would have been an award-winning series about corruption in the city and province in regards to an immigration cosultant bringing immigrants here in exchange for "investments" in local business.
It was ground breaking.
The reason it didn't win awards wasn't because it was pregnant: it was because the series was concocted by myself and my female assignment editor: the editor above us couldn't stand that two women had come up with an idea he hadn't and delayed, pushed aside, refused to give time to work in the series etc. Still, we worked around all his barriers. But then it had to go to him to go through lawyer approval process: where it died for a period of time.
Five months after I began the investigative series I went on early maternity leave due to anger and stress over sexism at work and my assignment editor, my lovely female champion? She was pushed out of journalism entirely because of passive-aggressive harassment from that same incompetent editor. The story? Was passed to a young, fresh male type who didn't have the experience to handle it properly or the connections to pursue follow-ups and never went anywhere.
Yes: I'm bitter. I didn't need special 'help' while pregnant and receiving threats from an immigration consultant for pursuing a story, I needed sexism out of my way.
I had a baby and took time off: still my biggest barrier to doing a good job was sexism, not pregnancy and I suspect that is the case for most women.

http://dandelionfield.wordpress.com/